CCLXXI – Apologetical Skeleton Keys: La La La I Can’t Hear You

There’s this idea that has been popping up in the comments of various articles critiquing modernity, that the dual vices of modernity are irrationality and distraction.

The core concept at play here is conversion. I approach this idea without arriving at it in my previous Apologetical Skeleton Key: Conversion is when someone makes a definite, positive declaration of some truth, and do so with full knowledge and consent of the will. Before someone is converted, they are neutral. It is rather like magnetism. Raw iron requires some input to take on magnetic properties–magnetism must be applied to it.

This is how we get “Catholics in Name Only”–most people are not challenged to make positive declarations of faith, even among Catholics. People are born Catholic, raised with or without a religious education, go through the motions– they are lukewarm. They haven’t woken up to their own inclinations, they haven’t made a positive declaration of faith.

When people haven’t made a positive declaration of faith, they structure their lives around what they passively believe to be true. They have good intentions, so they want believe they are meritorious of whatever passes for their idea of Heaven. After all, if you think you are in the clear, you won’t be motivated to change anything. The first Skeleton Key gets at this point: they will reject ideas that attack their idea of eternal paradise, whatever it is.

Another way of thinking about why people reject attacks on their idea of Heaven is that they don’t like thinking that it is possible to run afoul of the rules, even their own rules. This is the first vice of modernity: irrationality. Unconverted hearts and minds–the masses of lukewarm–will not follow their beliefs to their conclusion with reason, with rationality.

And why would they? The aspiring Apologist ought to recognize that their minds will reject such attacks like the body attacks a virus. The aspiring apologist will likely be frustrated, because if we don’t talk to people how will we convert them?

We have to understand the reason why people don’t just passively come around to truth. The reason is the second vice of modernity: distraction. People don’t want to be irrational, no one wakes up in the morning and decides to accept phony beliefs. People tend to sincerely have good intentions and a desire to do and be good. The reason they don’t think too hard about it is because they also keep themselves distracted. Technology facilitates this: How many people keep screens in front of their face, keep wireless headphones in their ears, devote their lives to work, devote their nights to partying, devote their efforts to material satisfaction. These things take a lot of work. God doesn’t compete for air-time, if you aren’t listening you won’t hear what He has to say. If He really wants your attention he will demand it and will get it whether you like it or not. I don’t know if I’ve talked about my conversion experience overmuch but maybe I ought to try sometime–let me just say that God turned my life upside down and I had to learn that I needed His help because I couldn’t help myself. It is through silence that our brains start to think about things, that our conscience begins to stretch and wake up, that God begins to whisper to us.

This is a very, very uncomfortable experience for people who are not used to it. If your mind is anything like mine, it is also difficult. The discomfort and difficulty make it easier to stay distracted than to try to carve out some silence.

The aspiring apologist, in understanding this, can take an approach of pacing and leading. First, recognize whether an interlocutor is lukewarm or converted. Someone who is converted against God will require a different strategy, I might write about that later. Someone who is lukewarm cannot accept information they are not prepared to accept, so to pace them the apologist must attempt to try to see the world from their point of view, and understand how they see things. Then, to lead them to Christ, the apologist must not aggressively assert truths, but ask probing questions.

The example that came up in the comments somewhere was abortion. The consequence of abortion being the murder of human persons is that the abortion advocate has supported and encouraged the perpetuation of the biggest mass murder in human history. That is a heavy burden to lay on someone’s shoulders. A simple way to try and lead them away is to ask, “What if that is actually a person?” and see how they respond. Their irrationality will reject that abortion is murder because they have good intentions and don’t want to lose their idea of heaven. Their distraction means they maybe have never thought about the fact that abortion is murder, or have never thought that “clumps of embryonic cells” are people.

The other way the apologist can pace and lead is by maintaining a good relationship with someone, so that if and when God turns their lives upside down, you can be there with the light of Christ and help them navigate the stormy seas.

