A Beautiful Video about Mary

I found this video at Conversion Diary, which is, in my opinion, one of the best blogs on the Internet.  I also stole the title of the post, but what can I say...imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

For many people, Catholic teachings on Mary are some of the most 'Catholic' teachings out there.  Personally, there were some things I was uncomfortable with at first, and even at my confirmation I wasn't totally impressed with Mary.  As with many other points, the more I've studied, the more I've come to admire the beauty and truth of the Catholic doctrine.

Note that this video doesn't mention Catholicism at all: there's nothing from any pope, council, theologian (except John), or even the church fathers (except mentioning that we should read them).  All the content of the video is taken from Scripture.



I'm impressed not just with the power of the content, but on how much is packed into 11 minutes.  Still, there's a lot that can be said about Mary.  The video says very little about the perpetual virginity of Mary, so I'd like to direct readers to Against Helvidius by St. Jerome, who covered the topic very thoroughly back in the fourth century.

I especially love the idea of the 'Ark of the New Covenant.'  Veneration of Mary doesn't distract from the praise of God, because God is the glory of Mary, and admiration Mary is admiration of the beauty of God.

Mary, Mother of God, pray for us!

Blessed John Henry Newman

I don't mean to keep harping on the Anglicans, but I've found another Catholic who is (strangely) celebrated by Anglicans: John Henry Newman, who was beatified today, September 19th, in Birmingham, England.  I attended my first Mass, learned about Catholicism, was Confirmed, and had my first Confession and first Communion at a St. John's Catholic Newman Center at the University of Illinois, so Cardinal Newman is a figure of special importance to me (and to countless other university students who have benefited from the many Newman Centers around the world).

Newman was an Anglican priest at Oxford.  He was involved with the Oxford Movement, which sought to make Anglicanism more traditional (basically, more Catholic).  Eventually, he decided that wasn't enough, and joined the Catholic Church.

Pope Benedict XVI personally beatified Cardinal Newman today, which was interesting, because Benedict usually has a policy that popes should only canonize, not beatify.  Also interesting was his decision to put Newman's feast day on October 9 (the date of his conversion to Catholicism), instead of August 11 (the date of his death).  Feast days are ordinarily celebrated on the day of the individual's death and entry into heaven, and August 11 is when the Church of England celebrates Newman's feast day.  People more knowledgeable than I tell us that we should not consider this move by the pope to have any  ecumenical significance.

If I had to guess, I would say that the Holy Father didn't want to make us wait until next August to celebrate Newman's feast day, so he put it in October, and we only have to wait a couple of weeks.

I would also say that the willingness of Anglicans to endorse people who disagree with them is rather odd.

Milton vs. More

As I read about John Milton for the last post, I was struck with the contrast between him and another famous Englishman from a century before: Saint Thomas More.  Specifically, I noticed a strong contrast in their attitudes towards divorce.

Milton was a strong advocate for legal divorce, and he effectively led the charge into modernity on this point, because he was essentially the only supporter of divorce in his time.

More was a martyr, executed for refusing to accept the authority of a church which was founded to grant a divorce to Henry VIII.

The Anglicans have, from the start, led the way in the reform of many social standards, especially those relating to sexuality.  From divorce and contraception to the ordination of women and gays, the Anglican communion is and has been one of the most socially progressive Christian groups in the world.  Supporters think this is a wonderful example of a church that keeps up with society, remaining modern and relevant.  Opponents think it looks more like “conforming to the pattern of this world.”  As a committed member of a church that opposes divorce, contraception and the ordination of gays, and that doesn't even think the ordination of women is possible, I will let the reader guess which camp I belong to.

