Due Light shines forth on this very good tree
On this good day I found myself growing
My luck dare not claim what I sought in life
For God has shaped and molded my serviced soul
Like pure rain fall He gives me my good life
So God showes his blessing on myself
And thus I found his narrow way to Him
I praise my God for he is good to all
My life has found that he so saves his truth
Friday, December 24, 2010
In the Arms of the Father
Recourse has intertwined my inmost thought,
Ever strengthening the quality sought,
Integrity so constant to begot,
True Faith that will prolong my bereaved lot
And soul must have finite reason to find,
Dwelling so deep within this inmost kind,
Against the erosion to my outer rind
Towards a life against those that will bind?
My Spirit resists unwarranted pressure
Attacks subtly on the good conscience pure
Withered the tree, left to corruption sure
Divinity yet, the only cure
God's light from truth shall come and I will find
My enemies abandoned principle’s kind
That in order for me to be free or bind
I must choose love or remain blind.
Sweeping their pragmatism defend,
Message of truth forevermore Godsend,
Reason and hist’ry will not condescend
Evilness finds no due course to mend
Evil battles in ways that will appall
It is no fault of my own now to call
Angels to provide aid to stop my fall
Righteousness to be preserved for all
So my true thought has led to freedom here
My soul has brought this recourse so sincere
For true action must not coerce my peer
So Faith, Love, and Charity endear
God in his mercy forever endure,
He has proven true justice to cure
Like a Father he has made me sure
That in his arms I am secure.
Ever strengthening the quality sought,
Integrity so constant to begot,
True Faith that will prolong my bereaved lot
And soul must have finite reason to find,
Dwelling so deep within this inmost kind,
Against the erosion to my outer rind
Towards a life against those that will bind?
My Spirit resists unwarranted pressure
Attacks subtly on the good conscience pure
Withered the tree, left to corruption sure
Divinity yet, the only cure
God's light from truth shall come and I will find
My enemies abandoned principle’s kind
That in order for me to be free or bind
I must choose love or remain blind.
Sweeping their pragmatism defend,
Message of truth forevermore Godsend,
Reason and hist’ry will not condescend
Evilness finds no due course to mend
Evil battles in ways that will appall
It is no fault of my own now to call
Angels to provide aid to stop my fall
Righteousness to be preserved for all
So my true thought has led to freedom here
My soul has brought this recourse so sincere
For true action must not coerce my peer
So Faith, Love, and Charity endear
God in his mercy forever endure,
He has proven true justice to cure
Like a Father he has made me sure
That in his arms I am secure.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Vine and Branches
Based on John 15
The analogy of the vine and branches teaches us that we are called to form intimate relationships with each other and with Christ by trust, “fruitfulness” and love.
One like Us:
John's Gospel opens by describing Jesus as the “Word made flesh” essentially meaning, that the very means of our creation also became the end itself. Its like saying the potter becomes part of the pot he creates (or is the pot he creates). This is a significant point in understanding the content of John's gospel, especially in terms of what we are called to do.
The vines and branches passage begins with the foundation of trust. Trusting in Jesus is the meaning of faith. Pope Benedict's book Faith and Future gives a good definition of Christian faith: “the basic form of Christian faith is not: I believe something, but I believe you. Faith is a disclosure of reality that is granted only to him who trusts, loves, and acts as a human being...”
Jesus in becoming human allows us to more intimately place our faith in him. God is now accessible to our ability to believe in. The vine and branches analogy continues this thought. There is a clear connection between God and Jesus and between us and Jesus. Transitively, through our unity with Jesus we are instantaneously united with God. “Remain in me, as I remain in you” Here the faith is mutual between human and divine. Jesus places his faith in us and remains in us, and gives us the model by which we trust in him. Jesus is the true vine, as branches our lives depend upon him for everything—hence we can ask anything of Jesus to sustain us as we remain in him. Therefore, by being the true vine we can trust him, and to trust him is to remain in him.
Fruit of the Vine
Fruitfulness is a major theme of the gospels. Many of you may recall the passage about the fig tree that was made to wither because of its lack of fruit. More importantly however is to understand the meaning of producing fruit. Our own mass gives us a hint of the meaning when we use the terminology of “the fruit of the vine” in conjunction with the sacrifice of the mass in the Eucharist. Eucharist is both a reality and a unity. Therefore within our own lives we must embody a reality and strive for unity. Only within Christ's love, can we produce the fruits we truly need to bring true unity. Christ's faithfulness to us is beyond our faithfulness to him though, so there is no excuse for anyone to not strive for unity through love and relationships.
Relationships
The fruits on a vine are developed on the branches. What are the branches in our lives? To understand this we must understand meaningful relationships. As young men and women we have a multi-faceted array of relationships within our lives. We have relationships with our family, friends, and community. All of these relationships affect our lives in one way or another. We in turn affect the lives of others through our relationships. Some of our relationships are by choice, others by virtue of fate. Fruitfulness demands some kind of result for what we do. The result is either internal or external. Helping an elderly lady cross the street is one type of fruit. Forgiving that significant other and finding a means to a resolution is still another. Any work of mercy can be thought of as a fruit. Any practice of virtue. Any demonstration of kindness. But why are all these fruits? They are fruits because they are Christlike. The “fruit of the vine” becomes our “spiritual drink.” The blood of Christ was shed as a sacrifice for us. Becoming Christlike in our relationships then makes our very selves fruits. The fruits of ourselves then become the living Eucharist for others that nourishes and unites. Fruits nurture relationships.
Vine or Branch?
