Tsunami and Theodicy

A good article in First Things by David B. Hart on theodicy (A Christian defense of a good God in the face of the existence of evil) is here. He writes:

I do not believe we Christians are obliged—or even allowed—to look upon the devastation visited upon the coasts of the Indian Ocean and to console ourselves with vacuous cant about the mysterious course taken by God’s goodness in this world, or to assure others that some ultimate meaning or purpose resides in so much misery. Ours is, after all, a religion of salvation; our faith is in a God who has come to rescue His creation from the absurdity of sin and the emptiness of death, and so we are permitted to hate these things with a perfect hatred. For while Christ takes the suffering of his creatures up into his own, it is not because he or they had need of suffering, but because he would not abandon his creatures to the grave. And while we know that the victory over evil and death has been won, we know also that it is a victory yet to come, and that creation therefore, as Paul says, groans in expectation of the glory that will one day be revealed. Until then, the world remains a place of struggle between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, life and death; and, in such a world, our portion is charity.

And to digress a moment, a previous article by Hart gets to the heart of many of the issues I find myself confronted with, though Tom has raised concerns about the article. To be discussed later.

In discussing the format for this blog, that is the issues Tom and I think most pressing, we had the following exchange:

[erico] I think a big theme for me, that’s always been in the back of my thoughts, is the scandal of evil in a good world created by a good God. I think that many of the political issues of the day have this anger and pain behind it. To declare the existence of a good God is a scandal in itself to all of us who don’t know the peace of Christ, to all those without faith. And it provokes a reaction.

[tombot] YES - WE MUST DISCUSS THE PROBLEM OF THEODICY - GOOD GOD + EVIL IN WORLD + INNOCENCE/GUILT. THIS (FOR ME) IS THE ISSUE.

WE AGREE PROFOUNDLY- THE ANGER IS PRIMORDIAL ALONG WITH THE WOUND - THE ONLY JUSTIFICATION FOR FAITH THEN WOULD BE AS AN ATTITUDE THAT ALLOWED THE UNIVERSE TO BECOME SOMETHING MORE THAN A MERE ECHO CHAMBER OF THE WOUND.

AS YOU IMPLY - THE FAITHFUL ARE THE DEFENSE LAWYERS FOR A GOD ON TRIAL - THAT WOULD CERTAINLY APPEAR TO BE THE CASE IN TODAY'S WORLD.

IN MY CURRENT MUSINGS I IMAGINE FAITH AS THE CODE-BREAKER OR DE-SCRAMBLER FOR THE TRANSMISSIONS THAT OUR LIFE EXPERIENCE SENDS OUT TO US. MY LAMENT IS THAT SO MANY OF THE FAITHFUL JUMP OVER THE SIGNALS THEMSELVES IN FAVOR OF THE "ANSWERS" TO THE CODE - WHICH THEY THEN DECLARE AS SELF-EVIDENT AND SELF-EXPLANATORY THINKING THAT THESE CAN BE GIVEN, SHARED, PROCLAIMED IN A VACUUM. WHEN IN FACT THEY ARE UNSURPASSED IN THEIR SCANDALOUS PERPLEXITY.

THE BREAKING OF THE CODE WOULD HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE "BINARY OPPOSITIONS" AND CONTRADICTIONS THAT MAKE UP OUR WORLD. THE TEMPTATION IS ALWAYS TO CHOOSE ONE SIDE OF THE EQUATION AS "GOOD" AND TO SCAPEGOAT THE OTHER (GIRARD). -- FOR EXAMPLE - POLITICAL LOYALTY VS. PHILOSOPHICAL TRUTH - PRIVATE FREEDOM/PUBLIC ORDER, FAMILY RELATIONS VS CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY - SEXUAL DESIRE VS. DETACHED CONCERN, JEWS/GENTILES -- CHURCH/WORLD-- CHRISTIANITY AT ITS BEST OFFERS THE "BOTH-AND" SOLUTION - A REALM OF CHARITY IN WHICH VARIOUS TENSIONS, FACTIONS, INCLINATIONS MAY ASSUME THEIR OPTIMUM PROPORTIONS.

