No One Like You

When I listen to this song, I am reminded of the beauty that can exist, when two people, who have known suffering and desolation of heart, find that someone who they've been waiting to discover, that someone who they feel they've always known. I am also reminded of the power of hope, especially when all hope seems lost, and the promise of our Father, that He will not leave us orphans, but will bring us true love and frienship if we wait upon Him. I ponder over the sweetness of these words, and cannot help but thank God for allowing me to share in the great miracle of Love. It's been one of the most wonderful gifts I've ever received.
Yes, to you sweetheart, I dedicate this post and to you I send this song...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sSxYtFVHeE

A Critical Review on the Poetic Interpretation of Taylor's "Huswifery"

In Norman S. Grabo’s essay “Edward Taylor’s Spiritual Huswifery”, he poses a questionable argument; he believes that a reader will not fully appreciate Taylor’s intended purpose of the poem “Huswifery” unless looked at in light of all of Taylor’s poems and prose. He also contends that the poem “simply does not seem to need explication”, that its aim is “meaningless” (554), save for the last line of the poem which gives it actual meaning. Spending the majority of his essay examining the phrase “[…] Clothed in Holy robes for glory” (142), he explains how the image of holy robes permeates Taylor’s repertoire, and how collectively, these works reveal the true meaning of this one poem which could not otherwise be attained. By tracing the royal robe theme throughout Taylor’s works, Grabo works arduously to prove that this image has little meaning beyond that which is “self-evident” (554) until one reads it in view of Taylor’s collected works. I argue however, that this interpretation is not altogether true. While yes, one can read the poem and study the various texts written by Taylor to gain a deeper understanding of the poem, it is erroneous to say that the poem is meaningless unless read from this perspective. Grabo errs in saying the “full meaning of its terms is not contained in the poem itself” (554); on the contrary, “Huswifery’s” meaning can stand on its own without the assistance of his other texts. Therefore, while it is true one can find deeper meaning in the poem through reading it as Grabo’s did, it is not true to say this is the only means of reading the text and/ or giving it meaning.

First, one can read “Huswifery” as Grabo suggests and gain a deeper understanding of the poem. Grabo clearly demonstrates this as he takes the reader through the writings of Taylor, showing how he used the weaving theme over the course of his lifetime. Grabo shows the reader texts from various periods of Taylor’s life, noting how the image of weaving developed, built upon, and opened new channels in explaining the importance of the “robe of glory” in the personal life of Taylor. He guides the reader, showing them how, in the mind of Taylor, if a person desired to be holy in God’s sight, they must put on the robe of glory and work to prepare their souls for this relationship with God. This idea is stressed throughout various writings. For example, Grabo explains how in one of Taylor’s most well-known works, Meditations, the themes of “Sanctifying Grace” (556) , “righteousness” (557) and “union with Christ” (557) develop from the theme of weaving and from weaving to the royal robe and from the royal robe to “possesses the heavenly kingdom through its ‘mystical’ union with Christ” (557). From reading these reflections, it can rightly be said that a deeper meaning of “Huswifery” can be ascertained, however, this is not the singular means by which one can know and appreciate this poem’s worth. There are other ways of exploring a text outside of simply reading the author’s other texts.
For, contrary to Grabo’s opinion, one can come to appreciate Taylor’s poem without having to read his entire inventory of literary works. If a person read this poem for the first time, it would be wrong to say that they could find no meaning because they knew not the life, mind and life works of Edward Taylor. Who would ever be able to appreciate any poem with these kind of prerequisites? The poem offers enough imagery and metaphor to make the mind of a reader delve into deep channels of interpretation. Furthermore, Grabo overlooks the fact that there are various levels of meaning to a poem: the literal, the allegorical, the moral and the anagogical, respectively. He focuses solely upon the personal. This is not to say it is an invalid means of interpretation, rather that it is not the only means.
Grabo assumes his approach is the only valid which can give the poem any meaning, when in truth there are other equally valuable and legitimate methods to achieving the same end. He presumes his way is the best and only way which in fact is a debatable point. Thus, to appreciate Edward Taylor’s poem “Huswifery”, one can either follow Grabo’s approach or one can follow an alternative method in attempting to discover a newer, different, and perhaps deeper meaning to this very poignant and pious poem.

“Huswifery”
Make me, O Lord, thy Spinning Wheele compleat;
Thy Holy Worde my Distaff make for mee.
Make mine Affections thy Swift Flyers neate,
And make my Soule thy holy Spoole to bee.
My Conversation make to be thy Reele,
And reele the yarn thereon spun of thy Wheele.

Make me thy Loome then, knit therein this Twine:
And make thy Holy Spirit, Lord, winde quills:
Then weave the Web thyselfe. The yarn is fine.
Thine Ordinances make my Fulling Mills.
Then dy the same in Heavenly Colours Choice,
All pinkt with Varnish't Flowers of Paradise.

