SEARCH
  About Ignatius Insight
  Who We Are
  Author Pages
  Pope Benedict XVI/Cardinal Ratzinger
  Pope John Paul II/ Karol Wojtyla
  Rev. Louis Bouyer
  G.K. Chesterton
  Fr. Thomas Dubay
  Mother Mary Francis
  Fr. Benedict Groeschel
  Thomas Howard
  Karl Keating
  Msgr Ronald Knox
  Peter Kreeft
  Fr. Henri de Lubac, SJ
  Michael O'Brien
  Joseph Pearce
  Josef Pieper
  Richard Purtill
  Steve Ray
  Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, OP
  Fr. James V. Schall, SJ
  Frank Sheed
  Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar
  Adrienne von Speyr
  Louis de Wohl
  Books
  Magazines
  Catholic World Report
  H&P Review
Article Archives
  Jan 2006-Present
  July-Dec 2005
  Apr-Jun 2005
  Jan-Mar 2005
  Nov-Dec 2004
  June-Oct 2004
Interviews
  Press Room
  Music
  Videos
  Software
  Sacred Art
  Religious Ed
Resources
  Request Catalog
  Web Specials
   
  Ignatius Press
  History
  Staff
  Specials
  Contact
   
  Noteworthy News
  Catholic World News
  EWTN News
  Vatican News
  Catholic News Agency
  ZENIT
  Catholic News
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
 

Read Part 2 of "On Praise and Celebration" | Part 1

What I want to contend here is that, if we are Catholic, we can expect the answers to these questions to be more likely to be rejected when they tell us that we are made for joy than when they tell us that we walk here in a valley of tears, which we obviously do. The great temptation to the faith is not that it promises too little but that is promises too much. Paradoxically, Catholicism is rejected in all likelihood because it is too plausible, not because it is insufficiently intellectual. Catholics act at times almost as if they are afraid of what the faith implies. The claim to truth is a very counter-cultural position. Modern "dialogue Catholicism," as I call it, has taken the non-confrontational tack of insisting on exchange but not in insisting in conclusions to dialogues. Dialogue seems to go on forever with everyone afraid to conclude anything that would "offend" any position. The world seems to be filled with people afraid to discover the truth of things.

We are ever busy finding what is true, or at least plausible, in other religions and philosophies, but we seldom find or speak what is wrong in them. No one is to be "offended," in a world in which, contrary to its own heritage, we dare not admit some things are wrong, some things are not good. Little urgency is found in the pursuit of dialogue. Yet, dialogue in the classical sense had something pressing about it, something demanding a resolution to asked questions about ultimate things. Plato’s dialogues and Augustine’s dialogues all reach conclusions. It is not as if erroneous positions are not lived out in practice. Philosophies and religions produce their own culture in which their subtle theoretical positions are embedded in practice. Dialogue is not merely theoretical, but cultural. If we hold in theory that all is relative, that no position can claim any truth, that we can pursue our own "values" whatever they are, that we have a "right" to do as we think, whatever it is, then we live in a world of lethal chaos. Theory justifies action and action flows from theory.

V.

Modernity has sought to replace theology with anthropology. That is, everywhere we look, we see not God but man. Human works and ideas are embodied not merely in personal lives but in society and even in nature. The human mind, no longer dependent on a theory of nature and nature’s God, depends on itself alone. What it makes or conceives, simply is, with nothing to which to compare it. No alternative exists except a change of mind, which is always possible and contains the same justification as any other the original effort to make a man-made world.

The question we ask here then is not merely one of a praise of fine actions, but whether there is anything to celebrate, anything not made by us. Catholicism is a religion of Incarnation. Most of the historical heresies of our faith have arisen around the truth of whether God became man, or better, over a rejection of this possibility. There is a curious irony in the fact that the Incarnation meant that the Word, the second Person of the Trinity, became man. In one sweeping act, as it were, God, man, and world were united in one being within the universe. This meant that while searching the universe, we did somehow encounter man, but not merely human man, but Word, eventually Word made flesh.

