Author Archives: frjoelphelps

Why believe in God? Part II: the problem of evil

Thomas Aquinas identified the problem of evil as one of the main objections to the existence of God—if God exists, why do we see so much evil in the world? Eight-hundred years later this is still a powerful question, and one that most have to confront directly in their lives.

First, we can take a moment to think about what we mean by the term “evil.” Would we say that it is evil to paint a rock red, yellow, or green? No… but we would say it is evil to paint over traffic lights and cause accidents. This is because we define evil in relationship to some good or purpose. The color of a rock doesn’t affect its purpose or dignity. Evil disrupts what *should* be there. It is an experience of something that has gone wrong. To use another example, we wouldn’t react in shock if we saw a human without wings, but we probably would if we saw an eagle without wings. As Augustine says, evil is the absence of some good that should be there.

However, this leads to a sort of paradox. The sense that things *should* be different implies a sense that there is a purpose or dignity to things. If there were no God (and creation truly was just the product of random chance), there wouldn’t be any more inherent purpose to a human being than to a rock. Both would come from the same source and have the same dignity. Therefore, it wouldn’t be more “evil” for a child to suffer and go hungry than for a child to be cared for and loved. Both cases would just be random interactions of atoms among beings destined for non-existence. So, in this paradoxical way, the reality of evil provides not only a challenge to faith but also evidence of belief in something that transcends atheistic existence.

Jesus responds to the question of evil a number of times. In Matthew 13 he addresses the parable of the weeds and the wheat (“Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where have the weeds come from?”); John 9 considers the case of the man born blind (“Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”); and John 11 describes the death of Lazarus (“Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died”). Jesus doesn’t give a comprehensive answer to every aspect of the question of evil, but he gives an exhortation to hope. He denies that evil is a part of God’s desire for creation, and that the evil someone suffers is always the result of a personal sin on their part. He teaches that evil is permitted for only a time, and will come to an end when the final redemption is complete. However, he teaches that there is some plan or purpose to why it is tolerated to exist for a time. In the parable of the sower he addresses the harm that would be done to the wheat if all the weeds were pulled up. With Lazarus, he speaks of the way God’s grace is manifested through the crisis. Christ exhorts us to faith in the goodness of God to believe that a plan is being accomplished. God does not directly cause or desire evil, but permits it at times for the sake of some purpose that is often mysterious to us.

This isn’t a completely blind faith. At times we are able to see glimpses of why certain things happen. We might recognize it like the painful surgery that brings about health. Other times we do not. Yet, we see Christ crucified on the Cross. We see that in his life he did not ignore suffering, but identified himself with the suffering. He embraced the full reality of evil and opened a door to redemption. He invites us to trust him on account of his goodness in the moments when we do not understand.

We arrive, then, at this choice: do we trust him in the face of evil? Will we take confidence in a knowledge that surpasses our own? The alternative (belief in no transcendent reality) also robs the sense of evil from any grounding in how things “should” be. Without God, evil becomes meaningless. Do we believe that we are correct when we see something “wrong” with the world, and that our desire for a world without evil has a basis in the truth?

This doesn’t give a definitive answer to the question of evil, and an aspect of mystery will continue to be with us on this side of eternity. But, it gives us reason for faith in the existence of God even in the face of evil.

Who was Fr. Fabian?

Fr A.C. Fabian, OP was a living legend. He was a Dominican priest that taught philosophy at St Mary’s University in Winona, MN for nearly 50 years, and was one of the largest influences on my intellectual life. I call this blog “borrowed lore,” and he is one of those people that most clearly embody that “ancient wisdom” in my life. Much of what I try to hand on has an origin in his teaching! He passed away on Friday (7-14-17), and I’d like to take today’s post to share a little more about him.

Fr Fabian taught a whole generation of priests, seminarians, and other students. He passed away at the age of 90, and had only been fully retired for about four years! Anyone who has taken a class of his has probably attempted to imitate his deep, unhurried voice and clever wit. Once he asked a classmate of mine how he was doing, who then responded, “I’m having trouble existing.” Fr Fabian responded with a calm, “Well, just keep trying,” and continued on his way. Another time I tried to make a joke to him in Latin, and he got me back by just continuing the rest of the conversation in Latin as if he spoke it every day. If a student seemed to be getting over-confident in class or was setting themselves up for a fall, he’d say, “Be careful; the half-time hero can be the end of the game zero!” Or, his famous, “You’re up a creek without a logical paddle!” His wit was never caustic, but with a respect and great affection for his students. I always appreciated that during tests he would bring out his rosary and quietly pray for us while we worked. He was a man that had completely dedicated his life to Christ and the ministry of education.

