2017-08-08T15:57:34-05:00

The sad case surrounding baby Charlie Gard has led the Vatican to issue a statement in defense of the medical community. While it is understandable how and why parents might not want to admit the facts surrounding their baby, doctors, who are much better trained and know what is and is not possible, need to be heeded so that baby Charlie does not end up suffering needlessly due to the unjust expectations and desires of his parents.

Sadly, so many do not understand the issues at hand, and believe that Catholic teaching suggests we must hold on to earthly life to the bitter end, using any and every means possible to do so, natural or unnatural. This is not, and has never been, the case.[1] Life is a good, but temporal existence is not meant to be prolonged beyond reasonable measure. We are not to seek death, nor should we excuse the unjust death of others. On the other hand, we should not seek an unnatural prolonging of life in the world. A person should not be forced to live a life as an undead person, a life of perpetual death, where they face the forces of death always present with them while the good which is provided by death is never attained.  Death can bring us out of the pain and suffering of the world, and so it is not something to be absolutely feared; rather, like St Paul, we should always accept that death is indeed going to come for us and when it does, it does not need to be seen as a loss: “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (1 Philp. 1:21 RSV). Thus, we are to find that with our faith in Christ, we do not die in vain, we do not die without hope. In our death, we hope to find our rest in and with Christ, knowing that we can be received by him and resurrected to true and eternal life in and with him. “But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope” (1 Thes. 4:13 RSV). Death, then, can be a good, not because we were created for the sake of death as our final end, but rather, because we were meant for eternal life and death is the passage which we now have to face to get there. Death is what is able to bring us out of the calamities of temporal existence with all the hardship it brings, once we have truly come to the time when our life should be at an end. “The righteous man perishes, and no one lays it to heart; devout men are taken away, while no one understands. For the righteous man is taken away from calamity, he enters into peace; they rest in their beds who walk in their uprightness” (Isa. 57:1-2 RSV).

Knowing this, we know we should not idolize temporal existence, thinking it was what we were always meant for and so should be preserved at all costs. Even if there had been no sin, temporal existence would have only been the beginning of our journey; we were always meant to go beyond it, into eternal life. God became man so that man can become God: the goal God had in store for us was communion with him and participation in his eternal life. The incarnation takes that normative goal and adds to it all that we need in order to attain it because of the harm that sin has caused us in our lives. If we ignored this transcendent goal, and thought that the life, the immortality, which was meant for us was merely prolonged temporal existence, it is easy to see how this will make us try to continue on with that goal, prolong and stretch out our earthly life, and in doing so, cause ourselves great harm, for we will have the same life-force in us, but now being used and stretched out longer and so quite thin in the process.

This, then, should explain why we must not do anything and everything possible to sustain earthly life when it can no longer continue, and death is at hand. If we take someone who is dying, and find a way to keep their life force stuck in their mortal coil, for however long this last, they will find themselves in a living death, which will be full of suffering without any of the good of life itself. This is why there cannot be any expectation or requirement to unnaturally prolong their earthly existence: it is fine to let them experience the peace found in death. This is not a rejection of life, but the realization that their life has already come to an end; their time has come, and all that is being done is preventing the last elements of life from going forth its natural way with them, causing them to live in and of the world in a ghastly state, not truly alive, not truly free. Forcing them to go on in such a state is not pro-life, but rather, pro-death, because it brings the powers of death into the temporal real, incarnating them, and making people face it in perpetuity until at last, they are let go and free to die. As long as they remain in such a state, the suffering of life, but not the joys, continue on with them; who could be so cruel as to force them to live that way, if that is all that they will ever have? It is not natural, it is not good; it can even be said to be torturous and therefore sinful to force them to persist in such a state without allowing them to experience the good of death itself.

Doctor Who Cyberman by Jordanhill School D&T Dept (Dr. Who Exhibition at the Kelvingrove) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Doctor Who Cyberman by Jordanhill School D&T Dept (Dr. Who Exhibition at the Kelvingrove) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
What is said here must not be misunderstood. We are not to actively go out and kill someone, but neither must we actively seek to prolong the misery of life through artificial means, turning against the very meaning of life by doing so. Suicide and euthanasia are unjust because they use unnatural means to bring about death which had not yet been reached. They contravene against nature, seeking to destroy something which is still thriving; it is of the same madness as is found in those who will torture people to life through artificial medical means.  Cybernetic implants, imitating the functions of live, do not provide true life, if all they do is replace the bodily functions of life without including the spiritual nature of life with them. This is greatly explored with the Cybermen in the television series, Doctor Who, were people find their bodily parts replaced by bits and pieces of technological upgrades; through the process, very few of their original bodily elements remain, very little of what made them human can be found; and yet the upgrades do not come without a cost; the process drains them of their spirit, they become almost like machines themselves, with whatever remains of their humanity suffering the indignity of being forced to accept their transformation through programming which demonstrates the final dissolution of their personal being: they are hooked up to a machine which will not live them die – nor be themselves.
Nazgul by Danijel on DeviantArt [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Nazgul by Danijel on DeviantArt [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Likewise, Tolkien, in and with his Ring-wraiths, the Nazgul, demonstrated the perversity of trying to hold on to life at all costs, for the Nazgul once were nine great men, great Lords, who had been seduced by the promises of Sauron. They lived, and were given a simulacrum of immortality, but in doing so, they find their lives merely stretched, not made greater, so that they existed as mere shadows, living in death, unable to die but also no longer truly alive. This, Tolkien was able to explain, as Gandalf explained who the Nazgul were to Frodo, as he explained that there were once human Lords who received a great ring of power from Sauron:

‘In Eregion long ago many Elven-rings were made, magic rings as you call them, and they were, of course, of various kinds: some more potent and some less. The lesser rings were only essays in the craft before it was full-grown, and to the Elven-smiths they were but trifles — yet still to my mind dangerous for mortals. But the Great Rings, the Rings of Power, they were perilous.

‘A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he does not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues, until at last every minute is a weariness. And if he often uses the Ring to make himself invisible, he fades: he becomes in the end invisible permanently, and walks in the twilight under the eye of the dark power that rules the Rings. Yes, sooner or later — later, if he is strong or well-meaning to begin with, but neither strength nor good purpose will last — sooner or later the dark power will devour him.’