Then cloath therewith mine Understanding, Will,
Affections, Judgment, Conscience, Memory;
My Words and Actions, that their shine may fill
My wayes with glory and thee glorify.
Then mine apparell shall display before yee
That I am Cloathd in Holy robes for glory.

The Definition of a Gentleman

Hence it is that it is almost a definition of a gentleman to say he is one who never inflicts pain. This description is both refined and, as far as it goes, accurate. He is mainly occupied in merely removing the obstacles which hinder the free and unembarrassed action of those about him; and he concurs with their movements rather than takes the initiative himself. His benefits may be considered as parallel to what are called comforts or conveniences in arrangements of a personal nature: like an easy chair or a good fire, which do their part in dispelling cold and fatigue, though nature provides both means of rest and animal heat without them. The true gentleman in like manner carefully avoids whatever may cause a jar or a jolt in the minds of those with whom he is cast;—all clashing of opinion, or collision of feeling, all restraint, or suspicion, or gloom, or resentment; his great concern being to make every one at their ease and at home. He has his eyes on all his company; he is tender towards the bashful, gentle towards the distant, and merciful towards the absurd; he can recollect to whom he is speaking; he guards against unseasonable allusions, or topics which may irritate; he is seldom prominent in conversation, and never wearisome. He makes light of favours while he does them, and seems to be receiving when he is conferring. He never speaks of himself except when compelled, never defends himself by a mere retort, he has no ears for slander or gossip, is scrupulous in imputing motives to those who interfere with him, and interprets every thing for the best. He is never mean or little in his disputes, never takes unfair advantage, never mistakes personalities or sharp sayings for arguments, or insinuates evil which he dare not say out. From a long-sighted prudence, he observes the maxim of the ancient sage, that we should ever conduct ourselves towards our enemy as if he were one day to be our friend. He has too much good sense to be affronted at insults, he is too well employed to remember injuries, and too indolent to bear malice. He is patient, forbearing, and resigned, on philosophical principles; he submits to pain, because it is inevitable, to bereavement, because it is irreparable, and to death, because it is his destiny. If he engages in controversy of any kind, his disciplined intellect preserves him from the blundering discourtesy of better, perhaps, but less educated minds; who, like blunt weapons, tear and hack instead of cutting clean, who mistake the point in argument, waste their strength on trifles, misconceive their adversary, and leave the question more involved than they find it. He may be right or wrong in his opinion, but he is too clear-headed to be unjust; he is as simple as he is forcible, and as brief as he is decisive. Nowhere shall we find greater candour, consideration, indulgence: he throws himself into the minds of his opponents, he accounts for their mistakes. He knows the weakness of human reason as well as its strength, its province and its limits. If he be an unbeliever, he will be too profound and large-minded to ridicule religion or to act against it; he is too wise to be a dogmatist or fanatic in his infidelity. He respects piety and devotion; he even supports institutions as venerable, beautiful, or useful, to which he does not assent; he honours the ministers of religion, and it contents him to decline its mysteries without assailing or denouncing them. He is a friend of religious toleration, and that, not only because his philosophy has taught him to look on all forms of faith with an impartial eye, but also from the gentleness and effeminacy of feeling, which is the attendant on civilization.

Not that he may not hold a religion too, in his own way, even when he is not a Christian. In that case his religion is one of imagination and sentiment; it is the embodiment of those ideas of the sublime, majestic, and beautiful, without which there can be no large philosophy. Sometimes he acknowledges the being of God, sometimes he invests an unknown principle or quality with the attributes of perfection. And this deduction of his reason, or creation of his fancy, he makes the occasion of such excellent thoughts, and the starting-point of so varied and systematic a teaching, that he even seems like a disciple of Christianity itself. From the very accuracy and steadiness of his logical powers, he is able to see what sentiments are consistent in those who hold any religious doctrine at all, and he appears to others to feel and to hold a whole circle of theological truths, which exist in his mind no otherwise than as a number of deductions.

Such are some of the lineaments of the ethical character, which the cultivated intellect will form, apart from religious principle. They are seen within the pale of the Church and without it, in holy men, and in profligate; they form the beau-ideal of the world; they partly assist and partly distort the development of the Catholic. They may subserve the education of a St. Francis de Sales or a Cardinal Pole; they may be the limits of the contemplation of a Shaftesbury or a Gibbon. Basil and Julian were fellow-students at the schools of Athens; and one became the Saint and Doctor of the Church, the other her scoffing and relentless foe.