If then we are called to be Christlike, that implies we should then be like a vine. Indeed the analogy of the vine and branches supports this idea. The branches of the vine are like the vine itself. So indistinguishable in fact that a friend related to me this week that while cutting grass along his fence this summer, he was also trimming away branches of this vine that had been growing along it. A few days later he discovered that he had killed the entire plant, because he trimmed the vine in the process of trimming the branches. At the time he had no idea, nor could he tell the difference. Without a true-living vine, the branches all die. Jesus is the living vine, and all who remain in him, is truly alive. Yet we too are called to be like the vine, to establish branches of our own. The branches we have then rely on us for nourishment, like we rely upon Christ for nourishment. Indeed we are vines for those who depend upon us, and we ultimately rely on Christ to continue to be Christlike for others. Being the vine then brings us back to our Eucharistic image, in which we become Eucharist for others, just as we become vines for others to be our branches.
Pruning
One of the most important aspects of the vine imagery is pruning. God prunes us to become more fruitful and meaningful. Without pruning a branch is not as able to devote its energy to produce fruit. Yet timing is also a fact. This leads us to know that everything has a time and place, and that certain things must be finite, and that others when in excess are no longer good for us. Jesus reminds us it our only our fruit that will remain. In our own lives can we relate to times when God has pruned us? Pruning does not necessarily imply pain, but it does imply sacrifice. The parts of our lives that are pruned away are sacrifices of many kinds. There's pain in separation from the things we desire, but there is also liberation that comes soon afterwards in the fruits of our labors. The trade-off then is functional. We necessarily must prune to produce a good fruit. If we never devoted our times and energies into meaningful endeavors, what fruits can we harvest in the end? If we do not exhibit endurance, resilience in our perils, how can we have room for fruits if we do not give ourselves room to live? We should definitely meditate on the different kinds of pruning in our lives. See the good that comes with sacrifice. Jesus had to die so that he could conquer death. Jesus must be the bread that is both broken and shared. Pruning then is another aspect of our Eucharistic existence.
The Commandment of Love
Jesus says twice to remain in him, the first time was “remain in me as I remain in you”, the second time he says “remain in my love.” Jesus also gives us a commandment to love twice. The first time he says “Love one another as I have loved you” and the second time he says “love one another.” Both times the second statement is simplified from the first. Why the repetition and simplification? Because both are necessarily important and intertwined ideas. The first defines, the second commands. First he defines how to remain in him, or how to love. Then he asserts that we do it. Therefore, the commandment of love isn't a blind command, but a defined command in terms of personal relationships. Love then is an expression within personal relationships. Love is defined to be between people and to be between people and God. Jesus loves God, and God loves Jesus, and Jesus loves us. We are needed to complete the unity by loving Jesus and God. Love is the foundation of trust. Through love we can trust and build relationships. The reason is that love is the reality of grace. Without love and without grace both our faith and hope disappear. Love brings God's grace within our lives to reality. The Church's visible expressions of grace in the sacraments for example are best understood as expressions of love.
Baptism – Love that cleans and redeems
Confirmation – Love of faithfulness and determination
Eucharist – Love that sacrifices and unites
Reconciliation/Penance – Love that forgives and makes new
Holy Matrimony – Love that brings new life
Holy Orders – Love that shares and gives
Anointing of the Sick – Love that heals
Love then is inevitably the real manifestation of God's grace in our lives. All loving relationships, actions, thoughts are the reality of grace within our lives, because God is love. The vine and branches analogy give us an accurate way of identifying and acting upon God's own essence of love.
Reflection Questions
What ways are you Christlike? What ways can you relate to Christ's human nature? Christ became one like us, how can we become like him?
What are the fruits in our lives? In what ways have the fruits of our lives made our lives more meaningful?
What are some of the most important relationships in your life? What are some of the least important relationships? What ways can our relationships unite us? Separate us? What does the vines and branches analogy offer to bring to relationships? Can we all be united?
Are you a vine for others? Are you a branch? What ways can we be more Christlike in our lives?
We are pruned constantly by our loving God. What ways have we been pruned? How do these sacrifices of self lead to a more fulfilling and fruitful life?
What is love for you? What ways has Christ loved you? What ways have you loved like Christ? Is it hard to love?
The analogy of the vine and branches teaches us that we are called to form intimate relationships with each other and with Christ by trust, “fruitfulness” and love.
One like Us:
John's Gospel opens by describing Jesus as the “Word made flesh” essentially meaning, that the very means of our creation also became the end itself. Its like saying the potter becomes part of the pot he creates (or is the pot he creates). This is a significant point in understanding the content of John's gospel, especially in terms of what we are called to do.
The vines and branches passage begins with the foundation of trust. Trusting in Jesus is the meaning of faith. Pope Benedict's book Faith and Future gives a good definition of Christian faith: “the basic form of Christian faith is not: I believe something, but I believe you. Faith is a disclosure of reality that is granted only to him who trusts, loves, and acts as a human being...”
Jesus in becoming human allows us to more intimately place our faith in him. God is now accessible to our ability to believe in. The vine and branches analogy continues this thought. There is a clear connection between God and Jesus and between us and Jesus. Transitively, through our unity with Jesus we are instantaneously united with God. “Remain in me, as I remain in you” Here the faith is mutual between human and divine. Jesus places his faith in us and remains in us, and gives us the model by which we trust in him. Jesus is the true vine, as branches our lives depend upon him for everything—hence we can ask anything of Jesus to sustain us as we remain in him. Therefore, by being the true vine we can trust him, and to trust him is to remain in him.
