Modern Philosphy and the Reformation

Peter Kreeft has yet another book. This time on Hume. The introduction is here:

The typical three-stage bare-bones summary of classical modern philosophy is: Descartes' Rationalism versus Hume's Empiricism versus Kant's Idealism. All three are theories in epistemology. Most of the philosophy in that astonishingly rich two-hundred-year period between the publication of Descartes' Discourse on Method in 1637 and the death of Hegel in 1831, the period of classical modern philosophy, was concerned with epistemology. "Epistemology" means "theory of knowledge". (What is knowledge? How do we know? How does it work? How should it work?) It is probably the trickiest and most purely theoretical division of philosophy. Yet it is foundational, for any position you take in epistemology will always have consequences for, and make a great deal of difference to, all the rest of your philosophy: your metaphysics, cosmology, philosophical theology, anthropology, ethics, and political philosophy.

This is interesting to me. It is precisely the weak point of protestantism. They abandoned the balance between faith and reason that formed the foundation for all human knowledge. Luther and Calvin used reason to destroy whatever parts of faith they desired. Others came along and destroyed what they had built. By the time Descartes came along the need for a new foundation was clear.


I do agree that epistemology is "probably the trickiest and most purely theoretical division of philosophy". That is because we need to question our own minds. To question the way we ask questions. To take the things we have a psychological certainty about and ask whether that certainty is based on something that might be false.

We do this for other people. We can analyze a Jehovah's Witness or an atheist and we can figure out how he became so sure about things that are not true.But doing it for ourselves is way harder. Many of these beliefs are at the very core of our self identity. There is a huge risk in seriously asking them.


At the root of this is a lack of faith. We don't want to put our mist cherished beliefs up to scrutiny because we are afraid of what we will find. I know as a protestant I would have said that about Catholics but not about myself. I thought I had a very rational faith and I didn't think there were any question I was avoiding. I thought most Catholics were afraid to learn their faith because if they did they would become protestants. Catholics who had become protestants confirmed this for me. Their faith just didn't stand up if and when they dared to scrutinize it.


Then I found those who did the opposite. Those who asked questions about their protestant faith that I never asked. Amazingly enough they ended up Catholic. It turns out I was not better than those Catholics or Jehovah's Witnesses. I found it very uncomfortable when my faith tradition was being questioned. Again it was a lack of faith. I didn't trust the gospel of Christ to stand up in some form. I was afraid that if I applied rational skepticism to them all they would all be destroyed. I didn't call it fear. I called it faith. Having enough faith not to ask questions. Not about everything. Just about a few things.

But it is that personal connection we have to our own minds that makes epistemology so hard. I think something is clear but maybe not everyone does. Is it really clear then? I find that is the biggest barrier when talking with protestants. The natural human tendency to see their own mind as the center point. They believe that sin darkens their intellect but they don't quite grasp the full implications of what that means. That Luther's idea of using "scripture and plain reason" to destroy long settled doctrine is a recipe for disaster.

Looking For a Sign

Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."
 He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.

Mat 12:38-42

In today's gospel people ask Jesus for a sign. They don't really want one. Jesus essentially says No. I won't give you a sign. I won't force you to believe. Arguments are a lot like signs. They force you to believe something whether you want to or not. But arguments for the faith are not that airtight.There is always a way out if you really want one. Arguments for the church are similar. People who come asking for an airtight argument don't want one. God will not force one on them.

Dave Armstrong has a book called 150 Reasons I'm Catholic. Devin Rose is working on one called 50 Roads to Rome. They both sound like good books. They both try and look at the Catholic faith from many different angles and show how the amazing truth of Catholic church is evident by a wide variety or arguments. But none is airtight on it's own. The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church is a matter of faith. That is why it is in the creed. That means you will never get a simple, inescapable proof of that truth. Once you have that it ceases to be a matter of faith.

As a protestant I played that game for a while. I looked for escape routes and always found them. But there was a point at which I asked myself why I kept looking for ways out. Why not look for a way in? Over and over again I would reject a Catholic argument but be amazed by it at the same time. The idea that "if that were true it would be so awesome but it is not true". In fact, I remember the "too good to be true" objection launched against Christianity. If people thought protestant Christianity was too good to be true this was so much better.