I HAVE MORE TO SAY ON THIS THEME - GOTTA GO. TOM

Hell as Eternal Pleasure

There is no denying that there are new drugs on the market that can help lift depression, for example Prozac and the next generation of drugs in the same family. Yet, if the drugs in themselves could bring about happiness, then those struggling with depression would not stop using them. But they do. I think I would be more likely to approve of prescribing Prozac along with therapy, so that it would act as an aid during a more comprehensive treatment. This is in fact standard practice for many therapists.

The underlying question is whether happiness can be acheived through a purely biological remedy, which is in fact a question about whether there is a spiritual component to humankind, or if we are reducible to our biology. But if so then the drug addict whose pleasure centers are on overdrive ought to be happy, and they clearly are not. I think of that pitiable soul who emerged from a hole in a wall during a Geraldo Rivera special warning others not to follow in her footsteps as a heroin addict. I still recall the look on her face as she declared that she lived in hell.

And so, I aver the distinction to be made is between happiness as pleasurable sensations and happiness as a side effect of goodness. Though all of the lower level biological systems are in order, are being fed on pleasure, it is still impossible to be happy if you are not in communion with your God. (and if you do choose God, then you know that you are going to have to give up the drugs). This is why Bernard Lonergan, in his study of human understanding, goes through hundreds of pages of analysis, touching the fields of mathematics, physics, biology, the sciences, and at the end, at chapter 18, begins his chapter on The Possibility of Ethics, and the notion of the good, in which we are involved in "deliberation and decision, choice and will."

There's an interesting exchange between Adam Tierny and myself after his blog entry at in the agora on happiness as a physical process and materialist presuppositions.

Andrew Sullivan Disrespects the Pope

It has been a week and Mr. Sullivan has subsequently published other letters from readers of his website, but he has neither responded in private to my own letter to him, nor made any modifications to his initial statement on the Pope, nor published my letter to him on his letters page. So I am publishing his comment and my response to it here. On Friday, February 25, Mr. Sullivan wrote:

The Pope's Life: We have been informed that the pontiff's current suffering and persistence against multiple illnesses and debilities is sending a message about the dignity of suffering and the importance of life. There is indeed a great truth to that. But there is also a point at which clinging to life itself becomes a little odd for a Christian, no? Isn't the fundamental point about Christianity that our life on earth is but a blink in the eye of our real existence, which begins at death and lasts for eternity in God's loving presence? Why is the Pope sending a signal that we should cling to life at all costs - and that this clinging represents some kind of moral achievement? Isn't there a moment at which the proper Christian approach to death is to let it come and be glad? Or put it another way: if the Pope is this desperate to stay alive, what hope is there for the rest of us?

My response:

Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:51:29 -0800 (PST)
From: "Eric Ortwerth"
Subject: LETTERS do not disrespect my Pope, dismiss his suffering, or mischaracterize what he is about
To: andrew@andrewsullivan.com

Mr. Sullivan,

I do not know whether you are Catholic, or Christian.
But there is an admonishment in the bible to
discretely take aside a brother in Christ to correct
him, in charity. So you may choose to consider this
letter private, and not publish it, and I won’t think
less of you for it. On the other hand, from my
perspective your post on the Pope's health cannot
stand without some form of response on your part to my
letter. If this note slips past your notice I will
publish it on my own site at the least. I do not wish
to assume too much in your short paragraph on Pope
John Paul II’s health. But there are clear instances
of mischaracterization and callousness on your part.
And you are speaking to a large audience that you have
sway over. So I feel I cannot let your words pass
without correction, though I may prefer to. I am
perhaps sensitive to the euthanasia issue behind
discussions of suffering, “clinging to life”, and the
Catholic Church’s opposition to euthanasia.
Especially with Terri Schiavo’s life on the line at
this time. But also because you risk missing what the
Pope’s acceptance of suffering is all about. And you
may lead others to miss it as well. Remember, Jesus
said, “Woe be to the gatekeepers!”