Fruit of the Vine
Fruitfulness is a major theme of the gospels. Many of you may recall the passage about the fig tree that was made to wither because of its lack of fruit. More importantly however is to understand the meaning of producing fruit. Our own mass gives us a hint of the meaning when we use the terminology of “the fruit of the vine” in conjunction with the sacrifice of the mass in the Eucharist. Eucharist is both a reality and a unity. Therefore within our own lives we must embody a reality and strive for unity. Only within Christ's love, can we produce the fruits we truly need to bring true unity. Christ's faithfulness to us is beyond our faithfulness to him though, so there is no excuse for anyone to not strive for unity through love and relationships.
Relationships
The fruits on a vine are developed on the branches. What are the branches in our lives? To understand this we must understand meaningful relationships. As young men and women we have a multi-faceted array of relationships within our lives. We have relationships with our family, friends, and community. All of these relationships affect our lives in one way or another. We in turn affect the lives of others through our relationships. Some of our relationships are by choice, others by virtue of fate. Fruitfulness demands some kind of result for what we do. The result is either internal or external. Helping an elderly lady cross the street is one type of fruit. Forgiving that significant other and finding a means to a resolution is still another. Any work of mercy can be thought of as a fruit. Any practice of virtue. Any demonstration of kindness. But why are all these fruits? They are fruits because they are Christlike. The “fruit of the vine” becomes our “spiritual drink.” The blood of Christ was shed as a sacrifice for us. Becoming Christlike in our relationships then makes our very selves fruits. The fruits of ourselves then become the living Eucharist for others that nourishes and unites. Fruits nurture relationships.
Vine or Branch?
If then we are called to be Christlike, that implies we should then be like a vine. Indeed the analogy of the vine and branches supports this idea. The branches of the vine are like the vine itself. So indistinguishable in fact that a friend related to me this week that while cutting grass along his fence this summer, he was also trimming away branches of this vine that had been growing along it. A few days later he discovered that he had killed the entire plant, because he trimmed the vine in the process of trimming the branches. At the time he had no idea, nor could he tell the difference. Without a true-living vine, the branches all die. Jesus is the living vine, and all who remain in him, is truly alive. Yet we too are called to be like the vine, to establish branches of our own. The branches we have then rely on us for nourishment, like we rely upon Christ for nourishment. Indeed we are vines for those who depend upon us, and we ultimately rely on Christ to continue to be Christlike for others. Being the vine then brings us back to our Eucharistic image, in which we become Eucharist for others, just as we become vines for others to be our branches.
Pruning
One of the most important aspects of the vine imagery is pruning. God prunes us to become more fruitful and meaningful. Without pruning a branch is not as able to devote its energy to produce fruit. Yet timing is also a fact. This leads us to know that everything has a time and place, and that certain things must be finite, and that others when in excess are no longer good for us. Jesus reminds us it our only our fruit that will remain. In our own lives can we relate to times when God has pruned us? Pruning does not necessarily imply pain, but it does imply sacrifice. The parts of our lives that are pruned away are sacrifices of many kinds. There's pain in separation from the things we desire, but there is also liberation that comes soon afterwards in the fruits of our labors. The trade-off then is functional. We necessarily must prune to produce a good fruit. If we never devoted our times and energies into meaningful endeavors, what fruits can we harvest in the end? If we do not exhibit endurance, resilience in our perils, how can we have room for fruits if we do not give ourselves room to live? We should definitely meditate on the different kinds of pruning in our lives. See the good that comes with sacrifice. Jesus had to die so that he could conquer death. Jesus must be the bread that is both broken and shared. Pruning then is another aspect of our Eucharistic existence.
The Commandment of Love
Jesus says twice to remain in him, the first time was “remain in me as I remain in you”, the second time he says “remain in my love.” Jesus also gives us a commandment to love twice. The first time he says “Love one another as I have loved you” and the second time he says “love one another.” Both times the second statement is simplified from the first. Why the repetition and simplification? Because both are necessarily important and intertwined ideas. The first defines, the second commands. First he defines how to remain in him, or how to love. Then he asserts that we do it. Therefore, the commandment of love isn't a blind command, but a defined command in terms of personal relationships. Love then is an expression within personal relationships. Love is defined to be between people and to be between people and God. Jesus loves God, and God loves Jesus, and Jesus loves us. We are needed to complete the unity by loving Jesus and God. Love is the foundation of trust. Through love we can trust and build relationships. The reason is that love is the reality of grace. Without love and without grace both our faith and hope disappear. Love brings God's grace within our lives to reality. The Church's visible expressions of grace in the sacraments for example are best understood as expressions of love.
Baptism – Love that cleans and redeems
Confirmation – Love of faithfulness and determination
Eucharist – Love that sacrifices and unites
Reconciliation/Penance – Love that forgives and makes new
Holy Matrimony – Love that brings new life
Holy Orders – Love that shares and gives
Anointing of the Sick – Love that heals
Love then is inevitably the real manifestation of God's grace in our lives. All loving relationships, actions, thoughts are the reality of grace within our lives, because God is love. The vine and branches analogy give us an accurate way of identifying and acting upon God's own essence of love.
Reflection Questions
What ways are you Christlike? What ways can you relate to Christ's human nature? Christ became one like us, how can we become like him?
What are the fruits in our lives? In what ways have the fruits of our lives made our lives more meaningful?
What are some of the most important relationships in your life? What are some of the least important relationships? What ways can our relationships unite us? Separate us? What does the vines and branches analogy offer to bring to relationships? Can we all be united?
Are you a vine for others? Are you a branch? What ways can we be more Christlike in our lives?
We are pruned constantly by our loving God. What ways have we been pruned? How do these sacrifices of self lead to a more fulfilling and fruitful life?
What is love for you? What ways has Christ loved you? What ways have you loved like Christ? Is it hard to love?