As I investigated St. Thomas More, I was surprised to learn that he was considered a Saint and a martyr, not just among Catholics, but also among Anglicans (you know, the ones who killed him).  As one Anglican blogger noticed, this creates an awkward situation.  Calling him a Saint could just be a recognition of his personal holiness, but calling him a martyr is a problem:

...if Thomas More is a martyr (Greek: “witness”), it is as a witness, not to those truths of our religion to which both Anglicans and Roman Catholics give their assent, but against the claim of the Church of England to be able to continue as truly the Church and as truly Catholic while choosing to be separate from communion with, and obedience to, Rome.

Basically, calling More a martyr is approving the idea he died for, and the idea he died for was that Anglicans were wrong.
The blogger goes on to discuss the idea that two men could both be recognized as Saints because if their integrity and their right relationship with God, even if the two men disagreed (as in the case of Thomas More and Thomas Cranmer, who 'at least passively' allowed More to be killed).  Ultimately, though, he decides that Christianity is not just about good intentions, but is about objective truth.  To downplay the significance of ideological disagreements is to downplay the significance of that objective truth.  And if we aren't committed to objective orthodox Christian truth, our churches will devolve into thin-blooded social community centers with a vaguely religious feel (as, alas, has happened to many Catholic parishes today).

I'm glad to have found the Anglican Identity blog, because it appears to be a voice that values the truth instead of simply crying 'peace, peace' when there is no peace.  Such a voice has become rare in modern times.

Happily (for me at least) such counter-culturally orthodox voices seem to be more common among the leadership of the Catholic Church.  They also, for better or for worse, seem to be becoming less common among Anglicans.

Areopagitica

My first post is on a topic that's a bit obscure and only indirectly related to Catholicism, but this is my blog and I'll post what I want to!

I overheard (actually over-read) friends talking about Areopagitica, so I looked it up online and read it (actually heard it, in an audio recording by LibriVox).  For those of you who, like myself, hadn't heard of Areopagitica, it is a pamphlet defending a free press, written in 1644 by John Milton, the famous English author of Paradise Lost.

I wanted to write on Areopagitica for a few reasons:

• To collect and organize my thoughts.
• To record my thoughts for future reference.
• To spare others from having to suffer through this garbage.

To be clear, I want to say that I am a firm supporter of free speech and a free press.  It would be absurd to condemn a free press while I publicly say whatever I want on my own blog.  I also believe that the truth has nothing to hide, and an open discussion of all ideas will help us find that truth.  And certainly, as I notice the anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, and anti-life direction that society often seems to be heading, I'm very interested in making sure that I won't be arrested for speaking about my faith.

My complaint with Milton's work isn't that he's advocating for a free press, and it isn't that he would allow for some frightening restrictions on a free press (restrictions such as not granting freedom of speech to certain people he disagreed with).  My complaint is that his very first argument is a complete fallacy: his logic not based on a logical premise, it's based entirely on personal prejudice.  The foundation of his argument is anti-Catholicism.  In a nutshell, he says:

1. Catholics are always wrong in everything they do.
2. Catholics have engaged in censorship.
3. Therefore, censorship is wrong.

His second premise is actually presented differently: he claims that Catholics invented censorship, even though he mentions that Protagoras was banished from ancient Greece and his books were burnt, and that Julian the Apostate forbade Christians from reading heathen philosophy.

Because the first premise is unsupported anywhere in Areopagitica, the argument fails to convince anyone who doesn't start with Milton's bias.  In all fairness, Milton's audience did share his bias (as do many people today), but that doesn't excuse his intellectual laziness.  From someone of Milton's reputation, I was hoping for an argument with more intellectual vigor than "Usury must be wrong because the JEWS did it!!"

An intelligent reader, mistaking Areopagitica for an intelligent work, may accidentally think that Milton is making the following argument, which is worthy of a response:

1. Censorship is wrong (a premise to be supported by the rest of the work).
2. Catholics have engaged in censorship.
3. Therefore, Catholics are wrong.

To dispute this argument, I would like to consider the type of censorship that the Catholic Church engaged in (or believed she was engaging in).  The Church condemned and forbade heresies, that is, false ideas which are dangerous to the soul of a believer.  This can be compared to a parent who prevents his child from watching violent or pornographic material.  Every parent has not just the authority, but also the obligation to protect his child from harmful material, just as the church (the mother of all Christians) has the authority and obligation to protect all her members.

