Taking Up Our Cross

I used to think that Catholics had an unhealthy attitude towards suffering, seeking it out and almost wallowing in it. The truth is, suffering is sometimes unavoidable. It is a part of human life. I have now come to believe that Catholics have the most healthy approach to suffering there is. When we encounter suffering, we unite it with the suffering of Jesus on the cross. The cross transcends time and space, touching every life that seeks union with God.

Why are we, too, supposed to accept suffering in our lives and thus "take up our cross" and thereby follow Jesus?

Christians should not seek suffering, but when they are confronted with unavoidable suffering, it can become meaningful for them if they unite their sufferings with the sufferings of Christ: "Christ ... suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps" (1 Pet 2:21).

Jesus said, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Mk 8:34). Christians have the task of alleviating suffering in the world. Nevertheless, there will still be suffering. In faith we can accept our own suffering and share the suffering of others. In this way human suffering becomes united with the redeeming love of Christ and thus part of the divine power that changes the world for the better. (YOUCAT question 102)

The Whirlpool of Evil

I have subscribed to "Catechism in a Year", a daily email from Matthew Warner, and I had been posting some on Facebook that I thought would be of interest to people. Then I thought it would be better to put it on the blog, and then put the link on Facebook. That way it's available to more people.

How does God draw us out of the whirlpool of evil?

God does not just look on as man gradually destroys himself and the world around him through the chain reaction of sin. He sends us Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer, who snatches us from the power of sin.

"No one can help me" - this maxim of human experience - is no longer accurate. Wherever man may have strayed by his sins, God the Father has sent his Son there. The consequence of sin is death (cf. Rom 6:23). Another consequence of sin, however, is the marvelous solidarity of God, who sends us Jesus as our friend and Savior. Therefore original sin is also called felix culpa (= happy fault): "O happy fault ... which gained for us so great a Redeemer!" (Liturgy of the Easter Vigil). (YOUCAT question 70)

The idea of felix culpa is to me an antidote to the idea I used to have that it is not fair that I should have to suffer for what Adam and Eve did. Rather, in response to what Adam and Eve did, God provided a Savior, by whom I am blessed.

Thomas Aquinas said that God only allowed evil because he would bring out of it a greater good. That greater good is the redemption Jesus obtained for us on the cross. As one of my favorite hymns says, "Amazing love, how can it be, that thou my God shouldst die for me."

Losing Hoctempus.com

I have decided to not renew Wordpress Premium and the hoctempus.com domain because I'm not active enough on this blog to warrant the fee. I will still keep the blog, and will try to post more, but starting in May, it will only be available through htempus.wordpress.com.

Remembering Fr. Matthew

When I started working at Cistercian Preparatory School in October 2007, Fr. Matthew's office was next door to mine. He did not teach anymore, but he did not want to retire, so he helped supervise in the lunchroom and the library.

Fr. Matthew called me his "neighbor", and almost every morning he would open his door and greet me when he saw me walk past his window. A couple of years ago he began to need help with his supervision duties, and I became one of his helpers, which meant that I heard a lot of stories. From his stories, I was able to piece together a picture of his life, and I was thinking I would try to write it down here, but then I saw his obituary, which covers most of what I know. Therefore I will just say a few things and then include the obituary.

The obituary says that Fr. Matthew was expelled from school for being a Catholic "ringleader." The story he told me was that the students were required to attend a speech given by an important Communist. The speech was full of slander against Cardinal Mindszenty, the leader of the Catholic Church in Hungary, so he and some other students walked out of the speech. For that they were expelled and not allowed to graduate from any school, and thus would be blocked from attending a university. Fr. Matthew told me he didn't care because he wanted to go into the seminary.

When he would tell me about being in the army, Fr. Matthew often used the motto, modus vivendi, which means "way of living." What he meant by it was that he had to find a way to survive among those who were radically and dangerously opposed to his beliefs. The officer he worked for knew he had earlier wanted to be a priest, but did not hold that against him. This officer told him that he should stick with him and thus be protected. Since Fr. Matthew didn't care about advancing his career in the army, he didn't get involved in the political intrigue that was common there, and instead just tried to do his job well. He worked as a clerk, handling a lot of classified documents, and developed a reputation of being reliable and dependable.

One morning Fr. Matthew asked me if I knew what famous event happened 60 years ago that day. It was March 5, and I had no idea. He told me that when he was a child, his family was too poor to own a radio. However, when the Communists took over, everyone got a "box". It only had one knob on it, used for turning it on, and it only picked up one radio station: the official Communist station. That day, 60 years ago, he turned on the box and heard funeral music. He knew someone important had died - it was Joseph Stalin.