Perhaps the most “legendary” thing about Fr Fabian was his memory. He always began the first class of the semester by taking roll call from memory. In my classes he never missed a student’s name (keep in mind, he was about 80 at the time!). Occasionally he’d ask what letter we wanted him to start with, or if we wanted him to do it backwards. He would repeat the name and match it to the student’s face. After that he never had to take roll again—he had a method of mentally pairing students with a “light bulb,” and then scanning the class and “turning off the lights” next to the students he saw. He then could quickly tell you who was absent by checking to see which lights were still on in his mind. If you skipped a class you would get a call on your room phone from him: “There’s a light still on in my brain- I’m going to charge you for electricity! Come see me.” Over the summers he would take up a memorization project. The summer I was there he memorized all of the collective nouns (e.g. a “gaggle of geese,” or a “murder of crows”).

His little aphorisms were another famous part of his classes. He would repeat them often… in every class. This drove some people crazy. But, as he liked to say, there was a method to his madness. It instilled general principles that I still remember. Some were highly philosophical (“Potency is to act, as essence is to existence, as matter is to form,” or his drawing of the “real worlds of external and internal being”), while others were general guidance for life (“Good, better, best, never let it rest, until the good becomes better, and the better becomes best”). This last saying was probably his favorite, and had an extended form: “Why? Because the human heart and the human mind were made for the best, and will never truly be at rest, until they get the best. So hitch your wagon to a star and aim high.” He practiced what he preached and was a living witness to a humble, unfailing dedication to daily conversion.

Last, I want to just share a few of his other influences on me. My first class with him was Logic, and he was a master of disciplined thinking. He spoke often about the importance of good reasoning and understanding the meaning of terms as they were being used by your interlocutor—a lot of trouble comes from people using the same terms with different meanings (“Language is marvelous but gets us in trouble, too”)! He believed that there was generally *something* true in whatever someone said (“who could fail to hit the broadside of a barn?”), and your response should be charitable by making proper distinctions (“never disagree outright, seldom affirm outright, but always under a distinction”). He constantly warned of logical fallacies as destructive of true conversation. Some of his regulars: false analogy (“because they are similar in some respects, you conclude they are similar in all respects”), the straw man (misrepresenting someone’s position: “I never said that…”), and- a favorite word of his to pronounce- amphiboly (a statement that could be taken in two ways. E.g. what “greasy” refers to in the phrase “Don’t put your hand on the door knob- it’s greasy”). He helped me to develop a love for philosophy and St Thomas Aquinas, made me a much clearer thinker, helped me to become more charitable and fair in arguments, and prepared me to be a much better priest than I would have been otherwise.

Thank you, Fr Fabian. May your soul and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Why believe in God? Part I: God or Atheism

In a previous post I mentioned three key questions: Why believe in God? in Christ? in the Church? Today I want to start looking at that first, foundational question. Why would someone believe in a God (theism), rather believing in no God (atheism)? Or, how does one overcome uncertainty (agnosticism)?

First, I think it is important to recognize that this is a question that exists outside of any particular revelation. Being an atheist is more than just rejecting the Bible (or any other claim of a teaching revealed by God). It is the claim that there is not a God of any kind (revealed or not). So, let’s look at an example of someone who did not reach his belief in God through any particular religion.

The Greek philosopher Aristotle lived a few centuries before Christ, and pursued knowledge of the causes of things. For an effect to exist, a sufficient cause was required. So, why did something exist rather than nothing? He argued that there must ultimately be an “unmoved mover,” i.e., a First Cause that wasn’t caused by something else.

A classic example of his reasoning is setting up a chain of dominoes and knocking them over. There must be a first domino knocked over to cause the rest. Or, if someone has a tractor and says they borrowed it from a friend (who in turn says he borrowed it from another friend, etc.), you eventually have to reach the person who somehow acquired or made the tractor in the first place. Or, for a final example, if you see a train moving along a perfectly flat surface, you can logically conclude that there is something that gave it a driving force.

If there was no First Cause, then either 1) there would be no effects, or 2) there would be no need of causes to produce effects. Both he saw as contrary to reality—created things exist all around us, and follow the law of cause and effect. Therefore, he concluded that the Greek polytheism must be incorrect, and that ultimately one Unmoved Mover must exist. Aristotle speculated about what the nature of such a thing must be (infinite, eternal, etc.), but his concept of the Unmoved Mover contains the heart of what we mean by the word “God.”

