Notable Quote: The Profound Mystery by John Henry Newman

John Henry Newman in his fifth chapter of Apologia Pro Vita Sua brings his apologetics all the way back to justifying God’s existence.  I won’t go into the details of that, but he provides this magnificent sentence, which is set aside as a paragraph.  It is a single sentence and a paragraph.

 

To consider the world in its length and breadth, its various history, the many races of man, their starts, their fortunes, their mutual alienation, their conflicts; and then their ways, habits, governments, forms of worship; their enterprises, their aimless courses, their random achievements and acquirements, the impotent conclusion of long-standing facts, the tokens so faint and broken of a superintending design, the blind evolution of what turn out to be great powers or truths, the progress of things, as if from unreasoning elements, not towards final causes, the greatness and littleness of man, his far-reaching aims, his short duration, the curtain hung over his futurity, the disappointments of life, the defeat of good, the success of evil, physical pain, mental anguish, the prevalence and intensity of sin, the pervading idolatries, the corruptions, the dreary hopeless irreligion, that condition of the whole race, so fearfully yet exactly described in the Apostle's words, "having no hope and without God in the world,"—all this is a vision to dizzy and appal; and inflicts upon the mind the sense of a profound mystery, which is absolutely beyond human solution.

 

To comprehend the sentence, start with the first phrase, “To consider the world in its length and breadth,” and then he provides a litany of historical facts and developments which have led to the present moment under the guiding hand of God, ending with the predicate “all this is a vision to dizzy and appal; and inflicts upon the mind the sense of a profound mystery, which is absolutely beyond human solution.”  So put those two halves together and you get: “To consider the world in its length and breadth… upon the mind the sense of a profound mystery, which is absolutely beyond human solution.”  William Faulkner would appreciate a sentence like that.

Matthew Monday: Father’s Day 2022

Father’s Day for us means a father/son adventure!  It’s not always so adventurous—I wouldn’t do anything risky—but it does mean a father and son together event.  You can look through all the Father’s Day adventures through the years here and you can see how Matthew has grown through the years.  I mentioned this year we took a weekend trip together down to Washington D.C. when I posted last week a photo essay on Washington’s Cathedral of St. Matthew.  

Obviously the Cathedral wasn’t the only place we toured.  First we drove down on Saturday, taking about five hours.  That afternoon we went to a Washington Nationals game.  We sat in the outfield by the opposing team’s bullpen on Matthew’s desire.  He wanted to watch the pitchers warm up.  They were playing the Phillies that day is here is Aaron Nola warming up before the game.

And here is a nice action shot of Didi Gregorious swinging the bat.

Sunday morning we went to Mass at the Cathedral of St. Matthew as I explained in the photo essay.  You have plenty of pictures of the Cathedral in the other post, but I don’t think I mentioned that Sunday was the Solemnity of Corpus Christi, and like most parishes across the country took in procession the Blessed Sacrament. 

We didn’t unfortunately participate in the procession around the neighborhood since the afternoon was planned for sightseeing.  We got on the Metro (way nicer than the NYC Subway) and got to the National Mall.  This is not in any particular order and it does not cover all our sights.  I provide it as a sampling to project adventure.

The World War II Monument:

The presidential monuments: Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson.

We didn’t actually go to the Jefferson Monument.  We saw it in the distance.  He didn’t want to walk there since his feet were hurting.  (Kids today, I tell you.  Not like when I was a kid.)

Now some of the other war monuments: Korean, World War I (Statue of General Pershing), and the Vietnam Wall Memorial.

 

While at the Vietnam War Memorial we looked up the name of the only person who we knew that died in the war, that of Fr. Lieutenant Vincent Capodano, “the Grunt Padre” who died giving his life trying to save wounded soldiers.  He was a Navy chaplain from Staten Island and is in the process of being considered for sainthood.  You can read his entire story here.  

One of the buildings that really impressed us was the original post office.  We didn’t know what it was until we got up to it and saw the statue of Benjamin Franklyn. 

That night Matthew splashed around at the hotel pool.

So after checking out Monday morning, we went to Arlington Cemetery, where we also saw the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

2670, 2669, 1091

 

Close by—though we got lost getting there—was the Iwo Jima Memorial.