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Three Things to Unite Us
Happiness accords itself as a grace for those that traverse alone through this barren world. For you see, an abundance of this grace can only be understood by our own eyes if we learn to treasure life's greatest gifts: truth, life, and love.
Truth makes us free from being slaves to lies, deceit, and covetousness. We become enslaved to these things we we bend our will against conscience, respect for others, and seek to only further ourselves in life. Each one of us has an individual set of trials to endure; therefore, the attractiveness of the inclinations to live for oneself and harm others become stronger according to each of our own tribulations; however, there is a better way to live, and that is to allow the truth to surpass our trials and tribulations. Before understand what truth is, let us examine what truth is not, and what it does. First truth is not a subjective inclination, it is reality in its purest sense. Our perception of reality, subjective to our own senses and inclinations can be distorted. Thus understanding our reality becomes a daily task, rediscovering truth in everyday and every person, since we distort it ourselves. I say task because truth does not come naturally or easily for everyone. It is impossible to say how often or how consistently we as Catholics truly see Christ in everyone else as we should. It is more accurate to say that at times it is easy, and at the times when we should do our tasks most effectively, it is most difficult.
Truth makes us free from being slaves to lies, deceit, and covetousness. We become enslaved to these things we we bend our will against conscience, respect for others, and seek to only further ourselves in life. Each one of us has an individual set of trials to endure; therefore, the attractiveness of the inclinations to live for oneself and harm others become stronger according to each of our own tribulations; however, there is a better way to live, and that is to allow the truth to surpass our trials and tribulations. Before understand what truth is, let us examine what truth is not, and what it does. First truth is not a subjective inclination, it is reality in its purest sense. Our perception of reality, subjective to our own senses and inclinations can be distorted. Thus understanding our reality becomes a daily task, rediscovering truth in everyday and every person, since we distort it ourselves. I say task because truth does not come naturally or easily for everyone. It is impossible to say how often or how consistently we as Catholics truly see Christ in everyone else as we should. It is more accurate to say that at times it is easy, and at the times when we should do our tasks most effectively, it is most difficult.
What is truth then, so that at we can know how to strive for it? Truth in its most human sense is the promotion of life universally. Truth in the Christian sense is threefold: God gave us life and the blessing to cherish it, we are flawed in our actions and need redemption of our soul, and that we have our redemption in Christ. Christ's redemption for us, through his saving graces, has several implications. One of which is our personal call to action. Our call to action rooted itself in truth, whether you are a believer or not, we are all called to live and benefit from truth. For life is God's greatest gift to us, it has confounded the great and the small since the human family can remember. What we do know however, that is is within us to place the lives of others above our earthly goals, and to mold our goals to make all of mankind our fraternal end, rather than the means towards a selfish end. Truth therefore points to and illuminates the importance of life.
Life is most evident of what unites us including those that lived before us, our own present, and those that will live after us. Treasuring the life of others should be our priority. It is in life that we are united. If all humanity valued life above all else, then war would never be an answer. It is because there is a disregard for the true value of life that we have mortal conflict in our world. Life is a part of the truth. If we fail to see life as part of the truth, we no longer have truth. Our actions should be grounded in Truth, all other foundations become grave folly. If truth ties itself to life, so too should our actions that are grounded in truth be grafted as a fruitful member of the wonderful tree of life.
Yet what makes life the foremost member of truth? No one can defend life without treasuring its sanctity; no one can treasure what they do not care about. The greatest compassion is love, and a deep abiding love brings to life the fullest focus, meaning, and purpose in truth. Love is not an emotion, it is a conscience state of being. Emotions are swayed by our inclinations, but love takes us beyond ourselves into a new realm of the light of inexplicable, undeniable goodness. This case then becomes the fact that all goodness in life is a manifestation of the love that we share. For without love we cannot accept truth, nor discover it. Love's only purpose is unity with a bond of truth, for love cannot be founded on a lie-but only ultimate truth.
So our happiness matures into this: a grace of witnessing the acquiescence of truth, life and love within our lives and most especially within the lives of others. This fact leads to a type of purpose in life: to live it boldly in truth, uniting our lives together in love. Truly honest love naturally looks to promoting life. Promoting life leads us to understanding truth, when we do so in the spirit of Love. These three things of unity we've had all along. The human capacity to love is beyond measure, the reality of human life cannot be more clear, and your personal life's truth can only be understood in terms of its foundations. As we go through life, let's bring a little bit of each to everyone we meet, and one day the sum of all these things may bring humanity to a healthy unity.
Life is most evident of what unites us including those that lived before us, our own present, and those that will live after us. Treasuring the life of others should be our priority. It is in life that we are united. If all humanity valued life above all else, then war would never be an answer. It is because there is a disregard for the true value of life that we have mortal conflict in our world. Life is a part of the truth. If we fail to see life as part of the truth, we no longer have truth. Our actions should be grounded in Truth, all other foundations become grave folly. If truth ties itself to life, so too should our actions that are grounded in truth be grafted as a fruitful member of the wonderful tree of life.
Yet what makes life the foremost member of truth? No one can defend life without treasuring its sanctity; no one can treasure what they do not care about. The greatest compassion is love, and a deep abiding love brings to life the fullest focus, meaning, and purpose in truth. Love is not an emotion, it is a conscience state of being. Emotions are swayed by our inclinations, but love takes us beyond ourselves into a new realm of the light of inexplicable, undeniable goodness. This case then becomes the fact that all goodness in life is a manifestation of the love that we share. For without love we cannot accept truth, nor discover it. Love's only purpose is unity with a bond of truth, for love cannot be founded on a lie-but only ultimate truth.
