Family...

When I say the word "family," what does that mean to you? Do bad images and memories surface or do we tend to smile and laugh because we know they are....family? Well, the truth is that whatever image you happen to conjure up, it is not the fullness of the image because family is what we are made for!

To grab the full meaning of what family is we have to go to...."the beginning." We have to go all the way back to the creation account in Genesis. Now, I am not going to try to argue for the literal meaning of the text (that will be in another rant!), but, I am going to say there is something there! I believe the writer of the sacred text is getting not so much as the "how" things were made, but "why" things are made. Let us look at the text itself (for you biblical theologians- synchronically; as opposed to the diachronic approach).

Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply. . ." (Genesis 1:26–28). What is happening here? In short, man is made in the "Imago Dei", the image of God. St. Augustine of Hippo states, "“For why the our, if the Son is the image of the Father alone? But it is on account...that man might be an image of the Trinity.”(De Trinitatae) See, we are made in the image of the Trinity!

That leads to a question; what in the world is the Trinity? The Catechism names the Trinity as a "central mystery of the Christian faith...It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the ‘hierarchy of the truths of faith’ . . .” (CCC 234). Now, I can absolutely draw out the divine essence, plurality of persons, the relationality, etc. Believe me, I have an MA in Systematic Theology, not to mention working on one in Philosophy now. I can explain in The Trinity in our fine tradition, but not here. Here is where I want to introduce you to one of my heroes. He is one of the greatest theologians and philosophers of our time. His name is Karol Wojtyla. You may know him as Blessed JPII. He has a quote that I think draws the point home: “God in his deepest mystery is not a solitude but a family, since he has in himself fatherhood, sonship and the essence of the family which is love.”

I want you to notice something. He doesn't state God is "LIKE" a family. He states, God IS a family. See, 2/3rds of the Godhead are named family names. Father, being the eternal, omniscient, Creator, pours out his love on the Son. The Son, being the second person of the Trinity, reciprocates that love perfectly. The love that is shared between them is so real, so true; it is given a name...the Holy Spirit. It is a family of love, because God is love (1Jn4) JPII states in his Letter to the Family, "Humanity images God in the family.” See, our families are not perfect, and that is OK. But, in God, perfection simply "is". God is the perfection of all our families and we are made in this image. So, we are made for the family!

The next time you look at your family and bad or good image come up. Think of this statement: “[God] willed man and woman to be the prime community of persons, source of every other community, and, at the same time, to be a ‘sign’ of that interpersonal communion of love which constitutes the mystical, intimate life of God, One in Three."(Christifideles Laici) We are made for Family, because we are made in the image of the Trinity, and the Trinity is the family. The question is; are you living for what you were made for?

Being "Used" in right to life issues

If you haven't realized this by now, there's a philosopher in whom I deeply respect: Karol Wojytla (Bl. JPII). I want to use his outlook on the human person to better understand the rightful dignity assigned to each human person, and the problem with using another person as a means to an end, particularly through the lens of right to life issues. The dictionary online (http://www.yourdictionary.com) defines "to use" as "to put or bring into action or serve; employ for or apply to a given purpose." This is a great starting point, and helps better grasp what being "used" is. See, we each have certain roles. I am a Adult Faith Coordinator at a parish. I get used all the time! My boss, the pastor, uses me to communicate the faith to adults. I teach, organize studies, groups, etc. In each one of these things, I am being "used" for a good. In this case, like I said, I'm being used to communicate the Christian Catholic faith. If you think about it, we all do this. We all get used some way shape or form. So, it's OK to be "used"!!!

But, is that it! Are we just objects made to be used?!?! Well, that is not it! Especially in relationships, especially in right to life issues. See, we are persons (see my last post and it'll explain what makes us different than animals and objects) Persons are totally different than animals and objects!!!! We have an "inner self" or an "interior life" (Love and Responsibility, 22-23)

"Even a child, even AN UNBORN CHILD cannot be denied "personality in it most objective ontological sense, although it is true that it has yet to acquire step by step, many of the traits which will make it psychologically and ethically a distinct personality (p. 26)." Did you catch that? UNBORN CHILDREN, while still in the embryonic or fetal stage of development ARE INDEED PERSONS!!! See, the child doesn't become a person. It is not 1/4 less of a person while in the fetus. Or, my 6 yr old isn't 3.75% of a person now, and when he is 10 he'll be 6%. This is entirely inaccurate. The person has an "interiority" (a "mindset", an "awareness" already active the moment life begins). The body itself also reveals the human person. We are beings meant to be loved and whose vocation is to love, just by our very being. (again, see my last post)

In Wojtyla's General Audience (Theology of the body) sections 5-7. He develops the nature of man which he called "existential solitude." This is because man is the only creature who is "alone before God" (he takes a deep look at the Gen account before Eve). See, as persons we are the only ones who are aware of our own body, and what it is for. Solitude is something that all of us are aware of, especially when we are being used for an end, in the case of abortion, (the child being used to meet a better lifestyle because the parents aren't "ready.") The person is aware of their solitude because it's in our very nature! He searches for fulfillment of this solitude, and he is aware of it in his consciousness which is different than the animal. "Man is 'alone; this is to say that through his own humanity, through what he is, he is at the same time set into a unique, exclusive, and unrepeatable relationship with God himself." (TOB, 6, 2).