Matthew G. Kovács

1929-2013

Born on February 19, 1929 in Hercegfalva (now Mezőfalva), Hungary as György Kovács, he lost his father as an infant, and was then brought up by his mother and stepfather, Mr. and Mrs. István Virágh. At the age of 11, at the initiative of the local pastor, he was sent to the Cistercian School in Baja, where he discerned and prepared to follow a vocation in the Cistercian Order.  After the Communist regime nationalized all Catholic schools, Fr. Matthew was expelled from the school together with other senior students, identified as Catholic “ringleaders,” and was not permitted to graduate from any school. He finished high school privately in the minor seminary of Győr. In August 1949, he entered the novitiate in the Cistercian Abbey of Zirc, experiencing the last ten months of the monastery’s existence before its suppression by the Communists. He took his first vows on June 22, 1950. After the suppression of the monastery, he hoped to continue his formation in the diocesan seminary of Székesfehérvár, but by decree of the Communist State, as a professed monk of Zirc he was rejected and was refused entrance to any institute of higher learning. The following five years he worked in factories, and then was drafted and served for more than two years in the Hungarian People’s Army. All along he persevered in his vocation, studying philosophy and theology in clandestine, private groups under the leadership of Fr. Lawrence ‘Sigmond, hoping that his call would eventually come to fruition.

After the defeat of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, Fr. Lawrence, his acting major superior, suggested that he cross the poorly guarded Western border and emigrate to Austria. Before leaving, on November 30, 1956, Matthew was allowed to take his perpetual vows clandestinely. On December 3, he finally arrived to the Cistercian Abbey of Heiligenkreuz.

Fr. Matthew joined the other recent Cistercian refugees in Rome. In eight months he took exams and became eligible to be ordained a priest. He was ordained together with Fr. Pascal in the Abbey of Zwettl, Austria on July 21, 1957. While finishing his theological studies, he worked as chaplain in several Hungarian refugee camps in Austria and at the same time studied at the University of Graz.

On July 1, 1959 Fr. Matthew arrived to the newly constructed monastery of Dallas. From September 1959 until the summer of 1962 he lived in Ft. Worth, at the Mother House of the Sisters of Saint Mary of Namur (Our Lady of Victory), obtaining a Master’s degree in German Language and Literature at Texas Christian University.

From 1963 to 2006 Fr. Matthew taught German and Latin in the Cistercian Preparatory School. He served as assistant treasurer from 1963 to 1980. He regularly assisted in various pastoral assignments, including daily masses and weekly confessions at Holy Family Catholic church in Irving for many years. He often said the monthly Hungarian masses at the Cistercian Abbey.

By his untiring daily participation in the Divine Office, and his faithful and prompt priestly ministry, Fr. Matthew left behind a beautiful example of religious life. At every graduation Cistercian seniors recalled his cheerfulness, which turned the first year of Latin into a happy and memorable experience. He died unexpectedly but very peacefully in his sleep on July 12, 2013 at the age of 84.

The Rationality of Theology

The New Atheists often say that faith, religion, and theology are irrational because they are based on divine revelation rather than data obtained using the scientific method. In the next article of the Summa (I, 1, 2), St. Thomas addresses this very subject, asking the question, "is sacred doctrine (theology) a science?"

Thomas uses a broader definition of science than is used today. By science, he refers to a disciplined study of a subject using rational processes, whereas modern science implies study of the natural world, and uses more specific methods such as experimentation. For example, Thomas includes among the sciences mathematics, geometry, and music. Therefore, I do not maintain that Aquinas makes a case for theology being a science in the modern sense, but that he does make the case that it is a rational discipline. Even so, in my post, I will compare theology to examples from modern science because modern science is widely accepted today as a rational discipline.

St. Thomas begins his argument in the body of article 2 by pointing out there are two kinds of sciences practiced in his day. Those that begin from first principles known "by the natural light of intelligence," and those that build on principles given by "higher" sciences. Examples of the first kind of science are mathematics and geometry. Mathematicians and geometers in Thomas' day did not base their work on the results of any other discipline, but began with definitions and principles obvious and agreeable to all. Deductive reasoning would then be used to derive knowledge based on these principles. Today's study of Euclidian geometry, which is commonly taught in High School, follows the same pattern. The geometry student begins with definitions and postulates that can be agreed upon based on common sense. Then deductive reasoning is used to prove theorems based on the definitions and postulates. The same process is used to prove more theorems based on previously proved theorems. Using this process, an elaborate set of theorems can be produced.

The second kind of science that Thomas describes begins with knowledge gained from a "higher" science. By "higher", Thomas means a science that is closer to first principles. For example, the study of perspective in art began in the Middle Ages, and it made use of knowledge gained from the study of geometry. However, an artist did not have to start at the first principles of geometry and derive theorems about parallel lines before he could use them in his painting. Instead, he could take the results of the work of the geometer as his starting point. Similarly, a person building a pipe organ does not have to derive methods of manipulating ratios in order to determine the length of his pipes. He can make use of the methods developed by mathematicians.

