Ivan Strenski, a progressive blogger questioned (in a nice way), Rick and Karen's Santorum decision to get pregnant late in life and bring Bella into the world. The original article by Ivan is HERE. The first comment to the post was by "hsmom" who called Ivan's thinking "erroneous at best... and illogical." Hsmom's comments were good. But I felt the need to go further.
Ivan was being honest. He didn't understand how Santorum's "legalistic" behavior to Catholic teaching was good, because it brought such "suffering" into Bella's life. Ivan's logic is typical of many in the world. The only reality they understand is the one they can see and feel right before them at the moment.
Here are my two responses:
Ivan. Please consider:
A. Catholicism's teachings are based on 5,000 years of observing human history and how human experiences reveal what works and doesn't in the universe, i.e. natural law. The Catholic assumption is that life and the universe of reality is ultimately ordered, sophisticated, and benevolently intelligent. Although we cannot know everything, what we do know must be followed if we are to live a life approaching happiness, purpose and meaning. The doctrine is not arbitrary but is the faith's best interpretation of what is true, universally, for all human beings, regardless of our state in life. Or, what is good, true and beautiful.
B. Thus, Santorum, like other well-informed Catholics (and few Catholics are well-informed about their faith), is not being "legalistic" to an arbitrary rule, but rather a trust in 5,000 years of wisdom acquired by Judea-Christian understanding about what works in the long run, not just what we see before our eyes (c.f. Bella Santorum). There's a direct analogy to standing on the edge of a cliff and deciding to believe in the effects of gravity. If you trust what experience and scientists tell you, you'll step back from the cliff. That is not legalism in the pejorative sense. But it is following a rule (legalistically) that ensures your greater security. That is what the Church attempts to do under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
C. The problem with human kind is something called "sin" or (to put it in less theological terms) the willful, knowledgeable disobedience of a law of nature. Natural law exists in the physical as well as the psychological realms. Sin is like stepping off that cliff when you've been told that doing so is going to hurt. When pride tells us that we're going to do what we want and screw the theologians and historians and scientists.... then we or others get hurt.
D. Your assumption is that YOU know what is better for Bella, Rick, and their world, than what God (or Providence, or Natural Law) has ordained to occur in their life. And your solution to what you perceive is Rick's problem (a sick child that "suffers") requires that Rick and his wife step off a cliff that they have been clearly warned will cause them harm in ways that you and they cannot conceive. Rick and his wife trust in the wisdom of the ages, not just what they see before their eyes. Rick and his wife understand that they don't understand everything, and what they see is not necessarily what is true when confronted with all of reality, if they could see and understand it. You comments assume that what you see is all there is to understand. But I don't think that intellectually you really believe that.
E. Lastly, we don't want the innocent to suffer. But because our pride-filled propensity to sin (e.g. ignoring natural law when we know better) suffering is a part of the moral world in which we live. Blame pride and ego. But God in his mercy and grace brings meaning out of that suffering, even by the innocent. Christ, innocent in all ways, suffered and died a cruel death for the salvation (in the eternal afterlife) for all of us. Just as a soldier gives his life for his comrades; a willful suffering for the benefit of others. We have no idea how huge Bella's suffering may be, nor do we have any idea how huge and meaningful her suffering is. But to enact one of your solutions would be to bring suffering of a sinful sort, and such disobedience is always like walking off that cliff saying," I am smarter than gravity." This is where we trust God for the short time we are on this earth. For there is eternity to face. This is but a training ground for what is beyond.
Second comment to Ivan:
Ivan,
Not to belabor this, but perhaps this, too, is worthy of your consideration: Your solution to Bella's implied suffering, is that the Santorums should have contracepted, or aborted. On the "contracepted" see my earlier post. But on the "aborted" you imply that killing Bella in the womb would be less "suffering" (and therefore a good) than letting her live and "suffer." (My earlier post hoped to argue that "suffering" is not a bad thing, ,but there's more to the argument that suffering can be good. See below.) By extension, if you believe Bella in the womb is a human being, you must also believe that killing a sick child is better than letting her live. And by extension, the same would apply to all adults who are suffering. Would you now care to define "suffering" in terms of when it should prompt suicide or murder? Trusting in the Church's teachings will save you from these sort of dilemmas.
Is suffering good or bad? Suffering is the result of sin... a bad thing, even when that suffering occurs to a "good" person. The suffering may not be the result of the person's weakness or sin, but rather is the result of humankind's sinful, weak, and imperfect condition... that is, our propensity as a group to ignore what we know (or sometimes don't know) about the nature of reality. This understanding applies to tsunamis as well as adultery, although it may take longer to explain the former than the latter. ) The suffering of a person who has sinned (ignored natural law) should inform the person about what not to do next time if she wants to be happier. On the other hand, suffering by the "innocent" is a call to their lives to pray and offer up their lives as a lesson in helping others to care for others. Thus, Bella is put into the Santorum's life as an "object lesson" that will draw the Santorums and all of us who "watch" the Santorums, how to care for others. Humanity is about caring for others. The dependent around us (like Bella) fulfill a great purpose in teaching those of us who are not so dependent, to care for others. Thus, we the healthy and proud, can be brought low and humbled (in a good way), because others need us to care for them. As human beings we need to learn to care for others. Life is about relationships. Bella teaches us all these great lessons. And by extension, we just might learn that God looks on us as we look on Bella--from God's perspective, we (the "normal") are far from healthy and we need a great deal of help. We are dependent on God's grace, if not his forgiveness, then just to breath and live. For the complexity and sophistication and intelligent benevolence of nature sustains us.