1093, 1100

That was magnificent.  I had never been there before.

And so, on the way home we did stop at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception. 

It was an exhausting Father’s Day weekend, but well worth it.  I love spending time with Matthew, and Matthew learned a lot from this trip.

Sunday Meditation: And Who Is My Neighbor?

 I’m sure you’ve heard or read the Parable of the Good Samaritan a thousand times. 

 

There was a scholar of the law who stood up to test Jesus and said,
"Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
Jesus said to him, "What is written in the law?
How do you read it?"
He said in reply,
"You shall love the Lord, your God,
with all your heart,
with all your being,
with all your strength,
and with all your mind,
and your neighbor as yourself."
He replied to him, "You have answered correctly;
do this and you will live."

But because he wished to justify himself, he said to Jesus,
"And who is my neighbor?"
Jesus replied,
"A man fell victim to robbers
as he went down from Jerusalem to Jericho.
They stripped and beat him and went off leaving him half-dead.
A priest happened to be going down that road,
but when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side.
Likewise a Levite came to the place,
and when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side.
But a Samaritan traveler who came upon him
was moved with compassion at the sight.
He approached the victim,
poured oil and wine over his wounds and bandaged them.
Then he lifted him up on his own animal,
took him to an inn, and cared for him.
The next day he took out two silver coins
and gave them to the innkeeper with the instruction,
'Take care of him.
If you spend more than what I have given you,
I shall repay you on my way back.'
Which of these three, in your opinion,
was neighbor to the robbers' victim?"
He answered, "The one who treated him with mercy."
Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

Lk 10:25-37

 

But here is the context of the parable in its historical Jewish context from the wonderfully insightful Dr. Brant Pitre.

 

 

If you are not aware, the Samaritan was not a Jew. 

Faith Filled Friday: Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle

Matthew, my son, and I took a weekend trip to Washington, D.C. together a few weeks ago for our annual father and son “adventure” for Father’s Day.  More on that in a different post, but for Sunday Mass we decided to go to the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle since it was within walking distance of our hotel.  I had not heard of St. Matthew the Apostle Cathedral, and I’ve been to Washington many times.  Of course I’ve never read a tourist book on Washington either.  Normally if you’re out of town and want to go to a Catholic church in Washington, one goes to the Basilica of the National Shrine.  But it is away from the National Mall, out in the Northeast of the city by Catholic University.  But St. Matthew’s is only about a mile from the White House, and our hotel was right in between.  The church was named after St. Matthew the apostle and evangelist, and fittingly for Washington D.C. a former tax collector.  And of course my son wanted to go to a church named after his patron saint.

Now this particular building of St. Matthew’s goes back to 1895 (there was a predecessor building from 1840) and had to be the primary Catholic Church for Washington well into the 20^th century.  The Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, on the other hand, was opened in 1959, and you would have expected President John F. Kennedy to attend Mass at either the Basilica or St. Matthew’s.  While the Basilica is out of the way and though you could find a picture of Kennedy at St. Matthew’s, he was a parishioner at Holy Trinity Church in Georgetown, both as Congressman, Senator, and President.  The same goes for Joe Biden, the only other Catholic president.  He attended Holy Trinity as a Senator and Vice-President, and now attends as President.  Despite all that, St. Matthew’s was the church where President Kennedy’s funeral was held.  I’ll show a commemoration on that later.

From the outside, St. Matthew’s hardly looks like a Cathedral.   It has a rather plain Romanesque façade composed of red brick and red terracotta. 

But when you enter the church and look down the nave to the sanctuary, your breath is taken away. 

 

All the color, the arches, the height of the columns, the cupola, it’s all stunning.  The sanctuary face has a mosaic of St. Matthew with an angel. 

Matthew as a writer of a Gospel is holding a book.  The information pamphlet says the book is opened to “Jesus saw a man sitting in the custom house named Matthew and He said to him, ‘Follow Me.’  And he arose and followed Him” (Mat 9:9).

Now if you turn around and look at the narthex, you will find it just as beautiful.