It has been the belief of modern atheism that if we eradicate God from man and the world, we will keep everything for ourselves. And when we have succeeded in this effort, what we have left is ourselves, only now it is an ourselves deliberately functioning minus those reaches within ourselves that take us beyond ourselves, with neither grace nor acknowledged being. For there is now nothing beyond ourselves. Catholicism says of the world that it need not exist, but it does exist. The reason it can affirm this truth is because it has a theory of God that allows it, a theory of the super-abundant inner life of the Godhead, what we call the Trinity. Catholicism argues that God would be God even if the world did not exist. Thus it logically argues that the world would not be the world if God did not exist. If we think God out of existence, we think ourselves and the world out of existence. Yet, we cannot and do not give ourselves existence.

Catholicism does not hold, however, that the divine creation of man and the world means that man has nothing meaningful to do within the world. It holds in fact the opposite, teaching that what is to be done in the world is a free imitation of what is the inner essence of the Godhead out of which the world was created. And at the peak of this world stands the free human creature whose inner purpose in his very creation was beyond himself. He was created for something more than, beyond the world, beyond even the natural capacities of his own rational being. And this is why man is not really at home in the world, even though it is his natural habitat.

If this paradox is the case, any effort to pretend that the world is sufficient for man is bound to distort his very essence or purpose by implying that some other end is available to him. Well, there is another end available to him, that is, himself, forever. This is the essential definition of hell, that there is only himself. This alternative of the self is deliberately chosen in preference to an end that man did not create or give himself but one to which he is invited, even though he cannot by himself quite know what he is invited to until he accepts the invitation.



The essential search of man in this world has been for an explanation of what he is and why he is. It has been an effort to find out the meaning of his existence, the giving of which he is not the cause. His essential temptation is to choose too lowly, to prescribe for himself an end that is not worthy of the one to which he is properly invited. Marx said, in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, that everywhere we look we want to see only man, in nature, in society, in culture. All marks of God are to be replaced by human rational that would indicate that man does not have a transcendent origin beyond himself. The principal and perhaps the only alternative to this view today is that of classical Catholicism, though there is Islam, which denies both Incarnation and Trinity and sees man as only subject to Allah. What is under fire is not the Catholicism that is in agreement with a world evaporated of both nature and Incarnation, but the Catholicism that is not.

And the essence of this struggle concerns whether there is something worth celebrating, some proper form of celebration that sums up, at the same time, why there is so much evil in the world and why there is something worth having simply because it is. In the end, man cannot give himself what is worth celebrating and rejoicing about. The sacrifice of the Cross has to be united to the Resurrection of the body in order that the final purpose of the actual creation outside of God that we were given may be made manifest. This celebration is what the Mass is ultimately about, why it is not something that we concoct for ourselves but something that is given to us as the primary contact that we have to the Godhead that sums up the purpose of creation. God associates other free beings in their very intelligence to Himself in that response of delight and wonder that alone is something for its own sake, something that redeems the time and restores the effects of the Fall.

"Religion has for centuries been trying to make men exult in the ‘wonders’ of creation," Chesterton said in his famous essay, "In Defence of Nonsense," "but it has forgotten that a thing cannot be completely wonderful so long as it remains sensible. So long as we regard a tree as an obvious thing, naturally and reasonably created for a giraffe to eat, we cannot properly wonder at it. It is when we consider it as a prodigious wave of the living soil sprawling up to the skies for no reason in particular that we take off or hats...." It is in this background alone, I think, that we can begin to wonder what it is that there is to celebrate. Something exists that need not be, a something that includes ourselves, something so wondrous that we can only behold it in awe, in both silence and in dance, which is really in a solemn way what our liturgy is about. But it is about this world too for it is the Sacrifice of the Cross in which all that could be saved, would be saved. What would not choose to be saved, not even God could save.