We see this kind of layering of knowledge much more today because the body of knowledge is so much greater now than it was then. Physics makes use of mathematics; chemistry uses physics; biology uses chemistry; and medicine uses biology. A doctor does not start at the first principles of mathematics and work his way up to cancer treatment. He surely had some math and physics as an undergrad, but soon put much more focus on chemistry and biology in his education. In his day-to-day practice, he doesn't do the work of a chemist, but makes use of the work of chemists in the medications he prescribes.

So, St. Thomas says that theology is like the second kind of these sciences, except that rather than being based on the results of another human science, it is based on divine revelation. In other words, God provides the basic body of knowledge that the theologian works with, and then the theologian uses rational thought processes to work with that "data". A good theologian carefully examines the sources of revelation to make sure he has access to true revelation, and that it has been acurately received, passed along or recorded. He then must use rational methods of interpretation, including maintaining consistancy with other sources of revelation, in order to apply the meaning of it to a given situation.

Theology is very similar to other fields of study. It resembles fields in the humanities such as philosophy, history, anthropology, and psychology more than fields such as physics and chemistry because the subject of theology is a divine person, and the humanities deal with people where "hard sciences" like physics deal with things that can be experimented upon.

Now the crux for theology, then, is divine revelation. If there is not a God, then there can be no divine revelation, so that would invalidate the data on which theology is based. If there is a God, and he has revealed himself in the sources that theology studies, then it is just as sound of a study as any other. Indeed, it is the highest field of study because it concerns the highest subject: the Creator of the Universe. All other fields deal with things in the creation, rather than the Creator.

Here is an analogy. Lets say that an astronomer using a radio telescope picks up signals that he believes are coming from broadcasts from another planet around a star many light years away. He teams up with a linguist and other experts to decode and interpret the signals. If he is wrong, and he is only picking up radiation from some natural source, than he and his colleagues are wasting their time. However, if he is right, and he has found the communications of other intelligent life in the galaxy, he is doing some of the most important scientific work on the planet. Either way, his work is rational. There is nothing irrational about the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy, and he is using completely rational methods in his study.

Although there are atheists who think they have explained everything, and there is no need for God, their explanations do nothing to eliminate the possibility of God. And since most humans who have ever lived believe there is a God, and many claim to have heard from God in some form or another, then it is not unreasonable to study these claims. This is the conclusion I came to at age 16, and within a year, I had found convincing reasons to believe the Bible is a record of divine revelation. From there I learned about Jesus Christ as the Word of God who taking on human flesh and living and dying 2000 years ago gave us the fullness of divine revelation. It took over 25 more years of experience and study to come to understand the important and unique role the Catholic Church has in transmitting and interpretting the revelation that came through Christ. So, I'm really just a beginner in Theology. Although I've learned a lot in the last 30 years, I feel like most of my time has been spent on the front steps of the Cathedral, and I've only recently walked through the doors and have begun to admire the beautiful artwork that covers the walls and ceiling.

Is Theology Necessary?

The first Question in the Summa is "The Nature and Extent of Sacred Doctrine." Thomas uses the term "sacred doctrine" and "sacred science" to mean what we would normally call "theology." Since the Summa is a book about theology, Thomas starts by exploring what theology actually is. The first Article for this Question asks whether it is even necessary? The title of the Article is "whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?" If we were to translate this into modern terms, we would ask, "is there any source of knowledge beyond what science gives us?"

This is an incredibly relevant question today, and St. Thomas addressed it over 700 years ago. It's true that he didn't have access to the modern science we practice today, but his definition of "philosophy" is that which is known through reason, and this would include modern science.

Thomas' answer is based on the idea that the purpose of human life is directed towards God, who exceeds the grasp of human reason. "Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation" (I,1,1b). If there is an infinite transcendant God like the God of Christianity, and the purpose of human life is directed towards him, then in order to know how to reach God, we would need information from God that is beyond our ability to figure out on our own. In other words, God is a being so high above us that he must stoop down and tell us about himself if we are to know him.

Now Thomas does admit that there are "truths about God which human reason could have discovered," (indeed he will demonstrate some of those truths later) but it was still necessary for God to reveal them to us because only a few people would have the ability to figure it out on their own, and it would take a long time, and they would make mistakes. So even in the case of these truths about God that are accessible to human reason, God reveals them so that they can be accurately known to all.