 

And if you zoom in on the painting at the top, you will find a mural titled “Saintly and Eminent Personages of the Americas,” 

 

At the center is Archbishop John Carroll, the founder of Georgetown University, the first bishop and archbishop appointed in the United States and cousin to Charles Carroll, the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence.  I won’t list everyone in the painting, but among the eminent Catholics are Saints Katherine Drexel, Elizabeth Ann Seton, John Neumann, Kateri Tekakwitha, and Philippine Duchesne, the first American saints to be canonized. 

The cupola is absolutely stunning.

 

Leading to the cupola are four column, each with a mosaic of one of the Evangelists.  If you know your iconography associated with each, you can figure out that is St. Mark on the lower left with the winged lion, St. Matthew on the lower right with the angel, St. John on the upper right with the eagle, and St. Luke on the upper left with the winged bull.

Around the church there are many side chapels.  I won’t have the space to present them all, but here are a few.  First, to the left of the altar is the Blessed Sacrament Chapel, which houses the tabernacle.

 

It doesn’t say who the figures in the mosaic are, but I think it’s two of the evangelists, Saints John and Matthew.  To the right of the altar is the Wedding Chapel, highlighted by the wooden carved statues overlaid in gold depicting the wedding of Mary and Joseph.

 

 

There is a Chapel of St. Francis of Assisi.

 

 

There are more chapels as well, but I don’t have the space for them.  I should show you the organ.  It is impressive.

 

I must show you a couple of the fourteen Stations of the Cross.  These are reliefs with gold overlay.  Station #3, Jesus falls for the first time.

 

And #14, Jesus is placed in the tomb.

 

Finally there is a commemoration to President John F. Kennedy’s funeral Mass.  Typically at a funeral Mass the casket with the deceased is brought up to the foot of the altar.  Inlaid to the floor marble at that spot is a commemorative plaque.

 

My son and I standing on that spot.

I haven’t even mentioned the statues, the beautiful marble floor, the columns, ceiling, and other amazing aspects to this church.  You can take a virtual tour online where you can get the full impact of the space and color that a camera just cannot capture.  

Better than a tour is to visit the church yourself.  Once you’ve done the Mall monuments for the umpteenth time, take a side pilgrimage to this lovely church, The Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle.  You don’t have to be Catholic.

On Abortion: Comments

I’ve been having a number of online discussions on the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade and thereby removing a national imposition of a right to kill a child in the womb.  Let me capture some of my various comments and some of the back and forth with those that either agreed with me or were opposed.  There were three Original Posts on the subject, which I’ve placed in bold ahead of the comments for that post.  By the way, these posts were from a conservative forum I belong to, Ricochet.  

 

Supreme Court Overturns Roe V. Wade

My Comment:

I was in tears when I heard.  I thought it would be anti-climatic given the leak of a few weeks ago, but it wasn’t.  I am still moved beyond words.  And it came on the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus!  This is so momentous in my life that I had to write up my own post.  

 

God bless everyone who prayed or worked toward this day.  It is a joyous moment.

Someone’s Comment:

Donald Trump deserves massive praise for sticking with Kavanaugh. He deserves credit for the 3 justices that joined Alito and Thomas. Credit to the Justices for the decision. Credit to McConnell for holding the seat.

 

If nothing else came of the Trump presidency, this was worth it. It was worth all the drama, mean tweets, silly statements, hand wringing, all of it. I’d pay 10x that to have this outcome. Trump’s presidency was overall great policy-wise, but this will be the central pillar of his legacy.

 

This is the biggest pro life win since Roe. Now the battleground shifts to 51 smaller battles. Keep up the good fight.

My Reply:

Absolutely!  This will be Donald Trump’s greatest achievement.  No wishy-washy RINO appointments to the SCOTUS.  He is such an imperfect man but I believe that God worked through him to get us here.  May God bless Donald Trump for this.

Another Person’s Comment:

I am amazed that pro-lifers almost never used one of their strongest arguments, that Roe v. Wade was designed and has functioned to reduce the growth of the black population.

 

For sociocultural reasons nobody understands, black women have abortions two or three times as often as white women.

My Reply:

They do use that argument.  It just doesn’t seem to resonate beyond those who are pro-life.  If you’re pro-abortion, you don’t care where it came from.