So our happiness matures into this: a grace of witnessing the acquiescence of truth, life and love within our lives and most especially within the lives of others. This fact leads to a type of purpose in life: to live it boldly in truth, uniting our lives together in love. Truly honest love naturally looks to promoting life. Promoting life leads us to understanding truth, when we do so in the spirit of Love. These three things of unity we've had all along. The human capacity to love is beyond measure, the reality of human life cannot be more clear, and your personal life's truth can only be understood in terms of its foundations. As we go through life, let's bring a little bit of each to everyone we meet, and one day the sum of all these things may bring humanity to a healthy unity.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Many Parts, One Body
This morning I was looking at the Newman website and decided to go and read one of my older blog articles. A specific sentence leaped out at me in a way that it hadn't before. For you poetry writer's out there it was a haiku moment: a blending of two distinct ideas into one within one instant.
"True proclamation of Christ occurs not on the tongue or in the mind, but in the actions that unite us to the love of Christ on the cross."
The first idea is Proclamation of Christ. This immediately made me think of the visible institutions I have seen dedicated to the transmission of the faith. These institutions were the Church and religious schools that have developed since Christ's death. It made me really think of all the dedication that so many have gone before us to ensure that today, 2000 years later, that I and my fellow peers would have access to the same life-transforming ideas that they did. This line of faith going all the way back to the beginning had many parts, yet they were all dedicated to the same One Body that died on the Cross for all of us.
The second idea was about how the Word was transmitted. The Word was made flesh we are told in John's gospel. Being flesh, the word became Action as evident by the signs and wonders we read about throughout the gospels. Jesus was a very active person, called to action by the very nature of his intimate connection between the human and Divine. Therefore, if our Lord and Savior was active, and all are called to be in his image, then we too must be active. Our actions were inspired and guided by him, by the Holy Spirit that was sent to us, and by the Faith of those who lived before us.
Often I've seen people say that you can't work your way into heaven, but I think most people miss the point of action. Our lives should be not about how quickly or how easily we can get into heaven. Our lives should be inspired by all those who worked so hard for us, and we too in our gratitude work for those who come after us. Now why this focus? Because we are servants of Christ, we do his will. What is his will? To love one another as he has loved us. Therefore our focus in not salvation any longer, it is the will of God that we love one another. This is our faith, the journey is about living this.
We know that any family is united by love, so if we live in genuine authentic love for another, then we are united by the love we SHARE. Therefore, the Faith of the Church is in the love we SHARE. We share our love for another through our community, our spirituality, in the Eucharist, in our celebrations together, in our hard times together, in living and dying we share all of these things for the Love of Christ and each other.
I hope that my message today will be seen as an expression of love by all of my audience wherever they may be, because our love should show no boundaries, just only compassion for all.
"True proclamation of Christ occurs not on the tongue or in the mind, but in the actions that unite us to the love of Christ on the cross."
The first idea is Proclamation of Christ. This immediately made me think of the visible institutions I have seen dedicated to the transmission of the faith. These institutions were the Church and religious schools that have developed since Christ's death. It made me really think of all the dedication that so many have gone before us to ensure that today, 2000 years later, that I and my fellow peers would have access to the same life-transforming ideas that they did. This line of faith going all the way back to the beginning had many parts, yet they were all dedicated to the same One Body that died on the Cross for all of us.
The second idea was about how the Word was transmitted. The Word was made flesh we are told in John's gospel. Being flesh, the word became Action as evident by the signs and wonders we read about throughout the gospels. Jesus was a very active person, called to action by the very nature of his intimate connection between the human and Divine. Therefore, if our Lord and Savior was active, and all are called to be in his image, then we too must be active. Our actions were inspired and guided by him, by the Holy Spirit that was sent to us, and by the Faith of those who lived before us.
Often I've seen people say that you can't work your way into heaven, but I think most people miss the point of action. Our lives should be not about how quickly or how easily we can get into heaven. Our lives should be inspired by all those who worked so hard for us, and we too in our gratitude work for those who come after us. Now why this focus? Because we are servants of Christ, we do his will. What is his will? To love one another as he has loved us. Therefore our focus in not salvation any longer, it is the will of God that we love one another. This is our faith, the journey is about living this.
We know that any family is united by love, so if we live in genuine authentic love for another, then we are united by the love we SHARE. Therefore, the Faith of the Church is in the love we SHARE. We share our love for another through our community, our spirituality, in the Eucharist, in our celebrations together, in our hard times together, in living and dying we share all of these things for the Love of Christ and each other.
I hope that my message today will be seen as an expression of love by all of my audience wherever they may be, because our love should show no boundaries, just only compassion for all.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Ideal Religion
Ideal Religion
One of the most divisive yet common idea to human experience is the concept of Religion. While there are so many religions around the world they all serve the purpose for mankind to help us live in our world. Anyone who has considered the thought of religion has always asked the question which religion is correct? The answer to this question does not necessarily need to be an endorsement of any particular religion, instead I will approach the answer with what qualities an ideal religion should have. The ideal religion should be in touch with the human reality we relate to by our senses, further it should also be as ordered, consistent, and applicable to everyone, and finally it should give insight in making choices and resolving conflict.
An ideal religion should be in tune with our reality because religion's purpose is to help us live in our world. Therefore human explanations for worldly experiences based upon empirical findings should not be held against religion, nor should religion hold itself above the human examination of the world around them. If the ideal religion is true, then explanations for the world would not contradict religious teaching on how to live in the world. It has been shown that our world operates in a regular way, predictable – hence, explanations backed by empirical evidence in ways such as our modern scientific method would never be in conflict with the ideal religion, since the ideal religion would always hold true. In our world, we could say that our religion is less than ideal if this idea does not apply. This first concept however leads religion to have a consequence of having a worldly attribute: order.