Gaudium et Spes (Vatican II) states, "man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself..." See, man realizes that they are the only animal that is a person because of our awareness of solitude, brought forth from what God has made us with a interiority (conscience). We are persons, we are made for love, real love, a life giving of self to other for that is what Jesus did on the Cross. He loved us and died for us. To "use" someone as a means to an end, is ok (in some instances), BUT, if we leave it at that we are doing what philosophers call “utilitarianism” (only wanting good, without having any pain in our lives). This is not the human experience at all. This is why humans have "rights"! A chair or a rock doesn't have 'rights". The person is made for love and therefore will only find their longing in eternal love, which is God Himself. “I came to give life, and give it abundantly.” (Jn 10) God is Love. Love came to give life. So Love is Life! Love is sacrificial. It fights for life, even if it is uncomfortable and will put a "strain" on the parent. I understand there are "feelings" involved in this. I will address this in another post. But, the reality is we are "persons" endowed with an intellect. Let's use it for something other than living a pain-free life, which is not reality! Let's use it for love.

A Christian understanding of Person in the World...

Have you ever wondered what a person is? I mean, have you ever looked out into the world and wondered what makes a person a person? I look at a rock and know that it is not a person. I can look at a car and it is not a person. I can keep doing this over and over. Aristotle notes that there is something in the person that makes the person what they are...he names this the soul (the animating principle).  But, what is an animating principle, a life-force? This sounds like something off of Star Wars! But, really, what is it? Let's take a look around as Aristotle did. See, I can look at a rock and it doesn't move. It's simply there. It doesn't smell, taste, grow or anything like that. It simply is. As I look around the world, I notice plants and grass. These don't eat, smell or laugh, but they grow. It has an animating principle. But, is grass equal to a person? When I cut my grass, will I be arrested for murder? Of course not, unless you're a hippy or Franciscan! (I know that was a bad joke, but it was funny :) please dont be upset).

 So, let's keep doing this; let's keep looking around. I see the rock isn't me. I see the grass has some of the same characteristics as me, but what else? I see animals. Are they like me? I mean they eat, smell, move, reproduce, etc. They are like me, right?!?! Well, let's look at it. Animals have the same thing as humans in that they have sensual knowledge of things. They see, smell, hear, taste, and touch. But, they miss one thing that we have, that is very important. They do not have rationality. I have never seen a group of monkeys write a blog, or a book, or form a library. I have never seen them fly to space (on their own), or play a football game, or even have a sophisticated language (with symbols and universal principles). We are not animals, and animals are not humans. We each have senses, but not rationality. This is the classic definition of a person (Aristotle, Plato, Church Fathers, etc.). But is that it? Here is where I would like to employ one of my favorite philosophers...Blessed John Paul II. He makes it more "personal". He writes a lot about the human experiencing the world. See, the "issue" with the classical definition is that it leaves the world of experience objective. We do not only experience the world objectively. I do not say, "I am going to talk to the person and have a purely objective experience." That is not "real" (as John Henry Newman puts it). He makes things more "real" because all of my experiences affect me. I am the person who is acting. You are the person acting. It is us experiencing the world uniquely. (this is a very brief way of explaining his thought).

Each of us experience the world uniquely, defined by our actions and those around us. Your specific experience makes you who you are. (BTW I'm not saying/JPII saying that if you're not acting you're not a person). Your moral actions make you the person you are. Your actions determine what you will do and who you are. (He takes a great balance of both the empiricists and idealists, found much in the world today.) Do bad...then you're bad. Do good...then you are.....bad..j/k...you're good. See?! But, there's more to being a person.... he states this in Mulieris Dignitatem "Being a person means striving for a self- realization, which can ONLY be achieved through a sincere gift of self" We are created as persons. I am a person. You are a person. We are all persons, but we are not THE definitive persons....God is. He is what it means to be a person. Those 3 persons show us what it means to be a person. How is it that we know the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit? Well, how is the Father different from the Son? The Son different from the Father? How's the Holy Spirit distinct from the others???? Aquinas, Augustine, even the Catechism (CCC 255) state that the only way that we can tell the difference between the 3 persons is the way they relate to each other. The Father is eternal and gives everything that He is to the Son, except being a Father. The Father eternally generates the Son. The Holy Spirit is different from the two because He proceeds from the two. The Son is eternally begotten. The Spirit preceeds from (technically "spirated", or "generated") in the Father and the Son (there's a lot of deep theology in this!!!).