‘How terrifying!’ said Frodo.[2]

Thus, Tolkien and Doctor Who both express the horror which must be rejected, a horror made possible by those who misunderstand what life is and what death is, and who will fight the end of temporal existence by any and all means. Likewise, both demonstrate what becomes of such a person: they become, as it were, an undead force seeking to convert others to be like them, an evil wraith incapable of free thought as they find their activity all works for the prolonging of their worthless existence.

Certainly, this is not to deny the good of the medical profession, nor the good which is had by those whose life has been preserved through the hands of a good doctor. Medicine is good so long as it brings about healing, so that it improves the quality and not just the quantity of life. Neither the good of life, when it remains, nor the good of death, are to be rejected – each have been given to us as gifts. Sadly, so many get confused, and either embrace ghoulish existence as life, and force such undead existence upon others, never allowing them rest, or others see no value in life, and are quick to kill of those who truly could thrive again. We must act with prudence, not ideology; nihilism became a problem as hope was drained from the world, but we must remember, its inversion is also an ideology which must be rejected, for it too knows no hope, no hope for the dead. Christians, having rejected the temptation of nihilism, have now found themselves tempted by its inversion; let us never fall for it.  “A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death, than the day of birth.  It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting; for this is the end of all men, and the living will lay it to heart” (Eccl. 7:1-2 RSV).


 

[1] The Vatican, therefore, has made it clear that basic, normative care is to be expected, but extraordinary care which hurts the patient and is of no benefit to them is not. Thus, we read in commentary to the CDF’s Responses to Certain Questions of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Concerning Artificial Nutrition and Hydration, “On the other hand, this duty in general includes only the use of those means which, considering all the circumstances, are ordinary, that is to say, which do not impose an extraordinary burden on the patient or on others.” Disproportionate means are not expected. Ron Hamel, PHD, Director of the Catholic Health Association in St Louis explained that this meant, among other things, extreme physical discomfort could create the situation in which even normative means are impossible and cannot be forced, but this has to be determined in a case by case basis with actual proof of the harm being done. In the situation with Charlie Gard, this is exactly what the medical community has done.

[2] J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring in The Lord of the Rings: Collector’s Edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966), 56.

 

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook:

A Little Bit of Nothing

2017-05-29T05:37:39-05:00

Grendel by J. R. Skelton [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Grendel by J. R. Skelton [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
In medieval lore, various so-called monsters became famous, with Grendel from Beowulf being one of them who is remembered to this day. The question of his origin was raised in Beowulf, and in the text, it was suggested that he came from the line of Cain:

Even thus did the men of that company live in mirth and happiness, until one began to work deeds of wrong, a fiend of hell. Grendel was the grim creature called, the ill-famed haunter of the marches of the land, who kept the moors, the fastness of the fens, and, unhappy one, inhabited long with the troll-kind’s home; for the Maker had proscribed him with the race of Cain. That bloodshed, for that Cain slew Abel, the Eternal Lord avenged; no joy had he of that violent deed, but God drove him for that crime far from mankind. Or him all evil broods were born, ogres and goblins and haunting shapes of hell, and the giants too, that long time warred with God – for that he gave them their reward.[1]

The implications of this is that, contrary to the most literal and simplistic understanding of Genesis, Noah’s flood did not encompass the whole of the world, for how else could someone with Cain’s blood survive and end up producing the family from which Grendel was to be produced?

Beowulf is famous for trying to merge traditional lore with Christian theology, causing complications such as how and why Grendel was able to be born, but it also shows us that Christians have long tried to merge together the Christian faith to what was known, or believed to be known, from history and even scientific research. Scripture was taken to proclaim the truth, but it was understood to do so in a means which was different from pure history, that it took theological themes and encased them in mythic form. The discussion and debate as to what was to be taken literally and what could be taken as mere allegorical myth can be seen from the earliest stages of Christian history, and different authors, different authorities can be shown to hold different conclusions while remaining united in the Christian faith. Extreme literalism with Scripture was not seen as a necessary component of the Christian faith, and indeed, often seen as to contradict the spirit of the faith and had to be undermined as a result.

St. Augustine, recognizing the difficulty involved in the interpretation of Scriptural texts, tried to preserve their literal meaning, though he did so in a way which differs from what moderns mean by the notion. For him, as with many who followed after him, the literal value of the text is the meaning the author intended (while other meanings and values could be put in it beyond their understanding, thanks to the direction of the Holy Spirit), which sometimes, often, indeed most of the time for Augustine, was based upon a historical reality. Augustine tried to preserve the notion of a history which existed as the basis for Scriptural texts, while acknowledging that reading them without proper hermeneutical strategies would lead people astray: he was not literalist in the modern sense of the term, even when he presented the text and tried to preserve it as a source for historical knowledge. As there were significant limits to the knowledge of world history, many presumptions he used turned out to be wrong, yet how he used those assumptions provide us strategies and methods which we can use for engaging Scripture today with contemporary science and modern historical knowledge.

The question of monsters, of those who were different, was presented in The City of God as both something to wonder about and be amazed, but also as a way of showing how humanity itself can change over time, creating not just individuals who differed from the norm, but whole societies which take on such changes and make for radically different forms of “humanity” as a result. That is, Augustine was able to see God as working evolutionary change within humanity to produce such changes which we would now describe as evolutionary mutations, and he saw how they could result in some radically new creation, that is, what we would describe as speciation.

Augustine, therefore, differs in part from the author of Beowulf as to how to understand the origin of Grendel and any other such monsters which were known to exist in the world. While he agreed that they came from the same root, Adam, and so he wanted to declare them to all be human (and thus not be discriminated against), he did not think they had to come from the bloodline of Cain, so as not to have to deal with the question of Noah, but more importantly, as a way of showing that they should not be seen as morally degenerate and evil just because they were different.