Anyway, we need to keep asking when we look for signs or arguments if we really want them? Are we really willing to humble ourselves and obey? Sometime God makes us wait and suffer and demand a grace before He gives it. He wants us to want it bad before we try and proceed down that road.

NFP Story

With all the negative press the church is getting it was great to read this piece in the Detroit Free Press about the church and contraception. It even has a 7 minute video on the subject. The catalyst is a program the archdiocese is launching to educate couples about NFP. It sounds like the training is required to get married in a Catholic ceremony in the diocese. I have heard they got a new Archbishop there. I believe his name is Abp Allen Vigneron.

Meaning in Suffering

Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. Col 1:24

We got a good homily on suffering  on Sunday morning. The second reading came from Colossians 1. It was interesting because we had just read a story of St Kateri Tekakwitha who was beating herself bloody as a way of becoming holy. Of course there are many saints who did this. It is hard for us to understand. But suffering is that way. It is offensive to us. It is offensive to God too. So becoming holy does not make us desire suffering. It makes us desire other things more than avoiding suffering.

As a protestant the hard thing to understand was why we suffer at all. Our suffering was not part of the salvation story. Sure we accepted on faith that there was some reason for it but the reasons we could think of were not very strong. Sure one could imagine a public suffering might inspire people. But so much suffering was private and really not well understood by anyone. Yes, you would know your faith was real if it held up under suffering. But that seemed weak too. People who had no doubts about the reality of their faith suffered terribly. Just believe it does good because God allows it to happen. But do not believe it has any direct salvific effect.

The strange part is we kind of did believe that. I know when somebody died a horrible death we would often notice some very good spiritual fruit coming into the lives of those around that situation. We didn't have theological categories to explain it but pastors were aware of this reality.

So while the protestant error seems to correct itself by stealth in some cases there are others where it has grown into a larger heresy. That is the thinking that suffering is evil and avoiding suffering becomes the ultimate good. This leads to sentimentalism. If an all male priesthood causes some women to suffer because they can't be ordained then we need to change that doctrine. If the church's teaching on homosexuality causes suffering for same-sex attracted individuals then it has to change. Today we even find suffering being used as a justification for murder and/or suicide. Because protestants cannot explain why suffering has meaning many more people find these sentimental arguments convincing.

The Greatest Generation

Many have said the greatest generation that ever lived was the one that fought WWII as young men. I know most of the people that have said this are part of that generation but that is another matter. They did accomplish a lot. The number of big leaps forward in technology and society was amazing in the 50's 60's and 70's.

They took the experience of serving in the army and saving the world from Hitler by working together and following orders. They became quite willing to continue to work as a part of a large team. Big corporations and government departments were not considered bad places for the best and brightest to spend their entire career. The Catholic church was attractive too. The number of men and women choosing religious life was very high. Being a cog in a machine that was doing something good was an attractive proposition.

Most of that generation were quite religious. As I mentioned, many even choose to become pastors or priests. But where was their faith? They turned to God in time of trouble during the war but did they really see God as their salvation? It was more human accomplishment that they saw as bailing them out. Even those that chose a career in the church were often attracted to the church as a great human institution rather than as the instrument of God.

The member of this generation were the parents of the baby boomers. The baby boomers hated "the establishment" in a large part because they saw a lack of joy in their fathers who were company men. The fathers had given their lives to building large organizations and had been left unfulfilled at the end of the day. Rather than assuming the problem was something missing the boomers to throw away what was there and add very little. So they ditched the work ethic. The ignored morals. They broke down structures.

Now it might make a generation seem great when the next generation is so bad but how much blame should the parents get? I think quite a bit. Sure there were new technologies that made a difference but nothing impresses a young person more than true holiness. The fact that so many wrote off religion so easily tells me that all those faithful church goers were missing something in their walk with God.

We have to always remember that the means of grace are not the goal. God's word and sacraments are there to change us. They give us the opportunity to become holy. We still need to cooperate with the grace and actually live holy lives. Church is a tool. Even avoiding mortal sins is a tool. The goal is to grow the fruits of the Spirit. That is what will impress God and man. No gardener shows off his tool shed. He shows off his garden. But we do that when we feel smug about how much scripture we know or how often we go to mass. In today's gospel Jesus wants us to contemplate "I desire mercy and not sacrifice". Sacrifice is a tool. Mercy is the fruit. 

