Time for a public shaming. I came across this the other day. Evidently a student at our K-5 school left it behind at his/her computer. Sigh.

Things that are wrong:

1. It was left behind, with no name on it. Absent minded.

2. It tells a Christmas story. Teachers assign Christmas stories around Christmas time. Very late.

3. Numerous grammar mistakes. Although truth be told this is one of the better writing jobs you'll see nowadays.

4. You guessed it, this student is obsessed with video games and Youtube videos.

It is an epidemic. There are teachers I know who have stopped the usual Monday morning project of: Write about what you did this weekend. The reason is that they are sick and tired of reading how students sit at home and play video games all weekend. This is becoming more and more common. No wonder so many people promoted Pokemon Go. "At least they're playing their games outside... right?" The same way feeding your child chocolate bars for supper is good because: "at least he's eating!" What next? "I'm ok with my child doing marijuana because at least he's breathing!" I'm not simply bashing technology. The shocking truth of the matter is that I'm writing this blog using a computer. And you're reading it on some technological device (unless my grandma is reading this... I sometimes print off posts for her... because she hasn't suffered enough in life already). Well, technology can be good. But as sure as eating chocolate can make you fat, technology can turn on us too.

Oddly enough, technology comes from the Greek word techne meaning art, skill, or craft. It meant the ability to work with your hands and fashion and create worthy human achievements. Sort of the opposite of sitting in front of a screen for 12 hours a day. In book six of his Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle defines techne as a "rational faculty exercised in making something... a productive quality exercised in combo with true reason." Productive quality... true reason... I like that. The other part of technology is logos, the word, or truth, or logic.

So going back to the story I found.. how does this relate to productive quality and true reason?

"I never went outside for 4 day I just played on my phone, and played on my laptop. I was so happy that I was on YouTube all day and night watching videos. I played lots of games on my computer..." 

How sad that technology is now working against its very roots.

What really bothers me, however, is the line: "I was so happy." No you weren't. Only in the same way that someone who eats chocolate for supper is temporarily happy. Or the person who smokes marijuana is temporarily happy. Soon things will turn on you. Because you are not properly ordered. Not properly ordered to your right end.

The 'end'. Let's end with the words of the great St. Thomas Aquinas: "[m]an's last end is the uncreated good, namely God, Who alone by His infinite goodness can perfectly satisfy man's will" (I-II, Q. 2, Art. 1). A child who thinks watching YouTube videos is what brings happiness is a child who is stunted. The child is missing the pleasure of meaningful techne work. The child is closed to the higher calling of his or her soul: True happiness. All the chocolate, YouTube, marijuana... whatever, in the world will not satisfy. Only a properly ordered life to God, my young friend. Only that. If only I could get that through to you. Whoever you are.

Maybe I will make a YouTube video about it.

A Trans Discussion of Another Kind

The devil is a successful strategist in this battle for souls. He knows what is important, and then attacks. Of course on the occasion it mattered the most, the devil was utterly destroyed. That is, the work put in to have Jesus crucified. It turns out Christ's death is what won our salvation. Christ always wins.

Nevertheless, on a less cosmic scale, the battle for souls rages on. What is evident to me is an attack on the transcendentals. Philosophers have discussed the transcendentals for millenniums. Aquinas, as he always does, sheds great light on them. He attests to five transcendentals: Being, Goodness, Truth, Oneness, and Beauty. However, Aquinas relates them to God. God is being. God is goodness, God is truth, etc. The transcendentals are, in a sense, the foundation of philosophy and theology.

So what does the devil do? He attacks. Quite ferociously.


Being - There is an axiom, that is a self-evident truth, that Being is better than non-Being. It is better to be than to not be. Sorry Shakespeare, there is no question. Yet in Canada we have the euthanasia law on the horizon. Society is buying up the lie that it is preferred to die than suffer. Death over life. The lie is tragic, for human being cannot be ended by suicide. Tragically one's eternal suffering can begin by such an act. Yet the lie spreads. Life comes off as worthless because life is detached from Life itself, God.