AMDG

CCVI – Utalitarianism

At work, I have a friend who is areligious and (hopefully) as banter jokes that he worships the sun. He was in the military and was in a particular branch of the military that exposed him to danger and to many horrible sights. He and I have found common ground in our senses of humor and in being the only two people that go into the office these days. When I am having a stressful day, he will say, “Is anyone getting shot at? No? Doesn’t seem so bad.” It is good perspective and a good reminder. In exchange I will share trivia or look up and answer oddball questions that he thinks about. Yesterday we talked about how much Mt. Everest is growing every year ( FYI, 4mm per year) and how influential the Appalachian mountains are on whether or not we get snow (meteorologists always seem to promise a blizzard and deliver a dusting).

He also has a perfect absence of sentimentality. We were talking about the COVID vaccine and he expressed that priority shouldn’t be given to the elderly, and I suggested that it should. He felt they become an increasing burden as they get older, I felt we have an increasing duty of care as they get older. Value in his mind is measured by usefulness. He and I coined a word to satirically describe his point of view: Utalitarianism.

Utalitarianism is a neologism of “Utilitarian” and “Totalitarian”. It is a tyranny of efficiency, a strict enforcement of utility. If a person ceases to be useful, get rid of them. If a possession is broken or redundant, get rid of it. My friend is not a strict adherent to the philosophy, he just gave me the best illustration I’ve ever seen of it. This idea of Utalitarianism is widespread throughout American culture and the world.

Typically, what I have found, is that the “utility” aspect of the word is only from a narrow perspective: How useful is this person to me. Absent an underlying set of values or personal connections, it’s hard to see how an elderly individual in a nursing home adds value to society (or to me). The Totalitarian aspect of the word comes from the idea that this philosophy should be enshrined into law and enforced.

The consequence of this is that preservation of resources becomes the highest order of good. When the resources expended on a person exceed the resources produced by a person, they have exceeded their usefulness to society and are expendable. This allows us, individually and as a society, to make great heaps of all our wealth and so judge ourselves to be effective and efficient, and so good.

In this worldview, there is nothing intrinsic about life that is worthwhile and nothing valuable about suffering that is redemptive. It is materialist in the strictest possible sense.

The challenge then, is how do you teach that life has intrinsic value given to us by God to a society which measures value by usefulness? Probably the only thing is by living out the perplexing and counterintuitive behavior of caring for the sick and elderly, serving the poor, and other works of mercy. The greatest antidote to Utalitarianism is the indisputable fact that when we die, we have to leave all our stuff here.

AMDG

CLXXVIII – The Works of Mercy

I realized that there’s an interesting parallel between the Corporal and Spiritual works of mercy. It doesn’t work perfectly for all of them but it’s close enough that I think the connection is still visible.

1- To feed the hungry & Instruct the ignorant.

This strikes me as two sides of the same act. Feeding the hungry provides nourishment to a body; instructing the ignorant nourishes the mind.

2- To give water to the thirsty & to counsel the doubtful.

Likewise, water is a necessity as much as faith. These works describe coming to the aid of those in want of these necessities.

3- To clothe the naked & to admonish the sinners.

This called to mind, for me, the fig leaves of Adam & Eve. Providing Clothing to the naked is hardly the same act as admonishing sinners. An analogy could be drawn: One clothes the naked because they are in need of comforts & consolations; one admonishes (public) sinners because they are too comfortable flouting the rule of God.

4- To shelter the homeless & to bear patiently those who wrong us.

These two seem the most divergent. I think the connection is in loving thy neighbor: We provide shelter to our neighbors who are lacking material necessities; we provide forbearance to our neighbors who lack spiritual necessities (like decorum).

5- To visit the sick & to forgive offenses.

We visit the sick because they are suffering, and often when they are very sick they are suffering alone, and our visit can in some way ease their pain for a time. Likewise forgiving offenses, one who gives offense is afflicted with a kind of spiritual sickness. Forgiveness can be like a disinfectant to a wounded spirit.

6- To visit the imprisoned or ransom the captive & to comfort the afflicted.

In both cases here, we are removing someone from a place of woe. In the former case, physical woes of imprisonment or captivity; in the latter case, spiritual woes of multiple and various types.

7- To bury the dead & To pray for the living and the dead.

We care for the bodies of those who have passed away, and care for their souls as they face the loving and just embrace of God.

---

Just something that struck me. Perhaps this is already spelled out in great detail elsewhere, I had not considered it before now.