~From _The Idea of a University_ by John Henry Cardinal Newman)

Ironing Out the Problem of Evil

Thoughts, thoughts, I want your thoughts! Here is one of my final drafts for my philosophy term paper. It's close to being done, but thought I'd ask any and all for their opinions. Hope to hear from you :-)

Bomb explodes killing hundreds. Man murders ex-girlfriend. Teacher dies in school shooting. Child drowns by neighborhood bully. In skimming across newspaper postings, such headlines are not uncommon. People are known to commit some of the most heinous acts conceivable to the human mind. Yet, why do such evils exist? How is it that people can be so cruel to each other? For centuries, people have struggled with the concept of the reality of evil and have consequentially used evil as a justification against the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God. People contend that if God is so good and powerful, than either evil should not exist or God is not what we believe Him to be. For why would a God allow evils to occur if He is all powerful or why would He not stop evils from occurring if He is all good? Does this not infer a contradiction? The short answer to this complex question is no, however this issue requires much explanation. In order to reconcile these apparently contradictory principles, one must understand all the dilemma involves. Therefore, my intention is to explain the nature of evil, the nature of God and the nature of man to prove that it is possible to say that God can be omnipotent and omnibenevolent, while also accepting the presence of evil in the world.
First, before addressing this issue, one must understand the definition of evil if one is to understand God’s relationship with it. According to Aquinas, “evil is not an entity” but “a privation, or absence of some good which belongs properly to the nature of the creature”(63; Sharpe). For example, deafness is not a thing by itself, rather it is the application of loss of hearing upon a person. Similarly, evil is not a thing, but a privation of a good. It is the absence of something; it is the privation of that which should exist. For example, consider the presence of darkness. Darkness is not a thing, but a denial of a thing, namely light. It is the absence of solar radiation/energy and hence is a void, a denial of that which provides visibility. Augustine, using this same analogy, comments that just as “darkness is nothing but the absence of light, and is not produced by creation, so evil is merely the defect of goodness” (Sharpe). Notice, he states darkness is not created, but rather is separate from creation. Similarly, evil, which is outside of goodness, cannot be made by God, who is the sole Creator of goodness, not evil. Thus, if one can say that darkness is outside of God’s creation in a physical sense, then one can also say evil is outside of God’s creation in a spiritual sense. Such is the nature of evil, an absence of good.
Secondly, in order to understand evil, one must consider the nature of God. Now, to be God is to be perfect, for if God is imperfect, then He is not God. Thus, it is illogical to label God deficient in anything. Considering this then, it is not unjustified to say God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, even with the presence of evil (or the absence of good) in the world. For again, once one understands that evil is outside of God’s creation, the idea that God is all-good and all-powerful is not problematic. One can also consider the nature of God and evil by way of analogy. Take for example the Sun. The Sun, like God, is there, always existing, always beaming its radiance upon the Earth. However, there are days when the Sun is clouded, and darkness covers the land, and storms break and rains fall. However, we know that the glorious Sun, though unseen, still shines, still warms the Earth and still remains that which it is. No one who understands basic concepts regarding the operations of the atmosphere would say because clouds cover the sky, that the Sun stops being the great life-giving star that it is. So it is with God; though evils occur, He does not cease from being the omnibenevolent and omnipotent God which He is. He remains the same God regardless of the absence of goodness in the world.
Also, to say that God is to blame for evils is an injustice to God. How can someone be blamed for something which they did not do? If a little boy is punished for stealing a bike he did not steal, then it would be an injustice to punish him for stealing. So too is it wrong for people to blame God for something He is not the cause of. It is not God who wills evil, since evil is outside of His all-perfect nature. But some may argue, “Although God does not will evil, He does permit it. Why would He do that?” It must be remembered that God is omnipotent and can allow evil for the purpose of taking it and affecting some good from it. As Augustine notes “God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist” (Sharpe). For example, evils, when approached as a means to a positive end, can make people more empathetic, more loving, and more forgiving. That is, God is so omnipotent that he can permit evil so to “further either the general good or man's good” (“The Problem of Evil”). So, although a man loses his job and gets in a car accident, he can learn to work harder, drive safer, and have greater sympathy for those who encounter similar circumstances. The evil can work towards a greater good. Furthermore, it must be stated that in analyzing the problem of evil people must search for God’s goodness coming from the evil because if not, they will perceive only the evil itself (which is the absence of God) and not to the good (God) surrounding the evil, which works to amend all sufferings. In a sense, it would be like looking through large patches of “physical” blackness, deliberately avoiding the light which envelopes it. If one only looks at the darkness, then that clearly will be all they see. Thus, it behooves one to seek the light when dealing with evil, for otherwise, evil appears to be all that exists and this is not so.
Lastly, human nature must be considered when examining evil. Man differs from all other creatures since he possesses free will- the ability to choose what or what not to think, do or say. This freedom is a gift from God, which every human possess to either choose good or evil. Thus, because of this freedom, and the respect God has for it, man can choose to do things outside of God’s will and thus frustrate the manifestation of goodness. But one might argue, “Granted, if God is not the creator of evil, how can man choose to perform evil deeds unless God works through people to perform them? For you say that without God, man can do nothing.” Indeed, this is true, without God man can do nothing. The very ability man has to act is dependent upon God. Just as all plants are dependent upon the Sun for their sustenance, so man needs God for the purpose of living out his existence. However, although God must operate in man to allow Him to act, this does not therefore conclude that He incurs culpability for the free will choices a person decides to perform. Yes, God will work to encourage all people do good, however, He will not force His creators to do His will, for to do so would be denying man of this gift of free will. If God in any way forced a person to choose good, then man would not be made truly free and this would infer that God made us to be as mindless beings who follow only the motions of instinct, as do animals. Still others might argue “If God is omnipotent, why didn’t He make man to always be able to choose good all the time? Why couldn’t their will be fixed to always want to choose goodness?” Here again, if God made man to always choose good, he would not be free. And to not be free would make rewarding those who do good pointless. Man is not a machine, he must act freely if he is to be free.
Thus, in looking at the relationship between the nature of evil, God and man, it can be observed that yes, God can be both omnibenevolent and omnipotent with evil still existing in the world. However, one must approach this with an open mind, for yes, it is puzzling as to why evils would exist if indeed God loved us. But, again, when we see evil for what it is and how God relates to it, and the good that can come from evil, the possibility of the two apparently contradictory statements being reconcilable makes more sense and the problem of evil less troublesome and therefore not an insufferable dilemma with which to wrestle. Vivo Christo Rey!