The ideal religion is in agreement with the natural order of our world as we observe (and as we observe more remains in agreement thereof) and thus must be consistent. The ideal religion could be practiced globally, not confined to one region or nationality. In addition ideal religion should be ordered insofar as to maintain a consistent belief among its members. If an ideal religion is the true religion, then everyone's truth would remain consistent, even globally. Any religion that claims a relativistic truth can/will be in conflict with itself since the differing truths are not reconcilable and can be described as less than ideal. In a world such as ours, differing truths is not applicable since people are constantly moving and being displaced. If truth is bound by region, then people would have to re-learn the truth applicable to their region. This is an arbitrary distribution of truth and is the result of people who have not taken the time to be orderly or consistent for I would take as personal reasons. Several different answers with different results are not correct for the same problem, they are in conflict with each other. The ideal religion would offer insight to the ideal answer to any problem.
The ideal religion would be enlightening when it came to making choices. As human life is a conflict of choices, religion in its job to help people live in our world would offer assistance in making choices. Normally religion narrows its scope of accountability to the morality of a person's decisions for the reasons that most other decision are arbitrary choices with no cause to harm*. Since people's moral choices are of interest to the ideal religion, ideal religion would offer an orderly, consistent way for people to discern morality from immorality. Additionally, this would remain consistent from person to person. The ideal religion's inheritance from our world can lead us to believe in a natural morality since our world is orderly, causing religion to be consistent in agreement with it, and applicable everywhere—hence we can infer that morality is relatively natural. This consequence leads us to see that morality, a natural part of our world, can be achieved by individuals outside the ideal religion, however, we can say that individuals within have better chance through religion to achieve it.
The ideal religion has relatively simple requirements, yet, we know that this is a complex issue, since there are a multitude of religion's around the world. The most pervasive religions all also claim two more properties –divine intervention and divine knowledge. Divine intervention into the lives of humans is a property claimed by most of society's religions. It is what gives religion its authoritative appeal, since if divinity has be the causation of religion it must be something that humanity must consider. A whole number of religions claim this, most share some of these basic characteristics, but the truly ideal religion would claim all of these characteristics. By judging religions around us by their closeness to the ideal, we can determine which religion would have had divine intervention and revelation. If no religion can claim this, then perhaps, religion is just a product of mankind. It is from my own personal revelation though that I can believe in a deep way that true religion does exist.
One of the most divisive yet common idea to human experience is the concept of Religion. While there are so many religions around the world they all serve the purpose for mankind to help us live in our world. Anyone who has considered the thought of religion has always asked the question which religion is correct? The answer to this question does not necessarily need to be an endorsement of any particular religion, instead I will approach the answer with what qualities an ideal religion should have. The ideal religion should be in touch with the human reality we relate to by our senses, further it should also be as ordered, consistent, and applicable to everyone, and finally it should give insight in making choices and resolving conflict.
An ideal religion should be in tune with our reality because religion's purpose is to help us live in our world. Therefore human explanations for worldly experiences based upon empirical findings should not be held against religion, nor should religion hold itself above the human examination of the world around them. If the ideal religion is true, then explanations for the world would not contradict religious teaching on how to live in the world. It has been shown that our world operates in a regular way, predictable – hence, explanations backed by empirical evidence in ways such as our modern scientific method would never be in conflict with the ideal religion, since the ideal religion would always hold true. In our world, we could say that our religion is less than ideal if this idea does not apply. This first concept however leads religion to have a consequence of having a worldly attribute: order.
The ideal religion is in agreement with the natural order of our world as we observe (and as we observe more remains in agreement thereof) and thus must be consistent. The ideal religion could be practiced globally, not confined to one region or nationality. In addition ideal religion should be ordered insofar as to maintain a consistent belief among its members. If an ideal religion is the true religion, then everyone's truth would remain consistent, even globally. Any religion that claims a relativistic truth can/will be in conflict with itself since the differing truths are not reconcilable and can be described as less than ideal. In a world such as ours, differing truths is not applicable since people are constantly moving and being displaced. If truth is bound by region, then people would have to re-learn the truth applicable to their region. This is an arbitrary distribution of truth and is the result of people who have not taken the time to be orderly or consistent for I would take as personal reasons. Several different answers with different results are not correct for the same problem, they are in conflict with each other. The ideal religion would offer insight to the ideal answer to any problem.
The ideal religion would be enlightening when it came to making choices. As human life is a conflict of choices, religion in its job to help people live in our world would offer assistance in making choices. Normally religion narrows its scope of accountability to the morality of a person's decisions for the reasons that most other decision are arbitrary choices with no cause to harm*. Since people's moral choices are of interest to the ideal religion, ideal religion would offer an orderly, consistent way for people to discern morality from immorality. Additionally, this would remain consistent from person to person. The ideal religion's inheritance from our world can lead us to believe in a natural morality since our world is orderly, causing religion to be consistent in agreement with it, and applicable everywhere—hence we can infer that morality is relatively natural. This consequence leads us to see that morality, a natural part of our world, can be achieved by individuals outside the ideal religion, however, we can say that individuals within have better chance through religion to achieve it.