This is a very simplified explanation, but it shows one road to belief in God that does not rely on any divine revelation. In revelation we believe that we learn more about the nature of God, the process of the creation of other things, how we interact with God, etc. However, at its root, atheism isn’t a rejection of these particular things. Atheism is the belief that there is no ultimate cause or purpose to reality, whereas belief in God is the claim that there is such a cause (whatever the particular qualities of that cause might happen be). Again, there is much more to say on the matter! I’ve provided one example of a path to belief, and want to continue this topic in the following posts by looking at two of the most significant objections to God: materialism and the existence of evil.

Why did I pick St Peter the Apostle as my Confirmation Saint? (and, how do I recommend celebrating feast days?)

Thursday (June 29th) was the feast of Saints Peter and Paul (by “feast day,” we mean a day specifically designated to honor and remember a saint or other event, eg Christmas or Easter). Peter and Paul are grouped together as they both ended their lives preaching in Rome, being killed a few years apart during the persecutions of Nero in the late 60’s.

Peter is especially important to me as he is my “Confirmation saint.” The custom is to pick a saint as a model/patron at the time of your Confirmation. I originally thought of going with Patrick (my middle name), but decided I wanted to pick one that wasn’t already a part of my name! I was Confirmed at the beginning of my sophomore year of high school, and the line that struck me the most at the time is something that Jesus tells Peter in the Gospel of Luke: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:32). I’m the oldest of three brothers, and something about that line really resonated with me. If anything, I think it means even more to me now! I’ve come to appreciate in a deeper way the significance of St Peter. He was in need of the mercy of God so many times—resisting casting the nets (Lk 5:8), sinking when trying to walk on the water (Mt 14:30), trying to talk Jesus out of His suffering/death (Mt 16:22), and denying Jesus three times during His passion (Jn 18). In the end, however, by the grace of God he was able to be a faithful apostle and fulfill a mission that felt far too large for his own abilities. That sounds familiar… St Peter, keep praying for me!

Last, I want to make a brief comment on my recommendation for celebrating feast days! If you know me there is a good chance I’ve attempted to connect you to the saint of your birthday/Confirmation/etc. After you learn their feast day, I like to say that you should do something to make that day holy and something to celebrate it (my brothers have probably heard me say this a hundred times). It can be a day to go to a daily Mass, read some scripture, or pray another devotion. And, it makes a party all the more fitting when there is a good reason for it!

Find your patrons, get to know them, then imitate and celebrate them. God bless!

What is faith?

We generally think of faith in religious terms, but I want to start by looking at it in a broader context. Faith, at a basic level, simply refers to the act of taking something on the word of another.

The Letter to the Hebrews describes faith as “evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). Walking by faith is different from walking by sight (2 Cor 5:7)—by faith we receive things as true based on the word of another; by sight we ourselves can see the proof. If we were to limit ourselves to accepting only those things that we had personally proven or tested, we would live in a very small world. Instead, we trust the people that build our houses, prepare our food, or teach us complex sciences. This frees us from starting from scratch and allows us to flourish. Faith is not something strange to human beings. It is basically necessary for survival! The question is not really whether to have faith or not, but where we should place our faith.

Faith can also expand our vision. I think a great analogy for this (although a little technical) is light. Human beings are able to see some of the light spectrum with the naked eye, but that is just a small portion. With aid we can see the infrared, ultraviolet, etc. It is a pretty bold claim to say that there is nothing to be known beyond what we can know by human knowledge alone! And, this additional knowledge that we hold by faith isn’t necessarily less certain- although it may seem less clear to us personally. A child that (by faith) believes the world is round participates in the certainty of the astronaut who has seen it. So, it can be reasonable to have faith. Faith and reason are not opposed. They interact as two complementary ways to achieve knowledge.

The final point, then, is to examine the source of faith. There are basically three main claims of faith that are held by the Church: that God exists, that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, and that the Catholic Church holds to the fullness of his revelation. In my next posts I will look at some reasons for belief in these claims.

God bless!

What were my struggles with the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist?

The Church teaches that during the celebration of Mass the bread and the wine truly become the Body and Blood of Christ. It is a distinctive teaching of the Catholic Church, and at the heart of our worship. This became a struggle for me when I entered college, because I couldn’t tell how the elements were any different, and didn’t know how to answer those who challenged this belief. I ended up asking one of the priests at the Newman Center, which was a blessing. Unfortunately these types of questions are sometimes just left to fester without remedy!