We "praise God from whom all blessings flow," as the hymn goes. But we celebrate what is because we did not create it, because it is something that is not ours to make but only to behold and in which to rejoice after the manner in which human, finite things rejoice. And it is through the Word made flesh that we discover the purpose of why we exist in the first place. We exist, briefly, to worship God, to celebrate in what is given to us as the only proper way to worship God, something all men have been seeking to discover from the beginning, even when they think they are only seeing themselves in all that is. Dialogues that do not proceed to the end of the argument are dangerous enterprises. The questions that Charlie Brown asked during the night, "Why am I here?" "Does my life have any meaning?" "What is the purpose of it all?" – these are proper questions of our kind.

Samuel Johnson rightly warned us not to praise something "too extravagantly." Yet, when we come down to the central given meaning of "celebration" in contrast to praise, we are to spend our lives, as Plato in his Laws said, almost prophetically, in "singing, dancing, and sacrificing." The extravagance of God in creating what is out of precisely nothing bears all the marks of a divine madness or wisdom. It leaves us in an awed silence that such things should be, that we are taken seriously in our freedom so that we could be "unserious" also in our glory.

It is no accident that the Mass is a "Eucharist," a thanksgiving. But it is a thanksgiving achieved at great cost, for it is a thanksgiving that includes the redemption of our sins, even of those who choose not to be redeemed. We are, ultimately, created to participate in the inner life of God, something that transcends what we are. We are made for praise and celebration. No lesser gift did God choose to give us. The heart of the rejection of God is thus the claim that He gave us too much. We are not prepared to accept that we are not sufficient to ourselves, that our glory is more than what we can give ourselves.

The heart of the acceptance of God is simply the praise and celebration by which we are to worship God not in the way we give ourselves, but in the way He gave us, the way that includes the Cross on the road to Glory. "Praise is given to virtue ... but celebrations are for successful achievements." The worship by which we praise is at the same time already a "successful achievement."

We are not to attempt to create for ourselves what is already given to us, and that superabundantly. But we are to celebrate what is in the only manner worthy of its celebration, something that we do not and cannot give to ourselves. Ultimately, we receive glory if we are free enough to accept it.



Other recent IgnatiusInsight.com articles by Fr. Schall:

Making Sense of Disasters
Martyrs and Suicide Bombers
On Learning and Education: An Interview with Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | Part 1 of 3
On Writing and Reading: Interview with Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | Part 2 of 3
Chesterton, Sports, and Politics: Interview with Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | Part 3 of 3
Wars Without Violence?
Chesterton and the Delight of Truth
The One War, The Real War
Reflections On Saying Mass (And Saying It Correctly)
Suppose We Had a "Liberal" Pope
On Being Neither Liberal nor Conservative
Is Heresy Heretical?
Catholic Commencements: A Time for Truth to Be Honored
On The Sternness of Christianity
On Teaching the Important Things



Fr. James V. Schall, S.J., is Professor of Political Philosophy at Georgetown University.

He is the author of numerous books on social issues, spirituality, culture, and literature including Another Sort of Learning, Idylls and Rambles, On the Unseriousness of Human Affairs: Teaching, Writing, Playing, Believing, Lecturing, Philosophizing, Singing, Dancing, and A Student's Guide to Liberal Learning.

Read more of his essays on his website.



If you'd like to receive the FREE IgnatiusInsight.com e-letter (about every 1 to 2 weeks), which includes regular updates about IgnatiusInsight.com articles, reviews, excerpts, and author appearances, please click here to sign-up today!




   




www.ignatiusinsight.com
World Wide Web
























 
IgnatiusInsight.com

Place your order toll-free at 1-800-651-1531

Ignatius Press | P.O. Box 1339 | Ft. Collins, CO 80522
Web design under direction of Ignatius Press.
Send your comments or web problems to:

Copyright 2013 by Ignatius Press

IgnatiusInsight.com catholic blog books insight scoop weblog ignatius