Third person’s Comment:

Just out of curiosity, has there been any analysis of how the final decision differs from the leaked draft?

My Reply:

I heard it was near identical to the leaked version.  If there are substantive differences it will come out in the following days.

Fourth Person’s Comment:

I fear more states using this decision as a catalyst and liberalize their abortion laws to include late term abortions. I’m unfortunately doubtful this decision will decrease the amount of abortions. I sure hope I’m wrong.

My Reply:

The stricter abortion laws of the last few years in the GOP states has most certainly reduced the number of abortions.  You can find a number of articles on it, here’s one with data.  

Fifth Person’s Comment in Reply to Another Comment:

That assumes Blacks and Hispanics will remain perpetual wards of the Democrat Party. There has been significant slippage by both groups. In South Texas the Hispanics seem to be beginning the same type of political shift from Democrat to Republican that I witnessed in then sapphire-blue East Texas in the 1990s. If so, the Republicans benefit from banning abortion.

My Reply:

I’ve said on a number of occasions this is a center left country and has been at least since 2000.  However, if the Hispanics can come over to the right (say 40% Republican), then I think this country can be a center right country again.  I’m not willing to compromise my principles, that wouldn’t be a center-right country, but we need to focus on them to persuade them to come over.

Sixth Person’s (from Ireland) Comment in Reply to Another:

That was the biggest lie told in the run up to the repeal of the 8th amendment in Ireland. Even though the wording explicitly stated this, the pro abortions persistently pushed this lie that a woman would be denied life saving treatment if she was pregnant. So many people fell for it, ones you’d never expect

My Reply:

People need a moral cover to implement and legalize sin. Then in time the sin “becomes” normal. That’s when they get outraged that a  “right” will be taken away if ever challenged.

###

Why Are Abortion Proponents So Emotional?

My Comment:

Why?  That is a good question, which I’ve pondered way back when Bill Clinton was triangulating. He could compromise on just about anything when Republicans had that revolutionary retake of Congress in 1994. Even when he was being impeached they stuck by him as long as he was pro-abortion. So why do they hold on to abortion to this level?  The only thing I can conclude is that this is a “religious” issue for them. It’s a matter of doctrine, dogma, and “religious” devotion. It is the left’s “sacrament” and Satanic devotion.

 

I should add to this. Abortion is the sacrament but the faith is in sexual freedom. Sexual freedom is their spiritual connection with whatever they consider divine.  It’s actually quite a pagan outlook.

 

It’s true. Paradoxically the more contraceptives the more abortions. It only takes one screw up and you’re pregnant. This is why Planned Parenthood is such a pusher if contraceptives. You would think it would be working against their interests. But it doesn’t. It’s sympathetic to their interest in that it builds a culture of sexual promiscuity.

 

###

Comment:

This is so but men were naturally made to rape and conquer foreigners. Nature sucks. We should try to move beyond our filthy ape nature.

Reply:

If men stop raping and conquering, civilization can still continue. Not so if women don’t have children.

My Reply:

And men weren’t made to rape and conquer.  That’s from his perverse understanding of humanity. 

Reply to my reply:

We are pretty close to chimps mate. It ain’t pretty but it’s True.

My Retort:

You maybe, but not me. 

A Different Person’s Reply to Me:

Religion has a refutation and an explanation for science, but… science also has an explanation for religion, and need not bother with refutation.  That said, I agree that HC has mis-stated the case.

My Reply:

Scientifically, the difference between a chimp and a human is great.  Just look around you.  Can a chimp design a car and build one?  Does a chimp live in a house?  Does a chimp create a bourbon I’m now sipping?  Come on.  You’ve bought into this pseudo science.

His Reply:

I’m intrigued by chimp bourbon.

My Reply:

LOL. I’m not sure it’s worth trying. 

###

 

A Missed Pro-Life Argument: Addressing Ambivalence

My Comment:

I don’t know. There’s always a mushy middle on every issue. Abortion strikes me as an issue where there is a sharp and clear divide. It’s just a more emotional and polarizing issue than others. And there’s very little room to compromise. You’re either for it or against it. It should be made clear. The SCOTUS decision the other day did not ban abortion. It returned the issue to where it rightly belongs, the states.