Of course, most of the people who today say that modern science tells us everything we need to know don't believe that there is a God, or that the goal of human existence is to know God. Therefore, they would not be convinced by this argument, which assumes God's existence. However, Thomas will address this issue later when he demonstrates what we can know about God through human reason. If he can use human reason to show that there is a God and that knowing him is the ultimate goal of human existence, then he will have support for the argument made in this article. Many people make the mistake of looking at one of St. Thomas' arguments in the Summa in isolation, but that approach misses the interrelated structure of his work. I only hope I can capture a little bit of that in these blog posts.

Finally, I want to point out the Reply to Objection 2 in this Article. The Objection is that because philosophy deals with theological topics, there is no need for a study of theology apart from philosophy. The Reply notes that different intellectual disciplines, or "sciences" can come to the same conclusion using different means. "For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself" (I,1,1r2). Therefore, it is ok if philosophy comes to some of the same conclusions that are reached through theological study of divine revelation.

There are two things that I want to point out about this Reply. The first is that people in the Middle Ages knew the Earth was round. The second is that Thomas believes that there is one reality, and that different methods of investigating that reality should eventually lead to the same truth. John Polkinghorne makes the same point in his book, One World: The Interaction of Science and Theology, where he says there should ultimately be no conflict between modern science and theology if they are done rightly because they are two ways of seeking the truth of the one world we inhabit.

The Non-Encyclopedia

St. Thomas' Summa Theologiae is a kind of encyclopedia of theology. However, unlike today's encyclopedias, it did not use an arbitrary alphabetical scheme to organize the information. Rather, the medieval scholar believed all knowledge to be interrelated, and the organization of the Summa was an attempt to capture some of those relationships. It is divided into three main Parts focused on God (Part I), Man (Part II), and Christ (Part III). The second part has two halves, Part I-II and Part II-II. Each Part is made of many Questions, and each Question is divided into a number of Articles. The way I think of it is that the Question is a specific topic under consideration, and the Question is explored or articulated through the Articles.

You will see that each Article itself asks a question about the Question topic, and the Article appears to take a yes or no answer. St. Thomas will have an answer to the question, but first will list a series of Objections to his answer. He attempts to state every possible argument against the answer he will give. After the Objections comes the Sed Contra, which is Latin for "On the contrary," which are the opening words of the section. Here Thomas quotes some authority such as the Bible, a Church Father such as St. Augustine, or a philosopher such as Aristotle. Following the Sed Contra is the Body, which always begins with the words, "I answer that," where St. Thomas gives his own answer to the question. Finally, the Article concludes with Replies to each of the Objections listed at the beginning of the Article.

When I took a course on the Summa Theologiae, I first thought that I needed to focus on a yes or no answer to each Article. I soon learned that I was missing the point of the Articles. As I said before, they are a means to explore the bigger Question, and sometimes they don't have a single yes or no answer. Many times, the answer is nuanced, and what Thomas does in the Body is to make distinctions, which can lead to a deeper understanding of the topic. Sometimes, a Reply to an Objection will go into further depth into an aspect of the topic.

I will use a citation system for referring to the Summa that I learned in my class. The Parts are labeled with Roman numerals, after which the Question and Article numbers are given using Arabic numerals. Objections are indicated by an "o" followed by then Objection number, and Replies to the Objections are indicated by a "r" followed by a number. The Sed Contra is indicated by "sc" and the Body is "b." Therefore, the Reply to Objection 2 in Article 2 of Question 109 in the First half of the Second Part is I-II,109,2r2. I know this is probably confusing, but I will also include hyperlinks to the online text of the referenced article, and I think the numbering system will make sense after a while.

Medieval Solutions to Modern Problems

I heard a good definition of "modernism" on the radio yesterday that goes something like this: it is the belief that the new or the latest thing is always better than the old. Old ideas, old thinking, old ways of doing things should be discarded in favor of new ideas, new thinking, and new ways of doing things. Therefore, the assumption is that humanity will continue to advance in knowledge as time passes.

While I'm the first to admit that we know some things today that were not known 50, 100, 500, or 1000 years ago, I think it is also possible we have forgotten important things that people knew back then. I am not suggesting that we somehow go back to the past. It is neither possible or desirable to do so. However, it is a mistake to think that progress means we must forget what came before. Instead, we should recognize that the great minds of the past still have something to teach us, and their perspective may be just what we need to help us solve the problems we face today.

Last January 28th, the feast day of St. Thomas Aquinas, I attended the annual Aquinas Lecture sponsored by the Philosophy Department at University of Dallas. Thomas Aquinas is one of the greatest minds of the Middle Ages, and arguably of all human history. The talk inspired me to begin studying his Summa Theologiae again. I had taken a course on it a few years ago, but I want to go deeper into it. After going through a few articles of the Summa, I thought I should write some posts about what I'm studying in order to share some of the pearls I'm finding there as well as deepen my own understanding through writing. My hope is that this will work into a blogging series that is beneficial to myself and others.