Thus, when Augustine talks about so-called monsters, about those marvels who are unusual, he saw they could be said to be wonderful because of their unique status in the world: “What is clear, however, is that nature produces a normal type for the most part, and a thing is wonderful only because it is rare.”[2] With this as a realization that these unique persons, these monsters which were often believed to represent some foreshadowing of change for humanity, indeed, a divine sign which should be properly explored and understood (not all such signs had to be seen as indication of some great evil was to occur). Augustine, then, unlike many later medieval, did not assume the worst when such monsters, such signs, were evident in the world, and his words should be used to show why any discrimination against someone because they are different from the rest should be rejected; when he talks about monsters, he is not assuming any moral quality to them, but only sees them as marvels which show up in the world and must be seen as a thing of wonder. Augustine did not want readers to assume negative connotations with the word, monster, and so we must take that in consideration when he read him talking about them. This we can see when he wrote:

Just, therefore, as it was possible for God to create any natures He chose to create, so it is no less possible for Him to change any qualities He chooses to change in any natures He chose to create. This, then, is the root from which there has grown the whole forest of portents which the pagans have called monstra, ostenta, portenta and prodigia. There are so many that merely to recall, let alone relate, them here would make it impossible for me to ever finish this work. A monstrum (from monstrare, to point to) means a marvel that points to some meaning. So, ostentum (from ostendere, to show) and portentum (from portendere or praeostendre, to show ahead of time) and prodigum (from porro dicere, to declare things a long way off) all mean a marvel that is a prediction of things to come.[3]

2017-04-12T14:17:05-05:00

Brad Dourif, who played Wormtongue in The Lord of the Rings. Photograph by Diane Krauss (DianeAnna) (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) or CC BY-SA 2.5 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5)], via Wikimedia Commons
Brad Dourif, who played Wormtongue in The Lord of the Rings. Photograph by Diane Krauss (DianeAnna) (Own work) CC BY-SA 2.5 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5)], via Wikimedia Commons
After all the debate over the so-called Benedict Option,  I decided to invite Grima Wormtongue to offer his own advice for the future of Catholicism. Today, Spy Wednesday, he got back with me and offered the following words:

The world is a mess. Danger lurks everywhere.  Evil is winning.

Look. The world is changing. Everything you knew about the world of your youth is gone. The landscape is all different. Evil is afoot.

There is really nothing much you can do about it. Stop trying to fix the world. It’s outside of your control. Most of the world will be taken over by evil. Accept it. Stop letting your pride think you can do something about it. You can’t.

There is something you can do. It is not all hopeless. The world might give way to evil, but you can encase yourself in your own intentional community, holding up against the evils of the world as you preserve yourself from its evil influence.

You should not seek out for what you can do for others. Stop thinking you can help them out. They are a lost cause. Rather, seek to bring your people together and in create for them and yourself a small little stronghold of the good.

Anyone who asks for your help, turn away.  If you help them, they will be using resources which you and your community needs.

Think this through.

You are old. You have done your duty for others, now is the time for you to rest.

Is it your fault it is now a dark time, and the world is falling apart? No. You have done what you can for the world. You have done good. But now it is time for you to retire.

Those who would pick your bones and grow fat on your resources claim they want to go to war to save the world, but all they would do is live off of you as a parasite, as the world crumbles around us.

There is nothing you can do to save other communities. Once you understand this, you can truly get to work with your one last good. You can build up your own small community and protect it against all outsiders. Be kind, welcome those who are willing to join your community if they have something to give to you, but be cautious, and avoid anyone who comes seeking help. They will come and take and take and take until you have nothing left. Then what will you do when the enemy comes for you? Those who truly care for you will ask for nothing and will give of themselves to help defend our community.

Do not tax yourself with the worries of the world. If people come asking for your help, turn them away because of the evil they would bring to our community. You have earned your rest. Go, take your meat, and eat. It is yours. You have earned your keep.

But if you truly feel you must go out, if you feel the need to heed the call and help someone else one last time with your waning strength, go if you must.  But remember, I am here for you. Let me take care of your community. I will protect it for you. I will make sure it thrives while you are away. No, I do not recommend going, it is best we keep to ourselves, but if you must go, if you must use up your last remaining strength, know everything is in good hands with me. I will make sure everyone gets what they deserve. I will make sure they will survive, away from the darkness, preserved here, in our bastion of hope. The world outside might perish, but we will survive, and once the time of darkness is over, we will then be free to go out in the world and render it our light.

— Thank you Grima!

 

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook:

A Little Bit of Nothing

2017-02-20T06:48:19-05:00

Jesus Christ from Hagia Sophia. Photograph by Edal Anton Lefterov (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Jesus Christ from Hagia Sophia. Photograph by Edal Anton Lefterov (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
There are several purposes for which Holy Scripture can be used.  First, it is to reveal the Word of God, Christ, in iconographic form. Its texts, when collected together, establishes the foundational image the church uses to proclaim the truth of God revealed in Jesus Christ. The book, when looked as a whole, points to Christ, so that all of it can be said to speak of Jesus. The Torah, and with it the prophets and wisdom literature which emerged from it, therefore represents Christ, and to understand Christ is to see him in the Torah and the Torah in him: the Word made flesh. “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me” (Jn. 5:46 RSV). Likewise, the New Testament continues the testimony of Jesus, revealing not the foreshadow and preparation for his incarnation, but for the actual event itself. That is, the New Testament presents to us the eschatological one incarnating in time and becoming man, acting in and with us, revealing the fullness of the kingdom of God through his words and deeds.

Another purpose for Scripture is to reveal the history of humanity working and struggling with God. From its stories, we learn what it means to wrestle with God, both in the way humans struggle against the wishes of God, but also, what it is like to have God by our side as we fight against the fallen spiritual powers which dominate the world and try to keep it separate from union with God. We see in it God interacting with humanity, leading humanity to some great goal. We also see many instances of God willingly make room for humanity, to let humanity make its own destiny and become whatever it would like to make of itself. We see in it the power of God which is established through his love as well as the grace God is willing to extend to humanity through his providence.

If we read Scripture as representing history, we must be careful and not assume it to be history in the modern, positivistic sense, but in the mythic sense, revealing the developing self-awareness of the People of God. It is in this light it is understandable that opinions and beliefs will change and develop, and so within the text, apparent contradictions will be seen.  The contradictions only qualify as such if Scripture is understood purely as the letter and all that is in it is to be interpreted following the most unsophisticated and hyper-literal form possible, and every text, in and of the letter of the text, is believed to have equal value and authority.  There is an internal cohesion which unifies the text, transcending the particulars but seen through them, just as our beliefs and practices in our youth will look superficial and contradictory to what we believe and understand as adults, and yet they are part of the stages which lead to our adulthood and what we believe to this day is connected to what we believed before.