Works Cited
Aquinas, Thomas. TheDe Malo of Thomas Aquinas. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
The Problem of Evil. Traditional Catholic Apologetics

Happy Feast of Saint Gemma Everyone!!!)

Ite ad Joseph

In honor of my blessed and beloved patron, Saint Joseph, I post this blog. He means so much to me that words cannot express how much I love him. And with this being his feast day, I want to encourage all peoples, of whatever faith you possess, to go to him with whatever it is you are suffering through, and I promise you, he will hear your prayers and present them before the throne of Almighty God. We must have trust in the saints intercession for us. They love us, more than we love ourselves. He has shown his love for me and in honor of him I say "Blessed be Saint Joseph" and "Blessed be God for giving him to us!" I want to write more about this topic but it is very late and so I cannot at this time. I think I feel a poem coming...please check back for future postings.
God bless and good night

Check this out...

Please look at this amazing film. It shows you the power truth can have upon the soul. We just pray this order comes into full communion with Rome one day. Please God. Enjoy...

Can you believe it?!

This goes to show you where we have gone as a society! Just look at how commercial advertising encourages animal abuse in CHILDREN! Have we no shame? Have we lost all respect for these poor, helpless, innocent animals made by God? Who knows what one can hope to see next! I must ask, why has the APSCA done nothing to stop this? How can such people not want to intervene when such outrages on poor animals are committed! What hypocrites! Is there no decency in the world? Are we nearing the end? Has Britney Spears gone mad? Will her hair ever be the same again? AHHH!!!!
(lol) No, I'm not crazy, nor am I a radical animal rights fanatic, rest assured. I actually found this picture today and thought it was adorable. It made me smile and I hope does for you too. And don't mind my silly humor, it's part of my pre-spring fever ;-) Speaking of which, only 6 more days until the vernal equinox.. Yahhh! I can't wait!! Well ciao amicos, sta bene!

Into the Woods

Into the woods we must begin,
To take the time to walk within;
To ponder over leaves and streams,
And think of all those longed for dreams.

Give self a chance to stop and see,
The world around which lives for thee.
The sky above with purest blue
And earth below all lush and new.

Though time is short we're still alive
To take the chance to love and thrive.
So stop and stroll along that way
Where your heart longs to rest and pray.

Into the woods you must now go
To seek that place where you can grow.
Be thou content seek out that place
Into the woods, God waits with grace.

~This is for those of us who need stop and listen to our souls cry to retire from the routines of our lives. I pray it reminds us all to not ignore the urges we feel to go into the woods of our souls and rest a while. God calls us- let's not keep Him waiting.
A blessed Lent to you all.

Anne Marie

Reinterpreting Alighieri’s Theory of Interpretation

In Dante Aligheiri’s Il Convivio he posits the existence of four levels of exposition to any given piece of literature. These four levels or “senses” (249) include the literal, the allegorical, the moral and the anagogical, respectively. He explains that within a text, the literal refers to its apparent meaning, the allegorical to a text’s hidden or veiled reality, the moral to the principle it teaches, and the anagogical to that which relates “beyond the senses” (250) or a text’s spiritual message. Furthermore, he states that “the explication of the literal sense is the foundation of the others, especially the allegorical” (250). He asserts “the literal should always come first, as being the sense in whose meaning the others are enclosed and without which it would be impossible and illogical to attend to the other senses” (250). Although Alighieri’s theory is appropriate to many polysemous works, it does not apply universally to all forms of literature. Furthermore, his belief that literature comprises four levels of meaning is presumptuous. To prove this point, one can take a secular poem and apply his theory to show how it does not follow his logic. For example, looking at William Blake’s “My Pretty Rose Tree,” one can see how certain poetical texts do not comply with Alighieri’s theory, either because the literal does not lead to the allegorical meaning, or because the text does not contain four “senses” within it. Thus, good literary analysis is not contingent upon Alighieri’s theory, though he contends otherwise.