A Reply to Me:

Wrong.  I, for one, am in the uncomfortable middle. FWIW, here is the outline of my stance:

 

I am not religious, and I don’t recognize moralizing arguments re abortion founded in any particular religion. I also think the country is past the point where a religious based argument will carry the day, it’s instead more likely to cause blowback.

Nonetheless, there needs to be some recognizable combination of ethics and pragmatism, that is reasonably likely to stand the test of time in the face of political, social and technological change.

 

·         I personally believe the cutoff date for abortion without evidence of grave harm to the mother should be at the point of higher brain function, which is what distinguishes a potential human from an animal. (So I’m already outside the all-or-nothing set.)

·         However, I don’t found my argument for a public solution on that personal belief, instead I’m basing it on pragmatism, specifically in what rationale is likely to survive technological and market challenges.

·         Current technology allows a fetus to be taken to term outside the womb for almost the entire third trimester. Killing it rather than extracting it in that case I find hard to distinguish from murder. I think that’s an argument that will largely resonate for anyone who’s not an absolutist for abortion to the point of birth.

·         On the other hand, abortifacients, e.g., ‘Plan B’ are readily available and that genie is not going back in the bottle. Trying to outlaw abortions during the period when they are effective would lead to an even more tragic drug war, with second order effects that would likely include the creation of even more powerful and easily concealable abortion doses. I think that’s also a reality that can be recognized by those who are not religious absolutists against abortion of any kind.

·         And finally, the whole issue arises tragically because people literally f*** up.  While there are accidents out there, the majority find themselves in a morally compromised position due to incompetence or indifference. It’d be nice if that could be an issue that both sides would cooperate to improve, but I’m not holding my breath.

I will probably, as usual, take incoming from both sides. C’est la vie.

My Reply Back:

No you’re wrong.  You are objectively killing a human being no matter what stage in their life, whether it be one second after fertilization or one trimester or at birth at at two years old or forty years old or 100 years old.  That is the objective criteria.  To kill a human being is morally unethical at any stage.  If you don’t want a moral criteria, then you’re a liberal, playing God at will with life and death depending on your utility.

“I personally believe the cutoff date for abortion without evidence of grave harm to the mother should be at the point of higher brain function, which is what distinguishes a potential human from an animal. (So I’m already outside the all-or-nothing set.)”

 

Ha!  That’s like five years old.  That is the liberal criteria, sentience.  What you are arguing for is infanticide, just like Pete Singer and the radical leftist “ethicists” and filtered down to college students arguing to kill two year olds. 

 

This is the perfect example of why conservatism is not conservative unless it be linked to Judeo-Christian morality.  You can’t have conservatism without God.

His Reply:

Your actual statement of position is what I referred to as religious absolutism, and is an example of what I think will not only not win the day in public opinion, but will probably have negative results.

My Reply:

No, it’s not religious absolutism.  It’s scientific absolutism.  A human being is a human being at any stage after fertilization.  That’s the objective criteria.  Everything else is arbitrary for convenience.

His Reply:

A normal embryo has the genetic endowment of a human being from the point of conception. It does not, however, have the fully developed phenotype of a human being, a reasoning mammal, which is when I would contend its rights begin to overwhelm any consideration of the mother. That’s just as ‘scientific’ as your formulation.

My Reply:

Neither does a one day old.  Neither does a person born mentally challenged.  Neither does a person who has severe brain damage.  This again is the Liberal argument from sentience. 

His Reply:

No, it’s not. I’m saying the cutoff is evidence of cerebral cortex function. Neural activity, no IQ tests, no sanity checks. How about engaging with that argument instead of name calling or putting words in my mouth. I’m told that’s more persuasive.

My Reply:

I didn’t call you any names. I’m not sure there is much of a distinction between sentience and brain function ability. Even if granted the distinction, it’s still an in process of development moment in time that considers a person not to be a person because he is not fully developed. I don’t see that as any ethically different.