Likewise, Scripture is also intended to help guide us in our lives, to grant us wisdom which we can use to help us act prudentially in our daily activities. Prudence is necessary, and Scripture provides the means by which we can receive that prudence, for provides the examples and moral foundations by which we can establish principles for today. Here, again, an overly literal understanding would be a problem, for it would lead to the kind of legalism which turns guidelines into absolutes, not understanding the difference between the two, and so overburdening the reader with a collection of laws which no one could fulfill. The fact that when the text is read in a legalistic manner, it becomes difficult to understand how and why the same actions can be approved and condemned in Scripture, should demonstrate that such a simplistic reading is not intended of the text. As Origen and many others have indicated, such apparent self-contradictions on the surface level should be evidence enough that the text is to be read in a different manner, if the text is to be properly understood.

Finally, Scripture reveals how we are to be saved, but also, what happens after, our union with God. To discern what the text indicates is necessary for salvation requires more than reading one or another verse talking about salvation, but to read them all together, to see what they establish when brought together as one whole, lest we end up ignoring various expectations Scripture gave us for our salvation.

While not a conclusive list, these purposes serve as the basic foundations for a Christian theological engagement with Scripture. Certainly, in our exploration, we can engage the texts with various critical methods. We can examine the texts within it  with historical-critical eyes, looking at Scripture like an archeologist, seeing differences of opinions and theological understanding over time; we can see how texts were written and edited together by a later redactor who sometimes radically modified the text, and find things of interest which emerge as we see anew the past, but like Tolkien with Beowulf, we must understand the core interest must remain as how the church has brought the text together, edited together through the centuries, modifying it until it fit the icon it wanted to make, and engage that core, finalized text as our point of entry.[1] Realizing the history of how it came to be written and brought together as one final text does not discount the authority of that final form, just as it does not undermine the final form Beowulf has taken as being the authoritative form of the text. To try to discount its finished form because of the tinkering which went in to its production would be like discounting the final, printed form of any text which has undergone a series of drafts before a final, polished form is used for publication. As a good story-teller, the church collected a variety of texts to present its intended meaning, engaging what had been rendered to it while purifying and polishing it to its own desired end.


 

[1] Tolkien, in his seminal speech and essay, “Beowulf: The Monster and the Critics,” was concerned with the kind of scholarship which had followed Beowulf; such scholarship tended to be interested in everything but the poem itself. He presented in it an allegory of the problem in which a house is made from old stones, but the house is not the same in its history and purpose as those old stones from which it was made:

I would express the whole industry in yet another allegory. A man inherited a field in which was an accumulation of old stone, part of an older hall. Of the old stone some had already been used in building the house in which he actually lived, not far from the old house of his fathers. Of the rest he took some and built a tower. But his friends coming perceived at once (without troubling to climb the steps) that these stones had formerly belonged to a more ancient building. So they pushed the tower over, with no little labour, in order to look for hidden carvings and inscriptions, or to discover whence the man’s distant forefathers had obtained their building material. Some suspecting a deposit of coal under the soil began to dig for it, and forgot even the stones. They all said: ‘This tower is most interesting.’ But they also said (after pushing it over): ‘What a muddle it is in!’ And even  the  man’s  own  descendants,  who  might  have  been expected  to  consider  what  he  had  been about, were heard to murmur: ‘He is such an odd fellow! Imagine his using these old stones just to build a nonsensical tower! Why did not he restore the old house? He had no sense of proportion.’ But from the top of that tower the man had been able to look out upon the sea.

J.R.R. Tolkien, “Beowulf: The Monster and the Critics” in The Monster & The Critics and Other Essays. ed. Christophe Tolkien (London: Harper Collins, 1997), 7-8.

Scholars interested only in the building blocks might note how the house uses stones for different purposes than they were used before, and so will ask the house to be reformed to meet the original use of those stones, ignoring the reason for the changes and the good of the new house itself. This served as a foundation for Tolkien’s desire to revolutionize Beowulf scholarship, to have more focus on the poem itself, and what it does in its own merit, and likewise, serves as an example of how other compiled texts should be examined. Yes, the parts can be of interest, but when brought together as a whole, the parts can be changed, and to look at them from their early use will fail to ignore those changes and what they establish in the new context.

 

 

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook:

A Little Bit of Nothing

2016-11-05T07:19:45-05:00

 Danse Macabre [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Danse Macabre [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Praised be You, my Lord,
through our Sister Bodily Death,
from whom no living man can escape.  – St. Francis of Assisi

Doctor Strange.

Strange as it might seem, Doctor Strange is one of my favorite comic books from my youth. I loved stories with magic, mystery, and the supernatural. D.C.’s House of Mystery and Swamp Thing, and Marvel’s Doctor Strange were my early staples. When both House of Mystery and Doctor Strange were cancelled, I would eventually find myself reading X-Men, Captain America, Spider-Man, Batman, and Groo. But the intrigue of House of Mystery and Doctor Strange would remain with me, with Doctor Strange being one of those comic book heroes whose stories would inspire me, in part, in the creation of my own fictional hero, Montague Chillingham. [1]

I have seen the old televised Doctor Strange movie, and thought parts of it were quite good, and it could have worked as a nice pilot for a series, but I also understood how poor the whole of it was and why nothing more came of it. When I heard Marvel was planning to eventually do a Doctor Strange movie, I knew they could get it right this time. I was somewhat disappointed at the choice of the lead, not because I do not like Benedict Cumberbatch but because I felt others would have served the role better.  I knew he could do the part well, and so it was not much of a concern. When they cast the Ancient One, like many others, I entirely disagreed with their choice – and I still do, not because Tilda Swinton is a bad actress, but because it radically changes the character for no good reason (as well as the problem of Whitewashing an Asian character).