William Blake’s poem “My Pretty Rose Tree,” clearly illustrates the inaccuracy of Alighieri’s conviction that the literal sense must be conceived before the allegorical can be conceived . While it is correct to say one should understand the literal sense, it is not correct to say it must be understood or that it is the foundation for every level of interpretation. Blake’s text proves this point. For example, the idea of a rose tree being jealous or turning away from a person is not something one can understand literally. Why and how would a rose tree turn away from someone? What could this mean literally? One does not know from a literal understanding. Contrary to Alighieri’s theory, Blake leaves the reader with a semi-ambiguous understanding of the literal meaning in order to move them to think on an allegorical level and thus allow them to comprehend the text’s meaning. In other words, by encouraging the reader to seek the allegorical sense, the poem’s literal, moral or anagogical senses become more apparent. To apply this idea, think allegorically of what is happening to this man in the poem. Envision this man meeting a fair damsel whom he greatly desires, yet refuses because he is faithful to his cruel though beautiful wife. And his wife, knowing of this other woman, becomes jealous and treats him all the worse for it. Returning again to the literal sense, one can say a man is given the chance to possess a very rare and precious flower which he denies because he has a rose tree which he is devoted to although it pricks him with its thorns. Note how there is no resolution given to the jealous tree quandary. This is because the reader does not have to understand the literal meaning of this poem. It is there to move the reader into the allegorical sense where they can then understand the author’s intent of the poem. From this, Blake shows how Alighieri’s literal theory of interpretation is incorrect. The literal meaning is not the foundation from which one understands the text’s meaning, nor is it necessary that the literal sense be always comprehensive.

The second point to argue against Alighieri is his idea that all works contain four areas of exposition. Here, again, Blake shows otherwise. This poem does not contain all four meanings within it. It has a semi-literal, an allegorical and a moral sense, but not an anagogical. The literal and allegorical meanings have already been discussed. Morally, one could conceive a message relating to the importance of being prudent before choosing who it is one commits their life to, or that beauty is not everything, or how difficult life becomes once vowed in marriage. However, on an anagogical level, there is nothing to be inferred. One cannot say this relates to a supernatural truth or spiritual mystery. There are no divine meanings relative to the point of the poem nor should there have to be. It is not necessary for there to be an analogical meaning to make the poem more meaningful or more complete. In secular texts, the anagogical sense is not as necessary as it is in sacred texts. Scripture for example, does comprise all four levels of meaning, and does follow the Alighieri’s theory, but to say all texts have to is incorrect.

Although Alighieri provides analysts with a valid theory of interpretation for select works, one cannot assume his theory is the only one worth following or that it is free from error. It limits its approach in how one can interpret a text by restricting its basis to the literal meaning, and for this reason, it cannot be called a universal theory. While Alighieri’s theory of interpretation works well for specific types of texts, like scriptural, it’s wrong to say it works for every form of written literature. Some works are written differently, like Blake’s, which require different approaches and therefore cannot be treated the same as others. Alighieri assumes all forms of literature are the same, needing only one means of analysis, though this is clearly not the case, and hence, his interpretation of interpretation must be reassessed.

"My Pretty Rose Tree"

A flower was offered to me,
Such a flower as May never bore;
But I said "I've a pretty rose tree,"
And I passed the sweet flower o'er.

Then I went to my pretty rose tree,
To tend her by day and by night;
But my rose turned away with jealousy,
And her thorns were my only delight.

