St. Thomas Aquinas

Today is the feast day of St. Thomas Aquinas. I’d like to say something profound about Thomas, my favorite saint, but I’m feeling a little dopey today. However, many, many others have written profound things about him today; here’s a list.

First, Godzdogz has an excellent overview of his life and the importance of his work.

Next, science-fiction author Mike Flynn has a roundup of things Thomas had to say, and especially on the topic of science. They might surprise you.

Philosophy professor Edward Feser has a collection of things by Thomas and by others about Thomas that are worth reading on St. Thomas’ day.

Brandon has a thought of St. Thomas’ about how God illuminates our minds.

Lex Communis has a reflection on St. Thomas, and particularly on his poetry and prayers about the Eucharist—prayers that are still used by the Catholic Church to this day.

St. Thomas Aquinas, patron saint of students, philosophers, theologians, and (IMHO) software engineers, pray for us!

Stuff I’ve Been Reading

I’ve not been highly motivated to write book reviews over the past month or so, and so there are a number of books I’ve read that I’ve not reviewed. I thought I’d give ’em a mention and move on.

The Deathstalker Series, by Simon Green.
I’ve been working on this one for a while; finally got all the way through it. It ended much as it began: long on super powers, violence, and brightly colored mayhem, short on plausibility and character development. It isn’t the best space opera I’ve read, not by a long shot, but it provided a bit of diversion. The real question is whether I’ll ever feel motiviated to read them again.

Princeps’ Fury, by Jim Butcher.
This is a great series; it’s not as hip and ironic as Butcher’s Harry Dresden novels, but it’s outstanding high fantasy. I won’t bother describing it; if you read fantasy, go get a copy of Furies of Calderon.

St. Dominic: The Grace of the Word, by Fr. Guy Bedouelle, OP.
This is a biography of St. Dominic I picked while we were on vacation last August, and read a month or so ago. I’m sure there was some good stuff in it, but nothing particularly stands out in my memory. In particular, if I were unfamiliar with St. Dominic I’d start with a different book; this one is more an analysis of aspects of Dominic’s life than a description of his life and I think would be fairly opaque to anyone who didn’t know the broad outlines.

Neglected Saints, by E.I. Watkin.
I picked this one up in October, at Powells Books in Portland. It’s a series of short pieces on the lives of nine not very well-known saints, and was written in 1955. I was interested to read about the various saints, and particularly Blessed Jordan of Saxony, the second master of the Order of Preachers, but the author annoyed me a bit. The style at the time he was writing was to downplay any obviously supernatural occurrences in the lives of the saints—to either omit them altogether, or to include them with a bit of a sheepish expression. Given the far-fetched occurrences in some of the medieval hagiographies (did you know that St. Martha of Bethany ended her days in France, where she rid a community of a river dragon?), some filtering clearly needs to be done, but Watkin takes it a bit too far, I think. On top of that, he has an unpleasantly condescending attitude toward the medievals, referring to them as being like children. They had both their characteristic virtues and their besetting sins; ours are no doubt somewhat different. But that doesn’t mean we’ve any grounds for arrogance.

The Dominicans, by William A. Hinnebush, OP.
This is something of a biography of the Dominican order as a whole, from its founding in the early 13th century until the time of writing in the 1970’s; I read it as an assignment from my Lay Dominican formation group. It’s a short book, and rather dry, and useful, I think, more as a foundation for further reading than as a satisfying read in and of itself.

St. Edmund Campion, by Evelyn Waugh.
This is another book I picked up at Powells, and I enjoyed it thoroughly. Edmund Campion was a student at Oxford early in the reign of Elizabeth I, and for a time was the protege of one of her counselors, the Earl of Leicester. But as the sanctions against Catholics grew worse, and as Campion’s convictions grew, he fled England and was eventually ordained a Jesuit priest. After some years of study and of service, the order sent him back to England with a number of others, to minister to the those who refused to abandon their Catholic faith. To say mass or hear confessions was punishable by death, and he returned knowing that he would likely be caught and killed in short order—as, indeed, he was.

Brideshead Revisited, by Evelyn Waugh.
Having enjoyed St. Edmund Campion, I decided to give one of Waugh’s novels a try, and so picked up Brideshead Revisited a week or so ago. I never know what to say about real novels; but it kept me reading, and though it isn’t primarily a comic novel there was one passage that had me laughing harder than I’ve laughed at a book in ages. (For those who have read it, it’s the one where Cordelia discovers that Rex believes all of the absurd lies she’s been telling him.) I might well look up some more of Waugh’s work.

Mormonism

My friend Michael Cleverly sent me a book entitled Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction, by Richard Lyman Bushman (along with
God’s Mechanics, which I reviewed some time ago). It’s a brief book, unsurprisingly; I found it to be sympathetic yet balanced, accentuating the positives about Mormonism without whitewashing the low spots in Mormon history.