Nonetheless, this is not meant to be a review of the film. Several people have provided their own views. As for myself, I thought it is good,  but not as great as it could have been. There were things I wished would have happened by the end which did not, thereby weakening the potential of the film and the tragedy of the end. They needed to have the conflict between Doctor Strange and Mordo more evidence to Strange himself, and I think they should have had Strange receive more direct indication of his destiny by the Ancient  One.  Nonetheless, the film is as expected with a Marvel origin story. It is entertaining, but at least for me, the greatness of Doctor Strange was not fully explored, and so the movie, as good as it was, suffered from my own expectations. But , it is also true, that the concerns I have are minor in relation to the film itself and are more personal because of my previous experience with the character than what the average viewer would have had with him.

What this is – is an exploration of one of the movie’s two significant themes. The first, which connects the second, is the error of humanity trying to dictate to the universe its own rules and order to nature because nature transcends what humans are capable of understanding and controlling. When we try to impose order, we create disorder, and with that disorder, suffering. Mordo in the film represents what could happen with someone with good intentions whose desire to maintain control through law and order finds out the rules they thought they knew were wrong. He then creates a new mindset, a new set of rules, a new law and order which he is willing to defend with extreme prejudice.

By Prishank Thapa [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
By Prishank Thapa [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
The second theme is that of life and death, knowing when it is appropriate to preserve life and when it is time to let life go and accept death. Doctor Strange, as a great physician, learned how to preserve life, to bring people back from the point of death itself, but even then, those he brought back were those who were capable of having life restored without any artificial means being used to prolong life once it is restored. That is, he knew how to help the body heal, to determine when death was not necessary, and so when he could save someone’s life so that they could have a life worth living.

The key is that life, when it is able to be meaningful and capable of being preserved, is worth saving.

But there are those who think life should be preserved by any means necessary, and the prolonging of temporal life is what is important, even if it means an increase in suffering through a meaningless existence. In the film, the main villain, Kaecilius, desires to have temporal immortality, and he has found that it is possible through the aid of Dormammu and the powers of the “dark dimension.”  Life, his life and those of his followers, could be preserved, but the cost is great – giving up the earth to Dormammu, and, as Doctor Strange came to realize, it would also come with great cost to themselves. They might be made immortal, but the life they had would be artificial, prolonged pain and suffering without any relief. They would preserve life, material life, at the expense of the spirit.

Kaecilius, however, knew something that Doctor Strange, Mordo and others would have to learn: the Ancient One was indeed Ancient, had lived thousands of years, but he discovered the means by  which she found  to preserve her life. She was drawing upon the power of the “dark dimension.”  This made her a hypocrite according to Kaecilius. And in a way, she is correct, but his answer, to embrace that which she fought against, clearly was not the answer. We are not told exactly how she extended her life, but we did see some of the cost which came as a result of her doing so. We see that it had in part, affected her;  though she has fought the darkness, it still found ways to come out thanks to what she had done. While she might have had good reason and tried the best of means to extend her life, and it was more natural than not allowing it to be on the side of the good, the evil still tainted her and so she still had to face the consequences of her actions. She still feared death. Yes, in a way, she had already accepted it; but she also had experienced a vision of when she would die, and she knew it would come, though it would seem she tried to stop it as long as she could. She did not want to face it. Since Doctor Strange was with her at the moment, it is likely she knew he would be there. Perhaps, more than what she told Mordo, this is why she first tried to cast Doctor Strange aside and not teach him: she knew his entrance into her life meant her death was coming sooner than later. She had to accept it was time to let go, but because she had kept her existence for so long, she was still too attached to her life, and so almost had the world suffer by not leaving behind Doctor Strange as her heir apparent. There is good in the preservation of life, but even with good motives, playing with life and death can still end up causing harm.

What we must do is learn to accept that when it is time, we should embrace death in order to have a good death. This is not to say that we should kill ourselves, that we should accept the annihilation of life through euthanasia when life continues naturally; but it means we must embrace death as the true end of our temporal life, that our life indeed has an end and in that end, who and what we are can be determined. Selfish artificial preservation of life creates pain and suffering and can be as wrong as the premature killing of someone who should not yet die (all forms of homicide). Accepting death as a part of life becomes a strength so long as it is not the nihilistic embrace of death. The proper acceptance of death is accepting life when death is understood as the last part of life. When we try to oppose nature and try to put the last moments of life in a kind of temporal loop, a suspended animation, we oppose life itself because we reject the order of nature which includes death.

Doctor Strange, the Doctor who had the miraculous ability to bring people back to full life when he was a surgeon, would have to learn to accept death itself. He did not want to fight. He did not think the fight was his. But he was called to it – the mission came to him. Like many called to be priests in the ancient world, he tried to flee from his vocation, but all around him the calling came to him, and in the end, it is when he was able to embrace death itself that he was able to save life and affirm his calling. He had to embrace death as a good, as a part of what it means to be pro-life; he had to accept his own limitation and that if his own death could save the world, he should give up his life and fulfilling his calling.  And so he embraced death – again and again and again and again – until the powers of darkness saw it was trapped by the final power of true life. Death conquered the darkness, and prevented the creation of hell on earth. In learning how to stop worrying about the fight, about trying to control life and death, and learning to love the value and meaning of death, Doctor Strange was able to save the world.  Death is a part of life; we cannot have life without death, nor death without life. We can’t embrace one without accepting the other. Focusing and embracing only one leads to an extremism which corrupts those who follow such a partial embrace of life and death. Only by thanking God for sister death and embracing death when the time has come for death does life truly get affirmed. [2]


 

[1] H.P. Lovecraft, Charles Williams and Conan Doyle had more direct influence in the creation of my fictional hero, I can see, after the fact, how Doctor Strange has also always been there in the background. One day, I hope to properly edit all my stories and publish them.

[2] Theologically speaking, it is because we are made for transcendence, for eternal life, not just temporal life, that makes death invaluable; prolonging of temporal existence is not eternal life, but its cruel shadow, as Tolkien demonstrated through the creation of the Ring Wraiths in The Lord of the Rings.