`William Blake

Me and My Millie

The Elucidation of Plato’s Allegory

In the “Allegory of the Cave” Plato makes the argument that ordinary men are blind to the existence of higher realities. He states common men are like chained “cavernous” (64) people, who can perceive only “shadows of artefacts”(65) on the wall of their provincial world. To become aware of what a thing truly is, or to belong to the world of truth, Plato believes it behooves man to break away from the conventional thoughts and perceptions of the average person; for man is unaware of his own ignorance until he seeks to break free from the shackles of widely assumed ideas of reality. The intellectual eye, once it enters into the world of truth through reason, will see with great clarity things in the perfect sense and ponder how he formerly existed without this truth. Plato warns, however, that man will only continue in this state if he remains outside of conventional society. To go back is to give up one’s self-dignity. Anyone who has seen truth and reverts to his former life of ignorance is only worthy of ridicule and pity. The argument Plato presents then is to reject representations of reality so as to find truth through one’s own reason and a personal pursuit of the divine realities.
The significance of Plato’s allegory of the cave for literary scholars is truly vast. Plato brought up an argument that made the literary and philosophical world think long and hard about the idea of man’s ability to find truth and asked whether literature inhibits that process or whether it assists it. Take, for example, the text which discusses the shadows of objects upon the wall in the cave and the people who see them. “[T]he shadows of artefacts would constitute the only reality people in this situation would recognize. […S]omeone tells him that what he’s been seeing all this time has no substance, and that he’s now [after leaving the cave] closer to reality and is seeing more accurately, because of the greater reality of the things before his eyes” (65). Plato makes the point that what man sees through representation is empty, meaningless. Man, therefore, must deny his own previous understanding of things if he wishes to come closer to possessing truth and to recognizing divine realities. Reason must be the way towards the divine, not representation, or literature. Literature is among the shadow world and desists one from aspiring towards “the sight of the character of goodness” (66) which “is a prerequisite for intellectual conduct” (66). Plato affirms that without the knowledge of truth, man will be corrupt, or at the very best, incomplete. This idea later inspired philosophers to consider whether or not this assertion bears validity. Is literature one of the “shadows of artefacts” (65) that blinds those in pursuit of truth? Are those who belong to the world of divine realities the only people who can have the “sight of the character of goodness?” (66) These questions and others made Plato’s writings instrumental in influencing future ideas regarding writing and whether literature, or representation, is a conduit or an obstacle in leading people closer to divine truth and reality. Plato’s contribution to literary studies could appropriately be called one of the cornerstones that laid the foundation for the construction of literary criticism and theory. Thus, his role among classical literary theory cannot be ignored due to the controversy his arguments engendered during that time.
Although Plato’s ideas on representation and reality were significant in impacting literary thought and criticism, they do, however, contain inaccuracies. First, Plato does not recognize that he himself uses a form of representation to convey his beliefs. He uses literature to clarify his ideas though rebukes those who look to them for truth. Plato clearly contradicts himself in this regard. He cannot be against something and then use that something to his own advantage. Secondly, human nature needs a channel through which it can come to find truth. Abstractions are not enough for people; they need a material form to associate with. To find truth, Plato states man must leave behind his senses and come into the world of reason; however, reason, the senses and reality cannot be segregated. When one brings them together they can come to find truth. Plato is blinded by this fact due to his rigid conviction that reason alone is necessary, but this is not so. Thirdly, representation, though it is a lesser form of reality does not mean it is an invalid means to communicate truth. Religion and literature, for example, have worked collectively together for millennia. Written words, representative images, oral traditions etc. keep intact the beliefs of others and instruct followers in coming to find the higher realities or the “realm of the knowledge of goodness” (66).
Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” impacted the world of literature and the understanding of complex concepts in ways never before witnessed in literature and for this it deserves credit. It challenged the minds of men to reflect deeply upon the idea of how it was one could find reality and truth. Plato was correct in highlighting the necessity for man to attain truth and to not take what one sees at face value. Furthermore, he was wise to challenge the reader to want to know more and to ask himself where it is he dwells and whether he possesses reality. Thus, Plato’s work can be looked upon as a valuable source that lead the classical world of literature towards a new understanding the significance of literature and its significance on the human persons.