AMDG

CXXXVI – On Hell and Divine Mercy

This post was originally going to focus on teachings of Hell and damnation, inspired by the many confused and rightly terrified commenters on Ed Feser’s article on his blog and Kristor’s article on Orthosphere. In reading the articles (to which I found no objection) and subsequently the comments (to which I found many), it occurred to me that the Church hasn’t done enough to catechize on this teaching.

However, during a speakeasy Mass celebrated by my parish Priest on Divine Mercy Sunday, I realized that the problem is twofold: How do we reconcile teachings of Mercy with teachings of Hell? How can both be understood in their proper context?

On the Bus to Hell

The objections go something like this: (1) If God is good, why would he sadistically torment people for eternity? (2) God wants us to be saved, so it’s entirely possible Hell is empty and everyone realizes their mistakes when faced with particular judgement. (3) If God is omnipotent, why did he bother making us so we would reject him? If we can do that then it means he wants us to do it, and it’s his fault we would go to Hell, which isn’t just at all.

These touch on many facets of the question. I can simplify them all: If God is Love, why does Hell exist at all?

Lets use Zippy’s “Bus Stops” Rubric to try and sort this out.

1. God made man with Free will. This is self explanatory. Without free will, man is not his own master, and we are not responsible for our own actions. To conceive of Man without Free Will is to conceive of an automaton: Mindless, following along the predetermined course of his life. Free will is ontologically essential to our ideas of man. If you do not believe man has free will, get off the bus.
2. Man can freely choose God or ¬God. If man has free will, he can, of his own volition, make any choice. One such choice is whether or not to follow God. We make this choice every moment of every day. Choosing God implies obedience to His law, the precepts of the Catholic Church, and participation in the Sacraments. Choosing ¬God is the absence of those things. We can continue to make this choice as long as we are mortal. If you do not believe every choice we make is for God or ¬God, get off the bus.
3. That decision is permanent. When we die, our souls will be laid bare before a perfect judge. The state they are in at the time of their death is how it is. The decision for God or ¬God is irrevocable after we die, because we lack the means to change. How can our immaterial souls change? Change is measured by time, and in the absence of time, what can change? If you do not believe our Last Act is perfect and irrevocable, get off the bus. If you are still on the bus, you have an orthodox notion of Eschatology.

Selected Objections

The first bus stop is about agency. Objections on this ground usually fall under two varieties: First, that Free will is an illusion brought on by biological necessity (i.e. we are clumps of atoms). Second, that God is the author of all things, even our lives, and we are merely riding the roller coaster of life.

The first objection can sound convincing but when followed through, is absurd on it’s face. This is a “nature above all else” argument, that the natural world gave rise to life on its own. The connection being that if Free Will is mere biological process, all creatures would have similar processes: The human mind is obviously different and superior to animal life, and the difference is our agency. Biology cannot account for the difference between a human brain and an animalian brain.

The second objection is based on the fallacy that God knowing all things, and God creating all things, makes God responsible for all things. Parents are not responsible for the actions of their children, for example, and you would think that a Law written on the universe would find its parallels in our mundane daily life. When little Johnny throws a baseball in the house and breaks a vase, Dad doesn’t apologize to Mom. Little Johnny must apologize to them both.

The second bus stop is about the nature of our choices. I’ve presented it as a choice between God and ¬God. How do we know what those choices are? I noted the Catholic Church as the authority. The doctrine that There is no salvation outside the Church exists for a reason: The Church is the authority on how to choose God, following any other authority must by its very nature leads away from God. Said another way, the Church is the shortest path between you and God. Choosing any other Christian authority might vector slightly away; choosing ¬God is vectored the opposite direction from God. Therefore, objections to this bus stop generally dispute the authority of the Church, or they dispute the nature of the choice.

The apologia for the Church is larger than I have room for here. So on this point I will only say, Christ instituted the Church. Anyone who points to any other authority must explain why Christ instituted the wrong church, and then waited for centuries (or millenia) for someone else to figure out what He really meant.

The objection about the nature of the choice is a little more straightforward to discuss. Some object that those are the only two options. Perhaps a third intermediate or neutral choice could be made. Perhaps the choice isn’t so clear cut all the time. The answer to me can be explained visually. If we imagine a large circle, like a Venn diagram without the counterpart, that is all things that abide by God’s law, and which are therefore “choosing God”. If it doesn’t fall within that, it is for ¬God. The argument then becomes, where’s the line? Who sets it? And we’re back to the authority of the Church.