Apparently, Milton even disagreed with (or didn't consider) this form of censorship: he quotes from the letter to the Thessalonians: "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good." and further from Paul's letter to Titus "To the pure, all things are pure."  He also suggests that, while the Ephesians were not wrong to privately decide to burn their personal books in Acts 19, others may have read the same works of witchcraft and benefited from it.  He doesn't say how a healthy Christian would benefit from reading witchcraft.  He also fails to mention that while everything may be permissible, not everything is beneficial (1 Cor 10:23), or that 'the eye is the lamp of the body' (Matt 6:22-23), and we must be careful not to cloud that lamp with evil.

Many Christians (Catholic and Protestant) are members of 'accountability groups' which exist to prevent members from engaging in certain behaviors or exposing oneself to harmful material such as pornography or false teachings.  No government has the authority to restrict the ideas of its people, but, as Christians, we should submit ourselves to an authority that will let us know what we need to stay away from.  Flying solo (or 'leaning on our own understanding' (Prov 3:5)) is, as always in Christianity, a recipe for disaster.

Despite the many flaws of Areopagitica, Milton does provide some valuable ideas, such as the following:

• Virtue and Truth are stronger when they must defend themselves, which won't happen when lies are silenced.
• Falsehood is spread more often through verbal teaching, which can be done without the aid of books.  Restricting books won't prevent the spread of falsehood.
• Many good books, including the Bible, contain dangerous ideas.  It would be impossible to censor all evil without also censoring much good.
• Books which would be harmful to one person may not be harmful to another, wiser person.  This argument, however, would allow for some things to be prohibited to the general public.
• Forcing right behavior (or ideas) inhibits virtue, because virtue requires the possibility of doing evil.
• The process of licensing will impede the progress of knowledge.
• If the censors are fools, censorship will be even more harmful; if they are wise, their talents would be wasted in the job of censorship.

At the end of it all, here are my thoughts: political censorship is always wrong.  Religious censorship has value when its purpose is the good of the laity and when the laity understand that purpose.  Areopagitica was as much about Milton venting his personal prejudice as it was about defending a free press.  Many of the arguments used in Areopagitica are less useful today, when free speech is not attacked by official political censors, but rather by the idea of 'political correctness.'

First Post!

Welcome, readers!

This is the first post on my first blog, so I’m not sure what to expect.  I’ve never been very good about writing regularly (my attempts at journals tend to fall flat), so the future of this blog is somewhat uncertain, but writing is always worth another shot!
The focus of this blog will be Catholicism.  I am a convert to the Roman Catholic Church, having joined about a year and a half ago, on the Easter Vigil (April 11, 2009), at St. John’s Catholic Newman Center at the UIUC.  I’m very happy to be Catholic.  I’m often amazed at the richness and beauty of Catholic teaching, and I would love to be able to reveal the richness and beauty of Catholicism to all those who are unaware it.  I also plan to confront a lot of the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.  There will also be more trivial posts where I complain about the lack of reverence in a lot of Catholic parishes today (do you realize how hard it is worship when, instead of an organ, your church has kids playing the kazoo!?!).

I joined the Church from Evangelical, non-denominational Protestantism.  I have been very blessed to with Protestant friends and family who, while they don’t agree with my conversion, have not been at all hostile.  I’m glad to be able to maintain a connection with the community in which I grew up.  Because of my past (and present) association with Protestants, many of my posts will be written with a Protestant perspective in mind.  A lot of posts will no doubt come out of conversations I have with Protestants.  Let me say in advance that I have great respect for my separated brethren, so please understand that if I ever cause offense, it is unintentional.

The decorations around here are still a little sparse.  I’m planning on getting some pictures and links up soon!

Pax vobiscum,
-Austin