The ideal religion has relatively simple requirements, yet, we know that this is a complex issue, since there are a multitude of religion's around the world. The most pervasive religions all also claim two more properties –divine intervention and divine knowledge. Divine intervention into the lives of humans is a property claimed by most of society's religions. It is what gives religion its authoritative appeal, since if divinity has be the causation of religion it must be something that humanity must consider. A whole number of religions claim this, most share some of these basic characteristics, but the truly ideal religion would claim all of these characteristics. By judging religions around us by their closeness to the ideal, we can determine which religion would have had divine intervention and revelation. If no religion can claim this, then perhaps, religion is just a product of mankind. It is from my own personal revelation though that I can believe in a deep way that true religion does exist.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Truly the right to choose?
Truly the right to choose?
The abortion debate brings up many of the different realities of life. The two sides of this debate rally behind two slogans: Pro – Life and Pro-Choice. Upon close examination, these two titles represent what each side truly values. Both titles reflect back to our founding fathers significant ideals: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. While both sides of this debate bring up different sides of this issue, they are nonetheless in conflict on a very fundamental level. While both sides cite the founding fathers in their choice of titles, I am convinced only one side is fundamentally closer.
Being pro-choice in today’s society means that we support a “woman’s right to choose.” However, what does this truly mean? This half-statement leaves out two important realities: first, the reason for needing a choice, and the list of choices. The choice list of our current society features prominently the choice of abortion in addition to other alternatives that are available. However, we must ask ourselves what is abortion and why is it radically different from the other choices. It is from my experience that abortion is generally treated as a last option when nothing else can help. Abortion is defined differently by different groups. The reason for this is that definition influences legislation. If we say simply that abortion is killing a child before it is allowed to be born, then legislation to support this can never be passed—the reason is that no one supports killing children, or killing in general. However if we can claim that abortion is not the death of a child, but rather a choice for the life of the mother then we shift emphasis from liberty to choice. After all, killing is against our right to life, however, that same right to life is cited in the choice for abortion.
The question to ask then is whether or not the choice for life is substantiated by either side. The pro-choice camp prominently cite abortion as necessary for the life of the mother when she is in danger or when it can cause substantial harm to their financial stability. The point of this argument is to show that the sacrifice is in the name of something more important. Therefore we must compare whether the life of another human or the matter of their ease of living is more important than the life of another child. For most people to compare someone’s life’s worth to ease of living is not a good enough reason for abortion [or slavery, or many other things for that matter] because that places temporal needs and wants above the needs of a person. Society cannot support that mentality because it treats people as a means, rather than an end. It also implies that the inherent value of a person due to their rights and liberty is worth less than temporal needs and gain. The implication for a society that embodies this concept is utterly against everything our founding fathers would support. After all, if that were the case then we would not have had grounds for ending slavery because people under this concept aren’t worth more than the gain brought about by using them. So the final examination is whether or not the life of the child should be sacrificed for the life of its mother. This is a touchy subject because now we are comparing lives to lives. If we decide one way or the other we are in danger of saying that certain people’s lives are worth more than another. Can you truly look to those around you and honestly say that some people are intrinsically worth more than you or that you are worth more than them? It is a trifling and pointless thing to do in a society that affirms that everyone has equal worth and equal rights. Therefore for these reasons the abortion debates settles to whether the unborn child is a human or not. If the unborn baby can be shown to not be a human, then it would not have our rights and the rights would all belong to the mother. In other words, is the pregnant woman truly a single person or does the child within her have rights as well?
This question if a pregnant woman a single person has big consequences for abortion-related legislation because if proven to be true, then abortion then doesn’t violate any person’s liberty, and therefore is truly a viable “choice” for a woman to consider. If however, a pregnant woman is truly a mother and a child (two individuals) then the child will have all the rights that belong to any other person under the US constitution. This then is not a question for lobbyists, but a question for biologists and philosophers. From a biomedical standpoint, it is clear that a baby develops from a fetus within the mother. The first question to ask then is the fetus a person with rights? If so then we cannot allow legislation to abort fetuses. What constitutes a person? This is the definition that most people disagree upon because of the varying circumstances that people can meet all the criteria to be people. I want to argue that a person meets the following criteria: A person is any organism that at any point in its complete life-cycle can be classified taxonomically as Homo sapiens. Therefore, under standard taxonomy any organism that a biologist can properly identify as a homo sapiens (as human) is a person. Therefore people are then protected legally during all the parts of their life-cycle from conception to natural death. I am willing to say that most people can agree with my definition of a person. However, some people may object to a biologist’s classification citing that science is not an exact discipline and mistakes can be made. I want to say therefore that people no longer evade the question then that “people” are the result of a sperm and an egg coming together and its development is continuous from that union until natural death. People who object to this definition of life are only people who are concerned with pushing agenda and cannot bring up a proper argument to my definition to refute it other than human error. However, I find it remarkably difficult for a biologist to classify a fetus or embryo any differently than a obstetrician when a woman is clearly pregnant.
What about the life and safety of a mother in a life-threatening situation? Do I advocate that she risk her life for her baby? I advocate that doctors do everything possible to save both lives. Research should go into how to save babies who need to be separated from their mothers instead of investments in how to dispose of them. If a baby is life-threatening then we should do everything to save two lives instead of just one. What about babies whose life is in danger when they are born? I advocate supporting them to pursue life as long as possible. Every person deserves a chance to live and no one should have their odds of life made any less. It is important that life remains central to our daily being. I say that we have an obligation to support life, not an obligation to take it away.
I want to say that the pro-life camp is really a pro-liberty camp. We advocate not only the life of a single child, but the life of all of us. Anything that can disrupt the liberty of an innocent child is the potential for the disruption of all of us. In conclusion in any debate concerning human social action we must keep in front us the principles of life and liberty—in particular on the debate of abortion. Society has effectively shifted the abortion debate from a life versus life debate to a life versus liberty debate. However, only one side truly advocates both, the side that chooses life ultimately chooses liberty. If legislation is ever passed that makes abortion illegal I also strongly urge that legislators push for legislation that strongly supports life and liberty for mothers and children, only then will people truly no longer believe they need to abort.
