Wednesday, July 30, 2003

Fr. Jim has weighed in on the discussion about the lapsed Catholic. I think everyone got so focused on the details of the woman's particular case, that my larger point got buried. Let me be clear: I think it best that a lapsed Catholic confess before rejoining the other sacraments. I think it probable (based on what I know of the situation, which is precious little) that everything worked in accord with Grace in the woman's case.

The objectionable part is a priest (as well as numerous laypeople), unfamiliar with any of the actual individuals, declaring with certainty that the woman would have received only "spiritual sickness" from the Eucharist. Zorak, in the comments box actually went so far as to reduce her resolution to a syllogism, even concluding with "therefore," which is precisely my complaint. Nowhere in that syllogism does God actually appear, which I also find frustrating. I am not denying any of the rules, nor the power of those rules to assist us. I am simply trying to make the point that anyone who looks at a few general bits of data about another, and quickly arrives at x+y=z, has reduced God to mere naturalism. God in such an equation becomes no different than a photon, because He can only behave in a single, predictable, and absolutely limited way.

Don't focus on what might have been best for the woman, because I agree with what was best. I am trying to talk about what is possible, and the syllogism-approach denies what is possible.

Trust me, I speak from personal experience, that spiritual healing can come from an approach other than the best one, and even from one that people who live in black and white worlds of absolute predictability would condemn.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home