I read it with some interest, as we have many Mormon friends and acquaintances, Michael not least, and because my previous exposure to Mormon belief has been minimal. I once read a book on Mormonism, plucked from a friend’s bookshelf in a fit of boredom, that was written by an evangelical Christian of the Dispensationalist variety. It was a highly polemical work, and I’ve never regarded what I read in it as particularly authoritative. So far as that goes, I found the author’s Dispensationalism almost as odd as what he had to say about Mormonism. Consequently I received it gratefully, as an opportunity to correct (or verify) the things I think I know about the religion.

I don’t intend to talk about Mormonism as such here, though I may later; I’ll simply say that it’s different in many ways from what I believe, but that we Catholics could learn a great deal about dedication from them.

God’s Mechanics

My friend Michael Cleverly was kind enough to send me God’s Mechanics, by Brother Guy Consolmagno, S.J. Consolmagno is a Jesuit brother (not a priest); he’s also an astronomer, working at the Vatican Observatory. He describes himself as a “techie”; and he has lots of friends from MIT, the University of Arizona, and a wide variety of other places who are also techies—engineers, scientists, and the like. A fair number of them find his religious faith puzzling, and of those some are genuinely curious how a fellow techie can be religious. How does it work? What’s it all about? Why does he believe it, and what does he get out of it?

Brother Guy wrote this book to answer these questions, writing as a techie for other techies. As he’d be the first to admit (I know this, because he does so), he had to write it as a techie, rather than a theologian; as a theologian, he’s a good astronomer. More than that, he’s not writing to convince; he’s writing to explain.

The thing that surprised me most is how little I match the “techie” pattern that he describes. I mean, I’ve been doing software engineering for two decades, and I’m active in the Tcl/Tk community; surely this qualifies me? But my background is in mathematics and modeling, not in engineering or the hard sciences, and that’s the community he’s really addressing. Maybe it’s just that mathematicians are more used to dealing with eternal verities than engineers and scientists are, I dunno. More than that, though, Brother Guy was writing techies who aren’t religious, a group that I’ve never been in.

My only real complaint about the book is that I think Brother Guy is unduly harsh on Aristotle’s Physics. Newton’s physics are far more useful, but Aristotle wasn’t really addressing the same problem as Newton. But I digress.

If you’re a techie, and you don’t understand how I can possibly be religious, perhaps Brother Guy’s book will help you understand. How well, I’m afraid I really can’t say.

Reflections on the Joyful Mysteries

The Annunciation

Gabriel came to Mary, and announced to her that she would bear the Messiah; and she said, “Let it be done to me as you say.” In the same way, Christ comes to us, asking to come in; and we must choose to let him in or not. Sometimes we hear his knock, but do not go to the door; and all too often we do not even hear him, knock as he may.

The Visitation

Mary conceived; and shortly thereafter she went to her cousin Elizabeth, to assist her in the final months of her pregnancy. Just so, when Christ is conceived in our hearts he calls us to bear him to others in service as Mary bore him to Elizabeth.

The Nativity

In due course, Mary, a humble woman, gave birth to the Lord God Almighty. Just so, if we bear Christ in service to others as he directs, so will we bear fruit beyond all that we can imagine or understand. Christ is what we bear, and Christ is the fruit that results.

The Presentation in the Temple

Mary brought Jesus to the Temple; and there was met by Simeon. Simeon was a holy man who had been waiting patiently for his messiah for his entire life, trusting in the Lord to preserve him until that day. We must bear Christ to others; and among them will be those whom Christ has been preparing to receive us. Sometimes we will know those to whom we are going; but more often it will be a surprise. Indeed, often we will not know how others received Christ in us until we meet them again in Heaven.

Jesus and the Teachers of the Law

Mary and Joseph brought Jesus to Jerusalem, to the Temple, when he was twelve. And later, having missed him, they found him there in his Father’s house, doing his Father’s business. When we bear Christ to others, he will act; and he need not act as we expect. Instead, he will do more than we can ask or imagine. We are his instruments; it is not for the hammer to decide where the nail shall go.

And yet, when Mary and Joseph called to him, Jesus came and was obedient to them. Christ will never override our wills. We cannot say to him, “Do this,” or “Do that,” but we can say to him, “I will” or “I won’t.” Because he wills to use us as his instruments, we can thwart his purpose in our lives by refusing to be used—or, by insisting on being used as we see fit.

It was proper for Jesus to be obedient to his parents, for they were in authority over him. Just so, it is proper for us to be obedient to our Lord and King, and to seek to be moved by his will in all things. We must bear Christ with us where ever we go; and if we are ready to his hand we will bear much fruit.

The Catholic Church and Conversion

Whilst I was raiding the theology shelves at Powells Books in Portland, I came across G.K. Chesteron’s The Catholic Church and Conversion, which I’d not previously read. Which is to say, I sometimes felt like I’d previously read it, as it turns out that many of the Chesterton quotes one runs across from time to time originated here.