 

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook:

A Little Bit of Nothing

2016-09-12T05:59:11-05:00

Cairo Street by Henry Karlson
Cairo Street by Henry Karlson

It is often difficult for us to figure out our place in life. What are we supposed to do in it? Often, as the book of Ecclesiastes indicates, all we do seems to be in vain. Nothing seems to last. What, then, is the point? It seems all we leave behind is just rubbish. Do we just go about doing things without care for the good, taking life merely as a thing to enjoy when we are blessed by various pleasures? This, we find, was contemplated by the author of Ecclesiastes:

There is nothing better for a man than that he should eat and drink, and find enjoyment in his toil. This also, I saw, is from the hand of God; for apart from him who can eat or who can have enjoyment? For to the man who pleases him God gives wisdom and knowledge and joy; but to the sinner he gives the work of gathering and heaping, only to give to one who pleases God. This also is vanity and a striving after wind (Eccl. 2:24-26 RSV).

And yet, there has to be more, and in and with God, there is more. God’s eternity means his activity is eternal, and so what he does shares in that eternity:

He has made everything beautiful in its time; also he has put eternity into man’s mind, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.  I know that there is nothing better for them than to be happy and enjoy themselves as long as they live;  also that it is God’s gift to man that every one should eat and drink and take pleasure in all his toil. I know that whatever God does endures for ever; nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it; God has made it so, in order that men should fear before him.  That which is, already has been; that which is to be, already has been; and God seeks what has been driven away (Eccl. 3:11-15 RSV).

But does this not mean we can do nothing ourselves, that all we do adds nothing to what God has done? Again, our actions seem to be in vain. Nothing changes with God. So what can we do? We, who are in time, and see all we do fade away, end up asking ourselves once again, what is the use, why do anything? Should we just take pleasure in our meager existence and then vanish with everything else? Ecclesiastes shows the result of this line of thought:

So I hated life, because what is done under the sun was grievous to me; for all is vanity and a striving after wind.  I hated all my toil in which I had toiled under the sun, seeing that I must leave it to the man who will come after me;  and who knows whether he will be a wise man or a fool? Yet he will be master of all for which I toiled and used my wisdom under the sun. This also is vanity (Eccl. 2:17-19 RSV).

Part of the problem lies in our perspective. Even if what we do cannot change God and his eternal activity, this does not mean our actions are not taken into consideration by God in that eternal act. They are.  Even if in the world what we do seems to vanish, it is taken up by God and into his eternal activity.  What we do shall never be lost because it is brought into and united with God’s eternal work. It is able to be translated into the kingdom of God, because the kingdom of God is already within it. We can experience this in part now, but once our mode of experience changes, thanks to the resurrection of the dead, we shall no longer know it merely in its temporal reflection but in our own participation of eternal life.

Holding on to the temporal world and what is in it within its temporal modality will never satisfy; it will indeed always be in vain. Even the pleasures we gain satisfies for a short while before we get bored of them, and find ourselves once again feeling the world and all it has to offer is nothing. Only by establishing for ourselves “treasures in heaven,” that which lasts and satisfies us in eternity, can we find life itself is not in vain. “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matt. 6:19-21 RSV). Life is meant for us to give ourselves over to eternity. To make a suitable foundation for our eternal life,  we must prepare ourselves for that change. What is to be done is that which is good, that which points to and participates in the goodness of God; this is our duty, and if we do so, we will find God’s judgment will be rendered to us by giving us our share in eternal glory. “The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil” (Eccl.  12:13-14 RSV).

Establishing ourselves in the kingdom of God, preparing ourselves for eternity, will often look foolish and in vain for those whose sight is only upon the world of change. They will not understand. The will think what we accomplish is little, and the value of our achievement to be minute. While we might accomplish much which will appear great in the kingdom of heaven, its presence here, in the temporal world, will likely appear far less than it actually is. Certainly some of us will incarnate the glory of the kingdom of heaven more than others, and so for some, the greatness will be more apparent, but we must not put our trust in appearances. Sometimes it is that which is humble and low here, that which appears to be failure, is where we find the greatest success.

We should focus on our vocation, and do what we can with it. It should not matter if we appear to be a failure in the world. Even if it seems we have done little, it often will prove that we have done more than we ourselves realize and the greatness of our work will reveal itself in eternity. We know, from multiple examples in history, how many people have come to the end of their life and find their life’s work to have had little to no influence in the world, only to have that work later discovered and appreciated by subsequent generations, making their work to have major role in the shape of history. But even if what we do appears to be negligible, and no one comes to know directly the way our work influenced history, we might find in eternity what we did was like a rock thrown down a mountain which resulted in an avalanche.

2016-04-13T09:18:14-05:00

This post continues and concludes a theme begun in part 1, which can be read by clicking here.

The One God over the gods, the Lord over all the lords of the earth, cared for the earth and the people on it, especially the lowly, the needy, the dispossessed, the abuse, the disrespected, that is, those unjustly treated by the people and powers of the world. The people of Israel were close to the heart of God and directly cared for by him because of the injustices they had faced and experienced, and were told that because of what God had done for them, they should take extra care and concern for others. “For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the terrible God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner therefore; for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt”  (Deut.10: 17- 19 RSV). For this reason, the people of Israel got to know not just the powers that be, the angelic beings seen and experienced as gods by everyone else, they got a special revelation of the one God of gods, the God over all the earth, the God who not only ruled the powers that be, but created them, giving them their spiritual nature which allowed them to have such command over the things of the earth. Others, who had opened themselves up to the pathos of God, also, in their own way, got to know something of the one God, so that many from all over the earth followed not just the gods of the earth but looked for and tried to follow the one God behind them all.[1]

Baptistry in Florence. Picture by Henry Karlson
Baptistry in Florence, with angelic beings represented on it. Picture by Henry Karlson

The gods, the spiritual principles which lie behind the world and help govern and direct it, are able to be called gods because of their relationship with the One. While God is properly designated as God, it is more, as Pseudo-Dionysius explained, a title given to him, but which is itself underneath who and what he is; for he deifies and brings others in union with him: he is the source of divinity, of theosis, of deification, and so is called “God” but the title “God” is, as with every title, analogous at best at representing the One.[2] We are called to union with him, and so are to be called “gods by grace” if we let grace lift us up and deify us.[3] Angelic beings, because they are already united with God, therefore are also able to be called god, and when they are, it is a way to recognize how they reflect the one God who is the source of their god-like nature. Thus, as pure spirits, they are said to be “intellectual” in nature, representing divine ideas coming from the Wisdom of God, Sophia, constructing and guiding the material world, and as such powers which direct and guide over the world, they are called, by the people of the earth, the gods of the earth.[4]