A Different Person Replying:

Definitively.  Evaluation of human worth and subsequent killability is not a matter of individual estimation.  Either it is human, and individual, and living, or it is not.  Once we start saying that a human life is not old enough to be of worth, or thoughtful enough to be of worth.  Then all killing of innocent life is reasonable.

 

A newly fertilized egg will mature into if all goes well and according to nature’s plan a 70 or 80 or 90 or 100-year-old man or woman.  We don’t have the right to say one person is worth this existence and another is not.

My Reply to the Third Person:

Thank you. No argument can sustain philosophic inconsistency. That’s why the Liberals changed their criteria from “it’s not human” to sentience as to when to allow abortion. They lost the argument that it’s not human.

 

By the way, the “it’s not human” argument was the same argument used to justify slavery of blacks. It was no longer sustainable once you had objective facts.

A Fourth Person Replying to Me:

Actually, I believe there are some variations that suggest a middle ground, albeit a middle ground that would be totally unsatisfactory to anyone who believes that life begins at conception.

 

For example, a majority of Americans believe that abortion (at an early stage) is acceptable in cases of rape, incest, and saving the life of the mother. Many also believe that abortion is acceptable (at some point) when the baby will be born with down syndrome or some other genetic deformity.

 

In my state, Ohio, for example, the Republican legislature adopted a heartbeat bill, which suggests that the states interest in protecting the baby’s life begins when the baby has a heartbeat and thus could theoretically survive outside the mother. This is, of course, a very early stage of pregnancy.

 

To me, these are middle grounds that would be unacceptable to those whose beliefs inhabit the far ends of the debate (like me), but they are middle grounds nevertheless.

My Reply to the Fourth Person:

Well, there is political power and political power will ultimately get its way.  I have been arguing from the philosophic merits of the issue.  Each state will find some balancing point to satisfy the most voters.  But mind you, this is raw political power, not philosophic consistency or more importantly ethical justification.  It is the same raw political power that determined people with black skin were not human beings and justified enslavement or the same raw political power that determined in Nazi Germany that six million people were not human enough to live.  Raw political power, that is, might, does not make right.  And for certain there is no nobility in it.

 

Let me tell you something about the heartbeat criteria.  I’ve been close to the pro-life movement for at least ten years, probably more.  When I was looking for some sort of compromising criteria, I came up with the heartbeat.  No where had I ever heard anyone propose it, and for the longest time I still hadn’t.  I thought I held the secret formula for compromise.  Not that I published it anywhere, but since I never heard anyone else bring it up I held it close to my heart.  The first I heard anyone was a year to two years ago when one of the states recently brought it up as a criteria.  Perhaps it was Ohio.  I thought, finally someone is bringing this up, but by this time I had come to the realization that it is just as much a human being before the heart starts beating as after.  The normal human progress is under way, just as any normal human progress, just as my body at 60 is heading toward senescence. A human being is a human being at whatever stage it is at.   It does not meet meet the ethical criteria.

 

Now that is not to say I would not accept it.  The heart starts beating at six weeks or less.  That’s pretty early and is a firm criteria that an abortionist can be held to.  If the most Liberal of the states would adopt the heartbeat criteria I would be thrilled.  I think I’ve mentioned this before.  On abortion I feel like Schindler at the end of the movie, Schindler’s List.  How can I save one more.

My Concluding Comment:

Any line that is drawn will be purely arbitrary, except perhaps the heartbeat line as David mentioned above.  Some would like to pick a spot where the child has not developed pain yet.  That can’t be done.  There is no way to know that, and it’s actually an admittance of the cruelty of what is done during an abortion.  The heartbeat is a clear marker that you can measure and is a sort of incomplete science where one can claim that life begins there.  That’s why I was so hot on it for a number of years.  But it’s incomplete because one has to put blinders on as to what is happening beforehand.

 

By the way, I don’t think I have ever brought up religion in this argument.  I have brought up human ethics.  It’s the pro-aborts who always claim pro-lifers are motivated by religion.  Perhaps there is an intertwining of ethics, religion, and pro-life, but I have not made any argument from a religious point of view.  Perhaps there is no human ethics if one does not believe in religion.  Dostoyevsky seemed to think so: “Without God all things are permitted.”