The abortion debate brings up many of the different realities of life. The two sides of this debate rally behind two slogans: Pro – Life and Pro-Choice. Upon close examination, these two titles represent what each side truly values. Both titles reflect back to our founding fathers significant ideals: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. While both sides of this debate bring up different sides of this issue, they are nonetheless in conflict on a very fundamental level. While both sides cite the founding fathers in their choice of titles, I am convinced only one side is fundamentally closer.
Being pro-choice in today’s society means that we support a “woman’s right to choose.” However, what does this truly mean? This half-statement leaves out two important realities: first, the reason for needing a choice, and the list of choices. The choice list of our current society features prominently the choice of abortion in addition to other alternatives that are available. However, we must ask ourselves what is abortion and why is it radically different from the other choices. It is from my experience that abortion is generally treated as a last option when nothing else can help. Abortion is defined differently by different groups. The reason for this is that definition influences legislation. If we say simply that abortion is killing a child before it is allowed to be born, then legislation to support this can never be passed—the reason is that no one supports killing children, or killing in general. However if we can claim that abortion is not the death of a child, but rather a choice for the life of the mother then we shift emphasis from liberty to choice. After all, killing is against our right to life, however, that same right to life is cited in the choice for abortion.
The question to ask then is whether or not the choice for life is substantiated by either side. The pro-choice camp prominently cite abortion as necessary for the life of the mother when she is in danger or when it can cause substantial harm to their financial stability. The point of this argument is to show that the sacrifice is in the name of something more important. Therefore we must compare whether the life of another human or the matter of their ease of living is more important than the life of another child. For most people to compare someone’s life’s worth to ease of living is not a good enough reason for abortion [or slavery, or many other things for that matter] because that places temporal needs and wants above the needs of a person. Society cannot support that mentality because it treats people as a means, rather than an end. It also implies that the inherent value of a person due to their rights and liberty is worth less than temporal needs and gain. The implication for a society that embodies this concept is utterly against everything our founding fathers would support. After all, if that were the case then we would not have had grounds for ending slavery because people under this concept aren’t worth more than the gain brought about by using them. So the final examination is whether or not the life of the child should be sacrificed for the life of its mother. This is a touchy subject because now we are comparing lives to lives. If we decide one way or the other we are in danger of saying that certain people’s lives are worth more than another. Can you truly look to those around you and honestly say that some people are intrinsically worth more than you or that you are worth more than them? It is a trifling and pointless thing to do in a society that affirms that everyone has equal worth and equal rights. Therefore for these reasons the abortion debates settles to whether the unborn child is a human or not. If the unborn baby can be shown to not be a human, then it would not have our rights and the rights would all belong to the mother. In other words, is the pregnant woman truly a single person or does the child within her have rights as well?
This question if a pregnant woman a single person has big consequences for abortion-related legislation because if proven to be true, then abortion then doesn’t violate any person’s liberty, and therefore is truly a viable “choice” for a woman to consider. If however, a pregnant woman is truly a mother and a child (two individuals) then the child will have all the rights that belong to any other person under the US constitution. This then is not a question for lobbyists, but a question for biologists and philosophers. From a biomedical standpoint, it is clear that a baby develops from a fetus within the mother. The first question to ask then is the fetus a person with rights? If so then we cannot allow legislation to abort fetuses. What constitutes a person? This is the definition that most people disagree upon because of the varying circumstances that people can meet all the criteria to be people. I want to argue that a person meets the following criteria: A person is any organism that at any point in its complete life-cycle can be classified taxonomically as Homo sapiens. Therefore, under standard taxonomy any organism that a biologist can properly identify as a homo sapiens (as human) is a person. Therefore people are then protected legally during all the parts of their life-cycle from conception to natural death. I am willing to say that most people can agree with my definition of a person. However, some people may object to a biologist’s classification citing that science is not an exact discipline and mistakes can be made. I want to say therefore that people no longer evade the question then that “people” are the result of a sperm and an egg coming together and its development is continuous from that union until natural death. People who object to this definition of life are only people who are concerned with pushing agenda and cannot bring up a proper argument to my definition to refute it other than human error. However, I find it remarkably difficult for a biologist to classify a fetus or embryo any differently than a obstetrician when a woman is clearly pregnant.
What about the life and safety of a mother in a life-threatening situation? Do I advocate that she risk her life for her baby? I advocate that doctors do everything possible to save both lives. Research should go into how to save babies who need to be separated from their mothers instead of investments in how to dispose of them. If a baby is life-threatening then we should do everything to save two lives instead of just one. What about babies whose life is in danger when they are born? I advocate supporting them to pursue life as long as possible. Every person deserves a chance to live and no one should have their odds of life made any less. It is important that life remains central to our daily being. I say that we have an obligation to support life, not an obligation to take it away.
I want to say that the pro-life camp is really a pro-liberty camp. We advocate not only the life of a single child, but the life of all of us. Anything that can disrupt the liberty of an innocent child is the potential for the disruption of all of us. In conclusion in any debate concerning human social action we must keep in front us the principles of life and liberty—in particular on the debate of abortion. Society has effectively shifted the abortion debate from a life versus life debate to a life versus liberty debate. However, only one side truly advocates both, the side that chooses life ultimately chooses liberty. If legislation is ever passed that makes abortion illegal I also strongly urge that legislators push for legislation that strongly supports life and liberty for mothers and children, only then will people truly no longer believe they need to abort.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