The problem which emerges is that many of these spiritual principles, these angelic spirits, fell away from God, closed themselves off from God’s will, becoming the “fallen angels” or  “bad daemons” which continue to have some power over the earth and the principles which they exemplify. Certainly, as Peter Lombard explained, their authority to act with their natural power and ability is restricted due to their fall, but they still possess it and act on it in accordance to the limits God placed upon them.[5] For those who encountered such fallen beings, they seemed to be higher beings and often were confused as equals with the rest of the spiritual beings, and merged in with the pantheons of the world and became known as “gods,” receiving worship and honor which was not their due. Scripture therefore talks about the sacrifices given to “false gods,” to the bad daemons, pointing out how easily humanity was misdirected by these fallen powers.[6]

Therefore, we have two kinds of spiritual beings which have power and authority over the earth, and represent the principles from which the earth and nature are formed. The ancients, seeing and experiencing these principles, often more aware and directly experiencing them than we do today, worshiped them all equally as gods, and in their simplicity followed demonic powers, doing evil, thinking they were giving proper due to beings which deserved their honor and respect. Angelic beings, those who properly continued to be with God, and so are the gods in union with God, certainly deserved such respect and veneration as thanks for what they do for us, but without knowing which is which, without knowing which beings are good and which are not, such veneration could be dangerous and so the unfallen spiritual principles tended to remind any who experienced them to worship and adore the one God alone.[7] And yet, this is not to say no relative worship is to be given to the “gods,” but such worship must always be given in connection with and understanding of the relative nature of that worship, that it is not treating the angelic being as the absolute One but as one who participates and shares in graces which come from the One. [8]

This, then, sets the stage for us to understand who and what these spiritual principles are, both the angelic powers which remained with God and were often understood positively by the people of the earth as gods, but also the fallen powers, the bad daemons, which were also considered to be gods and who led many people astray. They both represent principles of creation, principles over the face of the earth, and the fallen powers, because of their disobedience, have caused great havoc and destruction over the face of the earth.[9]

Those fallen powers, those fallen spiritual principles, those fallen angels, are those which we are called to replace. We are to do this not just in the eschatological kingdom, but also here and now, on the earth, in world history. We are called to overturn them, overthrow them by casting them out wherever we find such fallen powers, and through grace, re-establish the principle they represent in and through our own actions and power over nature. That is, we are to engage those spiritual principles they represent and in and through ourselves, turn what they have made harmful and destructive, that which has been made a force for evil, to a force for good and harmony. We can do this, not just because we are spiritual beings ourselves, and so have ties to the spiritual principles, but also because God became man and have turned all of humanity into mediators of the new and eternal covenant. But even before the incarnation, this desire for humanity to serve as mediators between heaven and earth, overturning evil spiritual powers wherever they are found, can be discerned in the first chapter of Genesis:

And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Gen. 1:28 RSV).

Our subduing the earth is not to be seen as an act of tyranny, giving us power and dominion over the earth for the sake of our own selfish goals, but rather as the freeing of the earth from the fallen principles which misdirect it.  We are to subdue the fallen spiritual powers, the fallen angels or bad daemons which represent the fallen principles of the earth, and liberate the earth from the effects of the fall and lift it up to God, rendering the earth as our loving gift to God instead of treating it as a plaything for ourselves. This, then, is exemplified by Paul, who tells us we are not to war after flesh and blood, over the material world, but against the fallen spiritual powers which hatefully dominate and control the world for their own hateful end: “For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12 RSV).

We are, with grace and love, to go over the face of the world and subdue all the dark, evil powers, casting them out of their positions of power, allowing humanity to replace them in history as well as in the eschaton. It is, of course, a battle which is to be waged in history, and a battle which we must be careful and always remember it is God with us which allows us victory. The desert fathers, starting with St. Antony, represented this principle as they went into the desert to do combat with the demonic powers there, turning what was once a wretched wasteland into a city of God.[10] Likewise, the great saints and mystics, with the rest of the Christians following after them, slowly found themselves driving out the dark, chaotic forces which ruled the earth, freeing it for humanity. “Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out,” (Jn. 12:31 RSV), became the lived experience of Christendom. The guidance and rule of the fallen spiritual powers was to end, as humanity was lifted up by grace, and even the higher, spiritual principles, the unfallen angelic beings, were to find their position with humanity changed as humans as humanity founds its place next to them.[11]

But the battle continues, and will continue until the end of time. The fallen powers, as spiritual principles, though defeated, are not destroyed. While we replace them, it is possible they can come back and cast us off our seat of authority if we abandon God and try to take over the earth and subdue it for ourselves; for then, cut off from grace, we will face them as they return in greater force, with greater hate and destruction (cf. Matt. 12: 43- 45). Or, which is worse, we can, in our new position of authority, be left alone by the evil powers as they see we, in turn, take their path and follow them in evil, destroying the world in the process (exemplified by the woeful neglect of the earth which we see all around us today, decried by Pope Francis in Laudato Si’).[12] For if we are misguided by daemonic powers, the intention behind our error differs and the culpability is lessened, while if we follow through and take their place in evil, having turned away from the grace which we once had, the consequences and outcome of our actions will be greater and worse for ourselves (and the world, as revelation indicates about the “end times”).


 

[1]  Such are the holy pagans of the pre-Christian age, who often were called “Christians” before “Christ,” that is, they followed the truth of the Logos which they knew and understood, allowing them to be seen as following Christ, albeit imperfectly because they came before the fall revelation of the Logos as the Logos assumed flesh and became man in Jesus. This is the point St. Justin Martyr most famously made in his First Apology: “We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians, Abraham, and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias, and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be tedious,” St. Justin Martyr, The First Apology of Justin in ANF(1):178.

[2] “How could it be that he who surpasses everything also transcends the source of divinity, transcends the source of all goodness? This is possible if by divinity and goodness you mean the substance of that gift which makes [us] good and divine and if you mean the inimitable imitation of him who is beyond divinity and beyond goodness, by means of which we are made divine and good. Now if this is the source of becoming divine and good of all those made divine and good, then he who transcends every source, including the divinity and goodness spoken here, surpasses the source of divinity and of goodness, “Pseudo-Dionysius, “Letter Two” in Pseudo-Dionysius. The Complete Works. trans. Colm Luibheid (New York: Paulist Press,1987), 263.