Truth - Perhaps the most evident. Boys are girls. Communion for adulterers. The government will protect you always. Ultimately: whatever you feel is right for you. What surprises me about Truth is how easily it has been supplanted. We are endowed with an intellect and will. Our minds seek to think logically. God is the Logos. God is Truth. Relativism is perhaps the greatest hubris possible. We create our own truth? It actually amazes me that this has caught on so much. On one hand, who wouldn't want to create their own truth?! On the other, it would leave our intellect feeling so dull, uninspired, and guilty. How could one live like that? To live a lie. Yet relativism is rampant.


Oneness/Unity - Dissension. Dissension everywhere. In the Church. In communities. In families. The irony of Unity being under attack is how liberals use unity as a rallying cry for destroying it. Unity for everyone. Sameness. Same bathrooms. Same incomes. Same "values". It's hard to have the same values when they seem to be changing by the minute. But I digress. Unity is found in God. God is One. To the degree our values separate us from God, they also lose any semblance of Unity. To the bishops who insist on holding our hands during the Our Father, but then cannot for the life of them speak up publicly in the defense of morality, there is no real Unity. Unity cannot be reduced to symbols alone. It must be substantial. It must be Divine.


Beauty - We've all read, at least second hand, Dostoevksy's: "Beauty will save the world." How can God be Beauty itself? You know, those pagan philosophers such as Aristotle understood Beauty much better than we do. Aristotle discussed at great length what makes things appear beautiful to us. Symmetry. Truth. Order. Definiteness. Objectivity. Place that against modern art. Now I teach grade 5 arts ed, where we are forced to delve into the world of pop art. We see soup can paintings selling for millions. Same with the word "Pop!" written with benday dots becoming popular. The Warhols and Lichtensteins of the world admitted to painting whatever was popular. Whatever sells. Meanwhile the Kurelek's of the art world have been harshly attacked by critics for offering true art. My students by and large are unimpressed with pop art (it helps having a teacher who is negative towards it). Yet what is not Beauty remains popular. This has even made its way into the Church. I'm not just talking about the 1960s and 1970s. I'm talking about the very recent. Remember the new Saskatoon cathedral?

There is no sursum corda. No relation to theological truth. It is a barren stadium. With stained glass reminding me of the despair of the abstract. There is nothing! It shouts. Only disorder. Chaos. In a new Catholic Church. The devil attacks. Even the physical structure of a church building. A priest once told me that he felt an evil demonic presence at the doors of his seminary chapel. It was almost terrifying to go pray there. You might think: "how is it possible that the devil would be at the doors of a chapel?" He boldly attacks at the most strategically advantageous place. Even a chapel. Even a cathedral. Beauty is under attack.


Goodness - The last transcendental to discuss. Goodness. You know the phrase: "Goodness knows I tried." Goodness is a substitute for God. Perhaps it's been under attack the longest. We think of wars and violence. The things humans do to hurt others. All offenses against Goodness. But Goodness is more than that. Evil is simply the privation of Goodness. There can be no absolute evil. What matters is to the degree an act corresponds to its proper end. Aquinas explains: "Evil implies privation, not absolute, but affecting some potentiality. For an action is said to be evil in its species, not because it has no object at all; but because it has an object in disaccord with reason" (I-II, Q. 18, Art. 5). This is the greatest trick of the devil in the modern world. To take something and present a bit of good with it. "Those three people love each other... love is good... they should be able to get married to each other." It's a slippery slope. Partial Goodness is actual a deprivation of Goodness. An act not done in accord with right reason. Done apart from God. Yet most people cannot seem to distinguish. What an attack by the devil. What is needed?...


To summarize, the transcendentals are significant. They refer to God Himself. The attacks on the transcendentals are severe. What is needed is a sharpening of our minds. To understand the ontology behind our actions and beliefs. To know why Being is always good, why moral Truth cannot be relative, why Unity is only found in God, why Beauty is not in the abstract, and finally how to identify depravity in Goodness. A renewal of the mind will renew the heart.

"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." Romans 12:2

Jesus Loves Me This I know, for the Summa Tells Me So!