People measure this generation by their sacrifice. They attended mass. They entered religious life. They said their prayers. Great things to do. But did they allow those tools to till their hearts and produce a crop of love, joy, peace, patience kindness, goodness, and self control? If they did I don't think their children would have abandoned the faith they way they did.

It is a question for all of us who use these tools. Are they the end or the means? It is easy to get caught up just going through the motions. Are we really letting God change us the way He wants to?

Contraception and Abortion

There is quite a bit of talk about contraception going on in the Catholic blog world these days. One thing that seems missing is the link between contraception and abortion. The connection between the sacredness of life and the sacredness of the process that produces life. So if the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is holy then the process that produces that presence, namely the mass, must be holy. That means we can't manipulate the mass willy-nilly. We need to respect it and celebrate it as it was intended. Same thing with life. If life is sacred the process that produces life, that is sex, must be sacred. So we can't manipulate sex any way we want. We need to engage in it the way it was intended.

It is not such a stretch to believe that sex is sacred. We know it inherently. I found it to be one of the most surprising things about the sexual revolution. That sexual inhibitions were so hard to get rid of. Society has been mocking sexual morals and pushing a pornographic lifestyle for a long time. Yet most people see sex as special and more than just a way for people to pleasure themselves. They can't explain how it is special or why there are sexual morals but people know intuitively something is there.

So the sacredness of life implies the sacredness of sex. The sacredness of sex is confirmed in our hearts. Then it makes sense that we can't just change the sex act any way we like. We need to respect it. Respect the way it was intended to be. This should cause us to be very wary of inserting rubber devices into the sex act or doing surgery on a person's sex organs. We are treating something sacred as something ordinary. We are fiddling with our sexuality like we would a car engine.

Now taking a pill is less clear. You are not directly doing anything to your sex organs so it takes some honest reflection to see why that is not acceptable. But it becomes easier when you realize the pill is an abortificant. That it sometimes kills a child after conception rather than preventing the ovulation. So that arbitrary moral line people draw at conception does get crossed.

Can sex unite a couple even when they use artificial contraceptives? Sure. Sex can unite a couple who is not married. Does that make it OK? The depth of that unification is fully understood and experienced when there is openness to life. To make it just a short term thrill cheapens it. It says I want to embrace you minus your ability to reproduce. I want enough of you to give me pleasure but not the whole you.

Calvinism and Catholicism

Calvinists are a strange breed of protestant. Not everyone who attends a Calvinist fellowship but those who really love his intellectual system of theology. It has a certain appeal. The size and complexity of it. Even the fact that there are parts of it that are offensive. It is what you would expect when studying a big God.

Chesterton once said paganism was the biggest thing out there and Catholicism was bigger. Calvinism was my paganism. Too many people had faith that consisted of simple answers to complex questions. Calvin went deeper and put all the answers together in a way that made sense and seemed to fit the scriptures.

Catholicism was just bigger. Not by a little but by a lot. I read St Thomas Aquinas and I can never go back to the institutes. It impressed me before I considered becoming Catholic. They just seemed like they were drawing from a deeper intellectual well than everyone else. It includes aspects that Calvinism didn't. Things like sexual morality. Calvin was focused on justification and had simplified questions of moral theology to the point where the discipline does not even exist in the protestant world.

Calvinism is complex but not so complex a person can't grasp it. Catholicism is beyond human understanding. It has offensive elements but as you contemplate them they get less so. With Calvinism they got more offensive to the point where you didn't want to contemplate them at all. As a Calvinist I dropped theology for a good few years. Catholicism is so beautiful I can't imagine dropping it.

Calvin followed the logical implications of one doctrine into another. But he did it in an absolute manner. We are absolutely depraved. Election is absolutely unconditional. Grace must be absolutely irresistible. Calvin loved the absolutes. Catholics love the both/and. Faith and works. Scripture and tradition. Predestination and free will. It makes everything more complex and more human. Calvin had a very good understanding of God but not such a good understanding of human dignity.

In the end, learning to read scripture without assuming it is always talking in absolutes makes a lot of difference. We talk that way all the time. All people have 2 hands. Not absolutely all, there are amputees. But normal speech allows for that. When I realized that many of the absolutes were only read as absolutes due to my tradition then Calvinism seemed a lot less biblical. Other passages made a lot more sense as well.