The priest suggested two things, which helped me immensely. The first was study. At a basic level, I didn’t really understand what the Church teaches. We do not claim that the sensible elements change (how it looks, tastes, etc). Instead, we believe that the substance changes (what stands beneath the appearance, classically called “accidents”). This answered my first question; it’s not a question of sensible change, but whether the change is merely symbolic.

In my study I examined the scriptural texts, and realized how strongly Jesus states the truth of the substantial change in the Scriptures (eg “For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink,” from John 6:55). Paul likewise speaks of it in his letters. Elsewhere you can find a fuller explanation, but I just want to say here that the Catholic belief is certainly not unscriptural.

The other aspect of my study was the writings of the early Christians, shortly after the time of Christ. For example, St Justin Martyr writes this (around the year 150 AD):

“And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone.”

In short, I found that the belief in the true change of the elements is the ancient belief. Reducing it to merely a symbolic/figurative change is a development of the last centuries. Just appeals to the recent teaching of the apostles as the source of his belief–a distance of less than 100 years. Either the apostles completely failed to explain the symbolic nature of the Eucharist and the belief became corrupted within the first generation, or Justin is in fact correctly representing their teaching.

In addition to this objective study, the priest recommended a second approach: prayer. As I began to pray more seriously in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament (and to be more attentive in receiving Communion), I experienced the truth of these words personally. Jesus didn’t desire to leave only a symbolic or figurative presence with us. He is present, truly, under the appearance of the bread and wine.

From that point, instead of experiencing this teaching as a source of confusion, I found it to be a source of Communion—from the Mass I experience today, back through the ages and saints, to Christ Himself.

Why have an active spiritual life?

Why have an active spiritual life?

We can’t do everything. That is one of the guiding principles of life—each of us has to make choices about how we spend the time that we are given. Those choices flow from priorities, whether conscious or unconscious. So, is it worth investing in our spiritual life?

I’m not talking about any type spiritual life. I think most people (and certainly anyone reading this blog!) have at least a *passive* spiritual life—we try to take in bits of wisdom and reflection when they come across our path. We try to reflect on things when challenges arise. But, this is different from an *active* spiritual life. Do we make sacrifices for our relationship with God, and foster it even when circumstances don’t place easy opportunities in our path?

We do have a spirit. We are capable of fixing our life on something other than comfort or popularity. We are able to know, love, and follow God. We are able to do this whatever our situation. These are some of the core principles we need to believe in order to consider our spiritual life worthy of active investment.

If you believe these things I hope you find help on this page to continue to grow and become more alive! As our spiritual life matures, it enhances and enriches our other relationships (if it does not I think there is something suspect in our approach).

But, if you have doubts about these core principles, I hope that you still keep coming back and exploring these questions. An active spiritual life doesn’t automatically happen, even for a priest! It is a choice I have to renew daily, and so hope that by sharing some of what has convinced and sustained me I can help you in your own quest.

God bless!

Introduction to the blog

What is the purpose of this blog?

Hello! Today I am trying something new. It is the feast of Pentecost, which commemorates the day at the end of the Easter season when the Apostles received the Holy Spirit and began to preach. I have been praying about what to do to celebrate the feast, and an idea that keeps coming to mind is to start a little more social media outreach.

The basic purpose of this blog is to try to share some of what I have received, and that is why I called it “Borrowed Lore.” The word “lore” is a favorite of Tolkien, and has to do with wisdom—there’s an explanation on the sidebar of my website.

I have been interested in starting some social media outreach before, but have held off for a couple of reasons. One: it seems daunting to try to keep up with everything going on in terms of quantity of output and time commitment; and two: I’m also not exactly sure what type of thing people are interested in.

The first problem I thought I’d try to solve by keeping this very simple and to the point. I’m going to try to stick to more foundational questions. If I don’t comment on something, that doesn’t mean I don’t find it important! But, once you jump on the “current events” treadmill it is hard to keep up, and that isn’t where I’m trying to focus the perspective of this blog. Instead, I hope it provides a context and background for how we look at current events.

The second problem- about the type of content- I plan to tackle by trial and error! I’m trying a few different platforms and formats, and will see what people are interested in, including myself. I will post on this blog, as well as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. I’ll make video versions for a YouTube channel. And, for those who might be interested on a little longer reflection connected with the Gospel, I will post audio from my Sunday homilies. A little bit of everything!

I will also have to wait to see how things go with comments and replies. Conversation is good, but it will probably take me a little while to figure out exactly how I want to approach comments. If I don’t respond to a comment you make, that doesn’t mean I don’t think it was worthwhile!

Please say a prayer for this outreach, that the Holy Spirit will direct it and draw fruit from it. Know of my prayers, and God bless!