What does this have to do with being a "person?"....Well, we are made in his image! He says let "US" make man in OUR image! St. Augustine states, "What's the 'we' if it is not the Trinity. If we are made in his image, then we are relational beings. There's more! 1 John 4 states that "God is love." Well, if we are made in His image, and He is love, then what are persons???.....relational beings created by love and for love.  Love is relational. It demands relationship. It is reciprocal! It gives, it receives. It is sacrificial, seeking more, but returning more and more. It gives totally, as God has made us. True love is the Trinity because the Trinity truly gives love. We are truly made for love by love!!! (I'm sure I've lost most of you by now. But, if you're still here please excuse my rant.) So, practically speaking, our being human entitles us to live in loving relationships, to our spouses, children, family, and even strangers. Each person is made for so much more! Now the question is; if to be a human means to be a relational being in love, then what flows from this is...are you really being human?

  Move to ▼

Marriage: "Feeling" in love...

My full-time employment is in ministry. Working for the Church, I hear a lot of stories about unfaithfulness, infedility, etc. Of couse I naturally ask, "Why?" I often hear, "I have fallen out of love with her/him." "I mean, I feel like we've grown apart and I don't feel like we're in love anymore," and the marriage is split. I want to state something that I have learned from JPII;

"Love should be seen as something which in a sense never ‘is’ but is always only ‘becoming’, and what it becomes depends upon the contribution of both persons and the depth of their commitment."

 

I believe this is where our culture messes is up. Love is not a "feeling," it is a part of our will. Love is technically "willing the good for the other for the other's sake." What does that mean? It means I choose to do beyond what my feelings "feel." See, feelings come and go, but love endures and is more than just mere feelings. Feelings come and go. We are creatures, and creatures change often, especially our feelings. But, love is way more than feelings!  There are plenty times when I do not "feel" like going to work or doing some chore. But, do I.....YES! Love is way more than feelings,it is something I do, regardless of my feelings. (Not to say that my feelings never "feel" like it.)

 

But, is love merely something I will? I mean, do I grit my teeth and do it as a mere duty, a job? Here is where I think we need to move past the classical definition for "love" (that I wrote earlier). One of my favorite philosophers, Deitrich Von Hildebrand, states that, "love is a value response."Value responses can be enthusiasm, admiration, veneration, etc. These, I do not specifically will (unless I am faking it). Love is a response to another person because they have touched our heart. It is wanting the greatest good for the other, because they are the other and they simply deserve it.

To state that something 'is" is to state that it is not there or here. It is not past or present, but it "is"; now. JPII states it as "becoming." In other words, it is past and present, but it is ever arriving. Love is organic. I want to use an analogy of a tree. Think of a tree. It is a seed, but continues to blossom. Well, love is like this. Love is something that continues to blossom, of course ultimately fulfilled in the future (theologians name this the "eschaton") It always is...more and more of us. But, what happens when you stop watering the tree? It dies. It never reaches, fully, what it was from the beginning. Love is sort of like this. It demands us to give. See, love is a lot more than simply "I don't feel" in love with you. It should move past that.

I have asked a number of elderly, long-lasting, married couples what makes their marriage lasts. The answer that I have almost always heard is something along the lines of: "Life is always changing. It has not always been easy. But, we stuck with it, and it was absolutely worth it."

What our culture doesn't realize is what I have to tell people often, "nothing in this world, that is worth having, is easy." (You can apply this maxim to school, jobs, children, family, etc.) Who said that life would be easy? More specifically; Who said "love" would be easy?

 

You see, God is love and love is relational, therefore God is relational. (CCC 255) Why is this important? Because we are relational beings, made for "gift" (as JPII puts it in his Wednesday Audiences). We are made to give ourselves because we are "made in His image and likeness." Love necessarily demands reciprocation. It gives, and receives. The person is made to give themselves fully, and this is intrinsic in each. JPII states, "...[spousal] love in which the person becomes a gift - and by means of this gift- fulfills the meaning of his being and existence." (Wed. Audiences Jan 16, 1980). This is love; giving fully of thyself, even in hard times.

Let us stop accepting the culture expression that love is something that is truly based on feelings. Feelings change, love is consistent.