Ivan was being honest. He didn't understand how Santorum's "legalistic" behavior to Catholic teaching was good, because it brought such "suffering" into Bella's life. Ivan's logic is typical of many in the world. The only reality they understand is the one they can see and feel right before them at the moment.
Here are my two responses:
Ivan. Please consider:
A. Catholicism's teachings are based on 5,000 years of observing human history and how human experiences reveal what works and doesn't in the universe, i.e. natural law. The Catholic assumption is that life and the universe of reality is ultimately ordered, sophisticated, and benevolently intelligent. Although we cannot know everything, what we do know must be followed if we are to live a life approaching happiness, purpose and meaning. The doctrine is not arbitrary but is the faith's best interpretation of what is true, universally, for all human beings, regardless of our state in life. Or, what is good, true and beautiful.
B. Thus, Santorum, like other well-informed Catholics (and few Catholics are well-informed about their faith), is not being "legalistic" to an arbitrary rule, but rather a trust in 5,000 years of wisdom acquired by Judea-Christian understanding about what works in the long run, not just what we see before our eyes (c.f. Bella Santorum). There's a direct analogy to standing on the edge of a cliff and deciding to believe in the effects of gravity. If you trust what experience and scientists tell you, you'll step back from the cliff. That is not legalism in the pejorative sense. But it is following a rule (legalistically) that ensures your greater security. That is what the Church attempts to do under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
C. The problem with human kind is something called "sin" or (to put it in less theological terms) the willful, knowledgeable disobedience of a law of nature. Natural law exists in the physical as well as the psychological realms. Sin is like stepping off that cliff when you've been told that doing so is going to hurt. When pride tells us that we're going to do what we want and screw the theologians and historians and scientists.... then we or others get hurt.
D. Your assumption is that YOU know what is better for Bella, Rick, and their world, than what God (or Providence, or Natural Law) has ordained to occur in their life. And your solution to what you perceive is Rick's problem (a sick child that "suffers") requires that Rick and his wife step off a cliff that they have been clearly warned will cause them harm in ways that you and they cannot conceive. Rick and his wife trust in the wisdom of the ages, not just what they see before their eyes. Rick and his wife understand that they don't understand everything, and what they see is not necessarily what is true when confronted with all of reality, if they could see and understand it. You comments assume that what you see is all there is to understand. But I don't think that intellectually you really believe that.
E. Lastly, we don't want the innocent to suffer. But because our pride-filled propensity to sin (e.g. ignoring natural law when we know better) suffering is a part of the moral world in which we live. Blame pride and ego. But God in his mercy and grace brings meaning out of that suffering, even by the innocent. Christ, innocent in all ways, suffered and died a cruel death for the salvation (in the eternal afterlife) for all of us. Just as a soldier gives his life for his comrades; a willful suffering for the benefit of others. We have no idea how huge Bella's suffering may be, nor do we have any idea how huge and meaningful her suffering is. But to enact one of your solutions would be to bring suffering of a sinful sort, and such disobedience is always like walking off that cliff saying," I am smarter than gravity." This is where we trust God for the short time we are on this earth. For there is eternity to face. This is but a training ground for what is beyond.
Second comment to Ivan:
Ivan,
Not to belabor this, but perhaps this, too, is worthy of your consideration: Your solution to Bella's implied suffering, is that the Santorums should have contracepted, or aborted. On the "contracepted" see my earlier post. But on the "aborted" you imply that killing Bella in the womb would be less "suffering" (and therefore a good) than letting her live and "suffer." (My earlier post hoped to argue that "suffering" is not a bad thing, ,but there's more to the argument that suffering can be good. See below.) By extension, if you believe Bella in the womb is a human being, you must also believe that killing a sick child is better than letting her live. And by extension, the same would apply to all adults who are suffering. Would you now care to define "suffering" in terms of when it should prompt suicide or murder? Trusting in the Church's teachings will save you from these sort of dilemmas.
Is suffering good or bad? Suffering is the result of sin... a bad thing, even when that suffering occurs to a "good" person. The suffering may not be the result of the person's weakness or sin, but rather is the result of humankind's sinful, weak, and imperfect condition... that is, our propensity as a group to ignore what we know (or sometimes don't know) about the nature of reality. This understanding applies to tsunamis as well as adultery, although it may take longer to explain the former than the latter. ) The suffering of a person who has sinned (ignored natural law) should inform the person about what not to do next time if she wants to be happier. On the other hand, suffering by the "innocent" is a call to their lives to pray and offer up their lives as a lesson in helping others to care for others. Thus, Bella is put into the Santorum's life as an "object lesson" that will draw the Santorums and all of us who "watch" the Santorums, how to care for others. Humanity is about caring for others. The dependent around us (like Bella) fulfill a great purpose in teaching those of us who are not so dependent, to care for others. Thus, we the healthy and proud, can be brought low and humbled (in a good way), because others need us to care for them. As human beings we need to learn to care for others. Life is about relationships. Bella teaches us all these great lessons. And by extension, we just might learn that God looks on us as we look on Bella--from God's perspective, we (the "normal") are far from healthy and we need a great deal of help. We are dependent on God's grace, if not his forgiveness, then just to breath and live. For the complexity and sophistication and intelligent benevolence of nature sustains us.
No comments:
Post a Comment