The third bus stop is a little more complex. This pertains to the metaphysical nature of the afterlife, and the consequences of each of the prior bus stops affects the significance of this one. Nevertheless you cannot arrive at this stop without making it past the others. The assertion that we cannot change our station after we die is defensible by scripture, defensible by Catholic doctrine, and defensible by logic. Objections will usually appeal to emotion, however.

One such objection is the idea that once we realize our mistake, we’ll be able to change our minds. Another such objection is that God will understand the extenuating circumstances relating to our choices.

To the first objection, I have two responses. The first, hinted at above: Change can only happen as long as there is something to change. Can a soul be cut in half? Can a soul be dyed purple? No. Can a soul be angry or happy? Those are changes in emotional state: I think not, at least not in the same way you or I can be angry or happy. Our mortal husk is capricious because our mortal world is ever changing around us. Emotional change is a response to some stimulus. To what stimulus would a soul be exposed to? The only change that can happen in the afterlife is the restoration of the Soul’s being in purgatory. For a soul to learn then would be for a soul to change its mental state to accommodate some new knowledge. For a soul to show remorse would be for it to experience an emotional response to some stimulus. If those things happen at all, they are not at all comparable to our merely human learning and remorse. The second response I have to this is scriptural: Consider the parable of the workers in the vineyard. The man who was there at daybreak, worked all day, got paid the same as the man who arrived an hour before sundown. The important thing is not how much they were paid, but that they worked for the vintner. The man who showed up after the vintner wouldn’t be paid at all, even if he realized it was a mistake to do no work. Why ought the vintner pay him?

The second objection is that God will understand the extenuating circumstances of our choices for God or ¬God. He will! As mentioned earlier, our souls will be laid bare before a perfect judge. If you believe God’s Justice is somehow imperfect, then you do not believe in God. At the same time, for Justice to be perfect, there must be a perfect Law to be measured against. The Catholic Church guides us through that Law, and we must make every effort to live by it.

Lord Have Mercy

We cannot have this discussion without addressing for a moment the concept of Divine Mercy. We are responsible, in this life, for making the choice between God and ¬God. God is a perfect Judge, and so will weigh our souls according to His infinite wisdom, which we typically call Justice. But what is Mercy?

To understand we need to follow two etymological streams: The English word Mercy, back; and the Latin word misericordia (mercy) forwards. Lets start with Latin.

Misericordia is a contraction of miseria (Misery) and cor (heart). There are a couple ways to read this. One way is that Mercy is a misery of the heart, like empathy. Indeed this is related to the second way I had in mind, which was the heart extending to one who is miserable. In this sense, Mercy is consolation, not necessarily abrogation of due justice. We describe putting down a sick pet as a mercy, because we are “putting them out of their misery” or easing their pain. Mercy to a man sentenced to death might be to ease his pain somewhat by offering him a last meal. His death is not avoided, but it is eased somewhat by some kindness. In one more example, when soldiers in World War 1 storm a trench and find foes who are wounded, mercy is to help with their wounds, to recognize that they have already suffered enough. God hears our penitent supplications, but for God to be merciful does not mean he will forgive; but if he forgives, it would be merciful.

Let’s look at Mercy now. Mercy comes from Latin merces (reward, wages, favor, or grace), which in turn comes from Latin mercis (merchandise), which is related to mercatus (market). Colloquially it means “disposition for compassion” or “act of goodwill”. But this etymological difference shows us two things. First, the modern understanding of Mercy as an entitlement; second, the idea of it as the disposition for misericordia, which is mistaken for misericordia itself. This is where people get confused and think God’s Mercy means a disposition to forgive, and thereby extend that as an expectation of forgiveness.

I say again: Mercy does not abrogate justice, if it did it would be rather unjust. If the man who shows up to the vineyard after sundown receives a wage even though he did no work, that would be unjust regardless of whether it is considered merciful or not.

When we choose for God or ¬God, we can know that whatever happens God will have empathy for us because he loves us, and that God’s Justice will be perfect.

AMDG