Monday, July 21, 2014

Whats Your Perspective?

As a father of a large Catholic family, there is always an underlying anxiety about the financial goings on in the household. There always seems to be something that has not been budgeted for, some unexpected expense or desire that one may need or want. This can become a serious problem for many families. It breeds a tension in the household and a topic for argument. There are a couple of solutions to this issue:  The first is to be more flexible in your budget and the second is a change in perspective. There are presented here a couple of problems. The first is financial discipline and the second is an improper focus on what is good.
                In regard to the fiscal responsibility, there are numerous methods of keeping better track of spending and book-keeping. My goal is not to focus much on this aspect, because by finding the solution to the second, the prior problem becomes easier to handle. The second problem or question, “What should be our outlook in regard to money and having enough of it?” is an important one, because I find no matter how often I read or hear in a sermon the idea of “spiritual poverty”, I seem over time, to frequently become distracted and soon forget the ever important concept of spiritual poverty. Spiritual poverty is an idea of dependence on God for everything. I have also heard it presented, regardless of the quantity of money you poses, you should always seek the lesser in degree and fewer in quantity of everything you acquire. This topic would not be complete unless we reference our Lord in the Beatitudes, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom.”
I believe we can all agree that most people stress about money; it always come down to the idea or belief that we just don’t have enough of it. I want to pose another question to you:  What would you do if you were very wealthy? I know the term wealthy is relative, but I mean, what if you had an amount equal to say… Bill Gates?  What would you do with that money that you could not do now? Take some time to really think about it. In my answers, I mentioned a few things about travel, giving to the poor, and of course a few selfish interests. Next, take those things or activities and scale them down a bit and ask yourself, is there a way I can have these things, but in a modest manner? I bet you would find that most of the things you mentioned can be done at a degree much more simple than before. Lastly, take those items after you had given them a touch of humility and tell me, are they any less meaningful after you have pared them down?
When we have more and do more, it isn’t hard to start expecting that we need to maintain that degree of living. Let us take a new car for example. If I were to go out and buy a new passenger van that my wife and I have been wanting, there are obviously a number of things that come with that new vehicle: a car payment, more insurance, gas expenses etc.  In a few years time, that car would have many miles accumulated and because we had purchased a new one, we are spoiled to that comfort. Consequently, when the time comes to replace that one, a precedence has been set. We have just developed a standard of living that may or may not be realistic or wise. Another example like this is a new electronic device. With this you have: the cost of the device, the monthly expense for Internet and also any accessories to protect it. In a year’s time that device has become slow and out of date and must now be replaced with a new and possibly more expensive version. This concept is applicable to all things in life, whether they are fancy new clothes, shoes, tools, etc; the list is infinite. You can easily see that with increased goods and increased quality, our standards increase and can become idolatrous if not checked; we become slaves to our goods in a sense. I bet we can all remember a time when we got in a little over our heads financially; I can remember more than just a few. This is why it is important to teach our children at a very young age the concepts of mortification and spiritual poverty. Practically speaking, if your child has some money and wants to purchase something, try to convince them to either do without it or choose the lesser option as a mortification. The concept will stick with them and much fruit will be born from this exercise.
Epicurus, a philosopher in the fourth century B.C. is known for his idea on seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. This is where we get the term epicurean; which is one who seeks the finer things in life.  By reading this you may think that he sought after luxuriant things and lived the high life, this is actually not at all what he taught. His concept of pleasure wasn’t exactly what you think. By pleasure, he means the good and simple things; not some hedonistic approach to life. This term's meaning has been twisted over the centuries. He advocated a life that was simple and moderate; not too focused on any particular thing, especially food, sex or politics. As you can see, this idea goes pretty far back. It is easy to sometimes think that all our Christian ideas are novel; novel in the sense that they started in Christianity. I have recently been impressed to learn that many jewels of wisdom have been gleaned from the early philosophers and have been adopted by our beloved Faith.
To put a bow on this, I go back to the idea of perspective. What do I perceive to be good for me? What will produce the least amount of anxiety for my life? If we, as often as we can remember consider the teaching of poverty of spirit and seeking the simple and good, we will be able to eliminate a great deal of anxiety and stress about money in our lives. My recommendation to you is to get together with a friend, eat a sandwich, drink some home-brew and maybe go for a walk.  This is a modest replacement for going out to a nice restaurant, spending money on food you don’t need and time dealing with people you normally wouldn’t have to. Use your imagination; I’m in the process of redeveloping mine.
Pax



Saturday, July 12, 2014

"Basic Idea" of the Protestant Reformation

I am currently taking a course in Political Science that is currently talking about the original colonization in the New World. As I was reading some of the notes from the Pearson company to supplement the text I read a statement that was not entirely accurate and I felt it merited a critique. I posted this response on the course discussion forum to promote some dialogue. This is the gist of the post:

The statement,"The Protestant Reformation was based on the idea that individuals should be able to talk to God without going through a priest.", which is found in the notes, is inaccurate.
The Catholic church has never taught that a priest is required for a Christian to "talk to God". It does teach and encourage all Catholic Christians to pray directly to God about and for everything. However, the Church does have a Magisterium/College of Bishops who deliberate on issues of faith and morals and safeguards the Catholic Faith from unorthodox and unqualified interpretations of Scripture and Tradition. The "basic idea" of protestantism is rejection of authority, stemming from abuses i.e. selling of indulgences. This rejection of authority, lead to disunity, a branching off of Luther and his followers, which resulted in further sects branching off eventually causing 33,000 different protestant denominations, most of which claim to be Christs true Church.
This original statement is a common misunderstanding of the concept of apostolic authority. The basic idea was based on rejection and opposition of the magisterial authority due to abuses by the Church at the time. The subsequent objections of specific traditions and Dogmas of the Catholic faith, were only a result of this fundamental opposition of authority by Luther.
The common protestant objection of a mediator between God and Man in relation to certain Liturgical Sacraments i.e. confession, didn't develop until later. With this in mind, it doesn't follow and seems ironic that a group of people opposed to mediation would revert to system of government that utilizes representatives to mediate for them as its new model of governance.
A critique would not be complete without a solution, therefore I suggest changing the statement to something more accurate; something like, "The Protestant Reformation was based on the idea that reformers like Martin Luther, John Calvin and Henry VIII challenged papal authority and questioned the Catholic Church's ability to define Christian practice."(http://www.history.com/topics/reformation).


I am not opposed to an indirect democracy, but I felt it pertinent to point out the inconsistency of the type of government chosen by a primarily Protestant America who claims to be opposed to the idea of mediators (presented in the text notes from the Pearson Co.) and then proceed to form a governance based on this concept. I know there is more to this and I may be comparing apples to oranges; however, they are not completely disassociated since our governments are founded my Natural Law, which of course has its origination in God.