In Defense of the Sabboth

Many young Catholics in the 21st century have begun asking themselves what it means to be Catholic in modern times. Does one still have to keep the Sabbath? Can one still be a good Catholic and miss mass regularly? In the minds of many young Catholics, no, they don’t and yes, they can. In a 2005 National Catholic Reporter survey, ninety-five percent of young adults between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five stated they believed one can be a good Catholic and not go to mass (D’Antonio). The survey also stated that only fifteen percent of young Catholics go to mass regularly and that only thirty-three percent confessed they would never leave the Church. What these statistics reveal is the urgent need to reeducate young Catholics who hold such opinions because they are not Catholic. Too many of today’s young adults are redefining what it means to be a good Catholic. This crisis needs to be addressed post haste before other people begin losing the right understanding of orthodox Catholicism. The intention of this paper, therefore, is to shed light upon the erring perspective of many young Catholics in this country who believe you can be a faithful Catholic and not attend mass. I will explain, using logic, Scripture and Church teaching, why one must follow the command to keep holy the Sabbath and why it is impossible to be a good Catholic and not attend mass weekly if one wishes to be a faithful follower of Christ.
Catholics must keep the Sabbath day holy if they wish to be Catholic. “Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day. Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy works. But on the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God” (Exodus 20:8-10). These words, given to us by God Himself are not to be taken half-heartedly. God created a covenant with man, and man, in gratitude for this covenant, should say thank you by giving God the worship and adoration He deserves. Catholics tend to forget that the covenant between God and man meant so much to God that He sent His only beloved Son to suffer and die in order to save us from our sins and bring us to eternal life. Because this concept seems alien to most young adults, it helps to compare this idea with something on a purely natural level. For example, if someone were to save our life from death through CPR, we would thank them profoundly. So too should we be with God. We should want to thank God who saved not only our bodies, but also our immortal souls from everlasting death, since He really did save us by bringing us back into friendship with Him. Thus, to give God one day a week is the least we can do in gratitude for all He did and continues to do for us.
Next comes the issue relating to the filial obedience we owe God. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the “third commandment of the Decalogue recalls the holiness of the Sabbath: ‘The seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest’" (2168). Thus, Sunday is a day to rest. Why? Because God said so and if we love God we will keep His commandments. Christ stated at the Last Supper “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth Me. And he that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him” (John 14:21). If one wants to work on saving their soul and gaining salvation, one must always do what God says. To do otherwise is to not obey God, to sin, and hence grow farther away from God. Is this something people really want to do? Perhaps not, but they do not consider that God loves obedience and especially loves those who follow His commands. Whom does a mother have greater affection for, her obedient child or her disobedient child? The answer is obviously the obedient one, but God is the same way. Obedience is, therefore, the proof of your love for God and the key to starting an intimate friendship with Him. “If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father's commandments, and do abide in his love” (John 15:10). If we will want this love, we must show Him our love.
Furthermore, if one wanted to look at the Ten Commandments on a scale of importance from top to bottom, it says something having keeping the Sabbath number three on the “top ten” list of things you must do to be saved. This obviously reveals that God Himself sees this as something of utmost importance to us, since it is to Him. He knows that if we are to be His children we need to give Him our time. As with any relationship, there needs to be time together and time spent getting to know the other person. God, knowing man better than he knows himself, wants to have an intimate relationship with him so that he can come to know, love, serve, obey and please God which will only increase the chances of his being happy with Him forever in eternity. Why would we want to go to heaven and spend time with someone we didn’t want to spend time with while on Earth? As Christ says “If any man minister to me, let him follow me; and where I am, there also shall my minister be” (John 12: 26). If we are to be His friends in Heaven, we must start by doing so now.
The next argument to refute is the idea that one can both be a good Catholic and not attend mass on Sunday. First, it must be stated that this idea is doctrinally impossible. Article 2180 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church emphatically declares “On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass.” Additionally, article 2181states “The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.” To miss mass, therefore, without sufficient reason is a grave matter, which translates into mortal sin. Mortal sin means you are outside God’s grace and, should you die in that state, would go to hell. Additionally, in the gospel of St. John, Jesus says "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you will not have life in you." (John 6:53). To not go to mass, to not receive the very body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is to not have life in you. You are outside of Christ and hence are not being a good Catholic. Therefore to say one can miss mass and be a good Catholic is both wrong and impossible.
In conclusion, while many of today’s young adults are unaware of their error, it is nevertheless necessary that the truth be revealed so their attitudes can be corrected and so they can begin to practice and preach the true faith which Christ revealed. The people surveyed from this poll need to be told that keeping the Sabbath is an obligation which we, as Catholics, owe to Almighty God without question. For in the end, God wants nothing but our good. If we trust Him and do what He says, then we know that what we do is for our good and will lead us closer to achieving that union with God which we all crave. When we love someone we want to be with them. Because God loves us, He wants us to be with Him. We should, then, want to give Him back that same love, by following His commandments and spending time with Him at mass. To deliberately not follow His command to keep the Sabbath, is not loving God and ergo, not being a good Catholic. While it is hoped that this reality will open the minds of these young adults, one can only pray that at some point, God will touch their hearts and guide them back into full union with the Church and thus full union with Christ, by their coming to love God and observe His laws.








Works Cited
Catechism of the Catholic Church. Washington, DC. Libreria Editrice Vaticana. United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops. 1997. 31 Oct. 2006 .
D’Antonio, William. “Survey of U.S. Catholic: Generational Differences.” National
Catholic Reporter. Table 4 (2005). 20 Oct. 2005
.
The Holy Bible. Douay-Rheims Version. Rockford, Il. TAN Books, 1989. DRBO.
2003. 20 Oct. 2006 < http://www.drbo.org/>.