My own journey of faith has been rather different than Chesterton’s. His family were English Unitarians, and he came only slowly to Christianity, first as an Anglican, and then as a Catholic. I started out as a Catholic, became an Anglican, and then returned. So my experience is rather different than his, and large portions of this book seemed somewhat remote (although I enjoyed them anyway). But there is one passage that very much describes my feelings on re-discovering the Catholic Church and its teachings:

Nothing is more amusing to the convert, when his conversion has been complete for some time, than to hear the speculations about when or whether he will repent of the conversion; when he will be sick of it, how long he will stand it, at what stage of his external exasperation he will start up and say he can bear it no more…. The outsiders, stand by and see, or think they see, the convert entering with bowed head a sort of small temple which they are convinced is fitted up inside like a prison, if not a torture-chamber. But all they really know about it is that he has passed through a door. They do not know that he has not gone into the inner darkness, but out into the broad daylight. It is he who is, in the beautiful and beatific sense of the word, an outsider. He does not want to go into a larger room, because he does not know of any larger room to go into. He knows of a large number of much smaller rooms, each of which is labelled as being very large, but is quite sure he would be cramped in any of them.

The feeling Chesterton describes, of having stepped from a smaller world into a larger one, is very much the feeling that I’ve had for the past couple of years. The Protestant project, these days, seems to be, “What’s the minimum of doctrine we all have to agree on in order to be considered Christian?” Catholicism says, “Let’s be sure of everything we possibly can know.” And when you add the principle that truths known by divine revelation and truths known by examination of the world around us cannot, in the final analysis, be in conflict (for God revealed the one and created the other), the Catholic perspective takes in not only all of the world of faith, but also all of the world of science as well. Nothing true is alien to the Catholic mind, despite all of the foolishness one hears about the Church being anti-science. (Did you know that the Big Bang was first theorized by a scientist who was also a Catholic priest? True story.)

Lutherans and Catholics, Oh My!

There’s an interesting discussion going on over at Brandywine Books on Lutheran vs. Catholic understandings of repentance and “saving grace”. Phil expressed his understanding of what Catholics think, knowing he was unlikely to express it correctly, and much conversation has ensued.

It’s lovely to have a discussion like this with folks who really do want to understand, and aren’t simply trying to score points. Phil and Lars are Good People.

Amazing Clarity

While I was in Portland for the Tcl/Tk Conference, I naturally went to Powell’s books; and given my current interest, I raided the theology shelves. One of the books I found, with glee, was Frank Sheed’s Theology for Beginners.

I discover authors in two ways: sometimes I’ll just pick something up while browsing, and sometimes I’ll go looking for something because I’ve seen positive mentions from a number of different sources. And sometimes in the latter case, the book or author in question is hard to get a hold of. In Sheed’s case, I’d seen him mentioned by a number of writers whom I’ve come to trust, but I simply never found any of his books at the bookstore, and (having lots of other books to read first) never got sufficiently motivated to look on-line. Besides, there’s the thrill of the chase: it’s fun to hunt for things.

So anyway, I found it at Powell’s, read a few pages, and snapped it up, along with Sheed’s Theology and Sanity (which I’ve not yet read). And I am singularly impressed.

First of all, Sheed writes with the clarity of C.S. Lewis. It’s a clarity he earned, speaking and fielding questions in Hyde Park, and learning how to get across to all kinds of people. Second, where Lewis was inclined to emphasize “Mere” Christianity in his writings, Sheed is trying to convey the richness of Catholic Christianity in all of its fullness—and he does so clearly, thoroughly, and not at all dryly. Many things that I’ve come to understand in dribs and drabs over the last two years are all laid out neatly and in order. The book is fifty years old (and thus pre-dates Vatican II) but except for a handful of references to details of the Latin Mass it doesn’t feel dated at all.

Lewis famously described Christianity as a house with many rooms, and “Mere” Christianity a description of the whole house, or perhaps of the hallway between the rooms. If you’re a fan of C.S. Lewis you’re curious what they believe in the Catholic room, you could hardly do better than start this one book (which, I’ve just discovered, is available from Amazon).

Old News

I tried to post this yesterday, but my WordPress installation was having problems; probably everybody who cares has heard all about it by now anyway. But here it is.

This is big news—potentially huge news. The Vatican has announced a new provision for Anglicans to come into communion with Rome while retaining Anglican practice as much as possible.

There’s long been a pastoral provision for Anglican priests who become Catholic to be ordained as Catholic priests, even while married; and there have long been Anglican Use parishes that use an Anglican service modified to be in line with Catholic doctrine and canon law. Now there’s going to be something called “Personal Ordinariates.” I’m not quite clear on what that means, but what it seems to mean is that the Church will allow the creation of Anglican Use “dioceses,” headed by a bishop who is a former Anglican bishop or priest. I put “dioceses” in scare quotes because they aren’t diocese in the classic sense; they are clearly a special case.

The big question is the extent to which anyone takes advantage of this new provision. Many Episcopalians and Anglicans have chosen to swim the Tiber as individuals; there are many Anglican priests and even bishops who have done so. But there have been few congregations who have chosen to come over en masse, and hence few Anglican Use parishes.

Still, this is major news, and cause for rejoicing.