Throughout the past 2 1/2 months I have been taking a Christology course through Holy Apostles College and Seminary. Now I have taken Christology courses before, be it through the Academy or even at Redeemer (from the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox). In these courses the study of the Church Fathers was emphasized. However, this current course is different. Namely, it examines Christology through the mind of St. Thomas Aquinas, via the Summa Theologica and the the Summa Contra Gentiles. As a supplement we are also studying many of the works of Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict on Christology. Also, the course is a 900-level course, which essentially means it demands more work and deeper insight.

Currently I am studying in anticipation of my final exam in two weeks. I won't have much time to study while I teach, so I thought it best to start now. I am currently pouring over many Summa articles. Here are some of my favourites from this semester (though I have dumbed them down slightly)...

III, Q. 1, Art. 2 - Whether it was necessary for the restoration of the human race that the Word of God should become incarnate?

I like this question because it is the grandaddy of all questions for Christians. Did Christ have to come down as man to save us? To answer, in the words of Bilbo Baggins: "well no!...    ...and YES..."

Essentially Aquinas gives the classic distinction of relative vs. absolute necessity. Absolutely speaking, Christ did not have to come down as man to save us. God could have snapped his immaterial fingers and man could have been saved. However, relatively speaking it was necessary. In other words, it was fitting that Christ became man; to help strengthen our faith, hope, and charity, and to atone for the sins of man to God through the sacrifice of the God-man. Very fitting indeed. But not of absolute necessity, which in a sense demonstrates all the more the love of God by willingly humbling himself to become man, and suffer.

So the next time something doesn't go your way, don't get mad at God! He knows what it's like to suffer...


III, Q. 1, Art. 5 - Whether it was fitting that God should become incarnate in the beginning of the human race?

In other words, why didn't Jesus come earlier? Or even, as article 6 asks, why didn't Jesus come at the end of the world? Why come when he did?

Quite simply, the world wasn't ready for Jesus at the beginning of the human race. It took many years to understand that, golly gee, this world is messed up and needs some saving. On the other hand, waiting until the end of the world would be a little late, don't you think? Sort of like getting the answer to a movie while the final credits are rolling.


III, Q. 3, Art. 8 - Whether it was more fitting that the Person of the Son rather than any other Divine Person should assume human nature?

Could the Father have come instead? Or how about the Holy Spirit? Or what about all three?
Yes, yes, and yes.

But, it was more fitting that Jesus come. Why? Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father. In other words, as the Son he's the best exemplar. He's the best example of what it means to be made in the image and likeness of God, for he is the image of the invisible God. Does that make sense? Sigh. Just read the article.


III, Q. 4, Art. 1 - Whether human nature was more assumable by the Son of God than any other nature?

Why didn't God assume the nature of a butterfly instead? That's discrimination! God should be taken to the human rights tribunal. Or, why didn't God assume the nature of an angel? Surely angels are higher than men!

Well, irrational creatures lack dignity for God to assume their nature. Sorry butterflies. You're nice, but not that nice. On the other hand, angels have no need of God taking on their nature to save them. Angels are good, and will always remain good.

But what about the devil and his demons??? Their choice is an eternal choice. They can't be saved, because they have made an eternal decision to disobey God. So to hell with them!


III, Q. 7, Art. 3 and 4 - Whether in Christ there was faith? Whether in Christ there was hope?

Christ had no faith. Christ had no hope. Now go out there and be Christ-like!

True. But Christ didn't have faith because faith is for Divine things unseen. And Christ had the beatific vision (i.e. he constantly beheld the Divine, for he was Divine). Christ didn't have hope either, for God is the object of hope, and Christ is God. So, strictly speaking, Christ did not have faith or hope (but he had charity, of course).


III, Q. 8, Art. 8 - Whether Anti-christ may be called the head of all the wicked?

Who doesn't love a good debate on demonology? I feel like Brent and Hank at Corner Gas debating the age old question: "Who is worse, the devil or the Anti-Christ?"

The devil is worse. The devil is first in the order of wickedness and sin. The devil also has more power and influence of evil. However, in a sense the Anti-Christ will have the wickedness of the devil most fully impressed on him. Further, the Anti-Christ more closely represents the opposite of Christ. You know, the Anti of Christ, hence the name the Anti-Christ. It gets the point across. So in that sense he's a greater mockery to Christ. But the devil is still the head of the wicked.