On Being Human

In order to define what it means to be human, one first needs to understand humanity. To be able to understand humanity, one needs to examine their actions over the course of history. To be able to examine their actions over the course of history, one needs to acquire a text that dates back as far as possible. One of the best sources man has to assess human behavior is the Bible. The Biblical accounts are a valuable source to study human behavior since they portray a vast array of personalities both male and female, spanning a period of nearly two thousand years. It well represents what men and women are like both collectively and individually. In looking at some familiar Biblical accounts such as the fall of humanity, Joseph and his twelve brothers and the life of Christ, one can determine patterns of behavior which clearly illustrate the predominant characteristics of what it means to be human. For our argument, humanity will be separated into three categories, the bad, the good and the repentant good. From these three groups, the definition of what it means to be human will unfold itself as we explore the characteristics which make up a large portion of humanity.
Before delving into this analysis, it is necessary to understand that one of the most important aspects of being human is that one must be tempted. In the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve were tempted to see if they would be faithful to God’s command. From their choosing to disobey God, original sin was born and mankind’s wills were weakened. However, the point to remember here, is that God tests His children to see if they will be faithful to Him. Throughout all of human history, men and women have been tested by God for the self-same reason. From the choices they make during these moments of temptation they become who they are as individuals, and who people are as individuals, defines what humanity is as a whole. Given this understanding, we can now begin our analysis of humanity by looking at those people who succumbed to temptation (the bad), followed by those who did not (the good) and end with those who fell but later repented (the repentant good).
Many in the world consist of those who fall into temptation and sin; yet, this is not new to humanity. As previously mentioned, the first man and woman belonged to it. Adam and Eve knew not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, yet they did. Eve was the first to eat; however, what must be asked is what actions and what characteristics preceded the bite? The Bible tells us that she had a conversation with the serpent. But why would she talk with a serpent? Because she was idle. From idleness came the serpent, from the serpent came curiosity, from her curiosity came envy from envy came sin. Eve fell into the state of being envious, of wanting what did not belong to her to the point of putting herself before God to acquire it. Yet, Eve was not the only one culpable of sin; Adam too participated in the act. What was Adam’s blunder? First, he wasn’t there to protect Eve. He wasn’t there to guard her against this evil serpent which was his duty as Eve’s husband. This sin demonstrates man’s predominant tendency towards the sin of sloth. Between Eve’s temptation due to her idle, envious curiosity and Adam’s temptation towards slothful irresponsibility, both sinned and ate of the forbidden fruit. However, collectively they both sinned by the sin of pride. They put themselves before God by not obeying Him and by seeking to be potentially equal with Him. In evaluating Adam and Eve’s actions, it is clear that some in humanity can be slothful, envious, idle and proud.
Additional characters in the Bible fell into temptation. For example, in the Gospel of St. Mark, the Pharisees and Sadducees boasted of their great piety and righteousness, yet willingly condemned the Son of God to die. Being blinded by their own ego’s, they could not see Truth staring them dead in the face. They hated Christ because of His goodness, the attention He drew, and the truth He preached and, consequentially, had Him crucified. This idea of hatred and injustice done to innocent people because of people’s great jealousy towards them greatly reflects part of what it means to be human. Still today, there are people who want to see others treated unjustly and care less about their happiness. Instead, they seek their own happiness at the expense of another’s misery. From this observation, some in humanity can be called as malicious, jealous and hateful.
While there are many who fall into temptation, sin and thus make all of humanity look terrible, there are also many who struggle against it and practice virtue. Take, for example, the Old Testament figure, Joseph, and his great act of mercy. To forgive your enemy is a very difficult thing. To not carry a grudge towards your enemy, but to whole-heartedly forgive him for all the pain he caused you shows the potential people have in practicing great virtue. In Joseph, there is the image of a man unjustly sold into slavery by his eleven brothers. Yet, after Joseph gained power and had his brother’s groveling at his feet for help during the famine, he set aside his feelings of bitterness and forgave them for their evil deed. He took extraordinary pity on them and provided for their needs, forgiving them all they had done to him. This tender image of Joseph as the merciful brother and just lord characterizes those in the world who are virtuous and who fight the temptation to do wrong to those who rightly deserve punishment. Thus, Joseph touchingly represents those who show love and mercy towards their neighbor by practicing true charity in forgiving those who ask for pardon. Humanity, therefore, is capability of being loving, just and forgiving.
Likewise, humanity has a second category among the good. This consists of the repentant good. Saint Peter, one of Christ’s dear Apostles, belonged to this category. Saint Peter denied Christ three times when he swore he would follow Him to the death. This great act of betrayal, though a terrible sin, awakened in Peter a great sorrow, and from this sorrow, he repented with his whole heart. He begged God’s mercy and trusted in His forgiveness. He, though tempted to despair like the traitor Judas, hoped in God’s mercy and did not despair. To despair would itself have caused him to fall into greater sin which he did not do. He prayed, hoped, repented and was forgiven. Similarly, the infamous prostitute, Saint Mary Magdalene, asked for Christ’s mercy, sinner though she was. She knew she was wrong, but through her faith in Christ, she was healed from her wicked ways, became a pure woman and faithful follower of Christ. Many there are who through weakness fall into sin, but who continue to fight their evil inclinations through repeated efforts and struggle. Though sinners, they too are worthy of the name good since they strive to be better than they are. To be human, therefore also means to be weak, to be contrite, to struggle against our fallen nature and to trust in God’s love.
What now can be said from this analysis? What does it mean to be human? In a nutshell, to be human means to be tried. It means one will be tempted towards evil. It means one can fall and sin. It means one can resist and become virtuous. It means one can fall, but then ask for God’s forgiveness. Being human means we can practice great vice or it means we can practice great virtue. From the free will choices a person makes in their life, they can become truly great or truly terrible. In the end, being human means to be called unto higher things. It means we are to be like that which we were meant to be before the fall, likened unto God, perfect and holy. With God’s grace, fallen humanity, tempted and weak as it is, must strive to arrive at that eternal garden of paradise, so that with the saints and angels in Heaven, we might enjoy that which we are destined to enjoy, namely the Beatific vision of Almighty God.