[3] Jesus, therefore, acknowledged that we shall be called gods in John 10:34.

[4] Ficino expressed this point by saying, “On account of their natural, excelling unity, intellects are therefore called divine. And insofar as, collected into that unity, they thereby enjoy God also, they are at times called gods. For this reason, therefore, God Himself, who should otherwise be expressed [only] in terms of simplicity, is called both the first God of gods and the principle of universal divinity and deity,” Marsilio Ficino, On the Divine Names in On Dionysius the Areopagite: Volume I. Mystical Theology and The Divine Names, Part I. trans. Michael J.B. Allen (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2015), 179.

[5] That is, Lombard expresses a limit to the power of the evil, fallen angels based upon the boundary given to them by God and the good angels. They have more power or potential to control the things of the earth then they are allowed to do, but yet, as is known, they are not completely impotent, which is why their existence is known and felt. Thus, in the Sentences, we have the section, “That the evil angels have the potential to do many things by the strength of their nature which they cannot do because of the prohibition of God or of the good angels, that is, because they are not allowed,” Peter Lombard, The Sentences Book 2: On Creation. trans. Giulio Silano (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2008), 33 [I have rendered the capital text into normal text here for ease of reading].

[6] See Deut. 32:17, Ps. 106:37,  and 1 Cor. 10:20.

[7] We find this in the Apocalypse: “Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, ‘You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.’ For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Rev. 19:10 RSV).

[8] There are various examples in Scripture where such honor is shown to angelic beings, such as when Joshua kneels before the angel of the Lord:

“When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man stood before him with his drawn sword in his hand; and Joshua went to him and said to him, ‘Are you for us, or for our adversaries?’  And he said, ‘No; but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come.’ And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and worshiped, and said to him, ‘What does my lord bid his servant?'”  (Joshua 5:13-14 RSV).

This leader likely was Michael, the prince or angelic ruler set over the people of Israel (cf. Dan. 12:1).

[9] J.R. R. Tolkien, in his creation myth, expressed this point greatly by his representation of the fall. He had the Holy Ones, the Ainur, an angelic choir created by God, serving God with the production of beautiful music. Melkor, his Satan figure, thought he could do better and sought to make his own music, reflecting his own ideas, leading many with him to create a discordant response to the original music established by God (Eru). God was able to merge the two styles together to establish a third, more beautiful musical composition, but yet, their music, their songs, had consequences in the affairs of the earth, for it established the kind of place the earth was going to be. Each of the Ainur represented principles and nations of the earth, and their songs affected the way the earth and the peoples on it developed. This was made clear when Eru demonstrated to the Ainur the consequences of their music and the discord brought about by the fallen angels by showing the history of the earth, where the discord was seen represented by the dark, tragic side of the natural world and the various discord among the peoples and kingdoms of the earth. See J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion. ed. Christopher Tolkien (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1977),  15 -22.

[10] William Harmless showed how this principle was found in the life of St. Anthony as understood by his early disciples and followers into the desert: “Later, in the desert, Antony appears as a sort of spiritual land developer, taming the wilderness and reclaiming it from the demonic. No sooner did he take up residence in the desert fort than the reptiles that had lived there ran away ‘as if someone were in pursuit,’ and the demons loudly complained, ‘Get away from what is ours! What do you have to do with the desert?'”  William Harmless, S.J., Desert Christians: An Introduction to the Literature of Early Monasticism  (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 86.

What Antony had was a charism, a mission, to go out into the desert and subdue the demonic powers of the world found in it, and in doing so, he and his fellow monks and nuns saw themselves taking over and replacing the spiritual principles which the daemonic powers in the desert had once controlled.

[11] Angels certainly continue to help, and indeed, enlighten us when need be, and so continue to deserve our love and honor, but thanks to the incarnation, our position in relation to them has changed, the “childhood” of humanity is over.

[12] “‘LAUDATO SI’, mi’ Signore’ – ‘Praise be to you, my Lord’. In the words of this beautiful canticle, Saint Francis of Assisi reminds us that our common home is like a sister with whom we share our life and a beautiful mother who opens her arms to embrace us. ‘Praise be to you, my Lord, through our Sister, Mother Earth, who sustains and governs us, and who produces various fruit with coloured flowers and herbs’.

This sister now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her. We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will. The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life. This is why the earth herself, burdened and laid waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor; she ‘groans in travail’ (Rom 8:22). We have forgotten that we ourselves are dust of the earth (cf. Gen 2:7); our very bodies are made up of her elements, we breathe her air and we receive life and refreshment from her waters,” Pope Francis, Laudato Si’. Vatican Translation. ¶1-2.

2023-10-31T10:22:20-05:00

“God transcends all things, and so is not a thing. We should embrace God, receiving from God a little of the transcendent truth, a little bit of nothing, and use it to transform us and our interactions with each other.”

Henry C. Antony Karlson III has done considerable amount of graduate work and study in philosophy, theology, inter-religious dialogue, and comparative theology. He has taught at both Georgetown University and the Catholic University of America.

Henry is a Byzantine Catholic who not only is interested in Orthodox and Catholic theologians and philosophers, but also learning from people of every faith tradition. Patristics, scholastics, renaissance philosophers and theologians,  and Sophiologists are among his many influences. Similarly, J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis and their notions on myth have helped shape the way he reads and understands world religions.

Henry believes that a faith seeking understanding will also be an engaged faith. That is, it will be concerned with the practical applications of the faith. This had led him to be interested in and discuss social justice and contemporary news events as they connect to his faith.

Before establishing his own blog, A Little Bit Of Nothing on Patheos, he used to be one of many writers on Vox Nova. He has also had articles published or republished on other sites including Where Peter Is, The Interfaith Observer, Orthodoxy in Dialogue, and Eclectic Orthodoxy

Henry Karlson’s book, The Eschatological Judgment of Christ: The Hope of Universal Salvation and the Fear of Perdition in the Theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar, is available from Wipf and Stock.

 

 

 

Follow Us!



Browse Our Archives