With all of this in mind, I hope you don't have to go to sleep anytime soon...


III, Q. 15, Art. 2 - Whether there was the "fomes" of sin in Christ?

I just like this question because of the word "fomes." Fomes is a Latin word meaning "tinder." In other words, it refers to our likelihood, or tremendous inclination, to sin. Christ did not have this "tinder" towards sin. Why? Because Christ always obeyed right reason. His reason perfectly controlled his passions. Therefore, there was no inclination to sin in Christ. He just followed reason perfectly.


III, Q. 18, Art. 1 - Whether there are two wills in Christ?

Christ is not Gollum, but he does have two wills - one Divine, and one human.  If Christ didn't have a human will then he wouldn't truly be a man. If he didn't have a Divine will then he wouldn't truly be God. Simple, isn't it? It's hard to believe so many heresies started over such a simple truth.

I love how Pope Benedict XVI, who as Cardinal Ratzinger, explains Christ's two wills:

“the two ‘wills’ are united in the way in which two wills can be united, namely, in a common affirmation of a shared value. In other words, what unites the two wills is the Yes of Christ’s human will to the divine will of the Logos. Thus, in concrete terms – ‘existentially’ – the two wills become a single will while remaining, at the ontological level, two independent realities.”

Behold the Pierced One - p. 92

If our wills are totally united to doing God's will, in essence we will be acting as one will (though in actuality it will be two). Very beautiful, Pope Benedict!


So, there you have some of my favourite articles from this semester. I really didn't do them justice. You'll just have to read them yourself!

First Things First

I mentioned one or two blogs ago, so about one or two weeks ago, that I was working fulltime on my Masters through Holy Apostles College and Seminary. I am very blessed to have some tremendous professors guiding me through my studies. One such professor is Fr. Brian Mullady, O.P.

Fr. Mullady is actually quite renowned throughout both North America and Rome. You might have heard of him via EWTN, where he's run about 5 different series. As far as knowledge goes of St. Thomas Aquinas, Fr. Mullady is one of the best in the world and, in my experience, rivals only the late great Fr. Leonard Kennedy, O.S.B., as the best Thomistic scholar I've ever had the fortune to learn from.

But don't let his smile fool you.

Fr. Mullady is an old school Dominican. He's blunt. He's to the point. One might say he's cranky.

And it's oh so refreshing.

He treats us students as if we were from a different generation. If a student writes on the online discussion that they were busy and couldn't put as much time into their work, he will reply, in a rant for all to see, how they shouldn't be stupid in doing so many other things besides schoolwork. If a student dares to miss the main point of a reading, he will publicly question how they could be so dumb. And don't get Father started on his main whipping boy, the infamous 20th century theologian Karl Rahner...

"Here, class, is how Rahner destroyed morality..."

There's something about studying under him that brings me back to what studies should actually be like. I think back to the famous 13th century days in Paris where Aquinas, St. Albert the Great, and the like would hold lectures outdoors and grill their students, while the rowdy crowd would scorn any wrong answer. The atmosphere was as free-spirited and intellectually stimulating as this world has ever seen, or ever will see. There was only the pursuit of truth to guide them. There weren't any Gender Studies degrees, or Feminist Theology courses. Nope. It was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth that the students sought, and the professors delivered.

Fr. Mullady is currently teaching me Moral Theology. He began the course by spending the first two weeks talking about the unity between body and soul. I wondered in my head where he was going with this. I can still see Fr. Mullady's replies to students, challenging them to get with the act and properly distinguish the powers of the soul in relation to man's substantial unity. 

But as the course has unfolded it's become clear: Fr. Mullady is conducting an orchestra. He's putting together beautiful music. Each note we learn here, or there, is being put together in harmony. Fr. Mullady is a master. Slowly we see Moral Theology at its most fundamental level. We are putting together the first causes. The unity of the person here, the nature of the voluntary there... this is learning at its finest, deepest, level.

So all I can do is learn from him, and respect the man and his knowledge. And, in the spirit of true learning, occasionally say something just to set him off.

I don't think he'd have it any other way.