There is a charge made against the Catholic church of
indifference and insensitivity to the suffering of the
terminally ill, in its opposition to euthanasia, when
it is argued that those who are suffering ought to be
given the option of release through so called mercy
killing. And so it is important to the powers of the
world to dismiss this great Pope, who has embraced his
suffering in witness (the root meaning of the word
martyr) to the value and dignity of human life, who
has united his suffering with Christ on the cross and
in solidarity with all those who suffer in the world.
Your phrasing is callous and dismissive of his witness
to the value and dignity of life, even life lived in
pain, that Pope John Paul II has explicitly stated he
wished to give to the faithful and to the world.

You may go back to March 25, 1995 with the publication
of Pope John Paul II’s EVANGELIUM VITAE to hear the
Pope’s message on the Value and Inviolability of Human
Life. Or you may read his invitation to the young
people of the world at the 1992 World Youth Day in
Denver, in which he invoked Jesus’ words in John
10:10, “I came that they might have life, and have it
to the full”. For many years he has drawn a line in
the sand between the Culture of Life and the Culture
of Death. So when you write that “We have been
informed [emphasis mine] that the pontiff's current
suffering and persistence against multiple illnesses
and debilities is sending a message about the dignity
of suffering and the importance of life,” I should
hope it didn’t really come as a surprise to you. At
least take him at his word.

You also misrepresent Christianity as diminishing the
here and the now as somehow “unreal” or insignificant
so as to knock it down more easily. You write, “Isn't
the fundamental point about Christianity that our life
on earth is but a blink in the eye of our real
existence, which begins at death and lasts for
eternity in God's loving presence? Why is the Pope
sending a signal that we should cling to life at all
costs - and that this clinging represents some kind of
moral achievement?” First, you may be pleased to know
that the Catholic position on euthanasia is that there
is no requirement for extraordinary medical means to
be taken to extend the life of a terminally ill
person, should they decide against it. But one may
not directly take one’s own life or ask another to do
so. Food and water, by the way, is not extraordinary
medical treatment, according to the Pope, if you wish
to consider the case of Terri Schiavo. By your logic,
if the Pope ought to call it a day, because he can’t
speak, though there is a quickness to his mind,
certainly you must hold that Mrs. Schiavo’s life is
worth even less. Second, the kingdom of God is here,
now, as well as coming, it is a both/and, not an
either/or proposition. Third, it stikes me as far
more adequate to say that the fundamental point about
Christianity is that the Messiah has come, but he is
not at all what was expected, the king has taken the
form of a slave, has accepted suffering, dismissal,
ridicule, crucifixion—and God has heard the cry of his
Son. The stone that was rejected has become the
cornerstone. Please do not impute desperation to the
Pope’s acceptance of his suffering, following his Lord
in the garden who said “Let this cup pass from me, but
not my will, but thy will be done.” (paraphrasing).

At root, the issue seems to be that many people think
of suffering as an unqualified evil, and it is
certainly an evil that is not to be minimized; it is a
scandal, a stumbling block to faith in God (i.e. if
there is a good God how can such bad things happen?)
and I won’t minimize that anger and pain. But that is
why the Pope’s witness is so important—it points the
way ahead for us. On the other hand, from what you
have written, you may be the one guilty of dismissing
the Pope’s suffering as meaningless. There is in the
Catholic tradition, at least, an understanding of a
redemptive component in suffering, in uniting your
suffering to Christ’s suffering on the Cross. If you
can offer up your joys to Christ in prayer, why not
your suffering, as well? This is a mystery,
ultimately, a wisdom that perhaps the world must find
to be folly. Not to leave you or your readers
stranded, I invite you to read the life of Saint
Maximillian Kolbe, canonized October 10, 1982 by Pope
John Paul II as a martyr.

In summation, you may take a principled position in
favor of euthanasia, though you would be wrong, but at
the very least do not disrespect my Pope, dismiss his
suffering, or mischaracterize what he is about.

In Christ,

Eric Ortwerth
Eortwerth2000@yahoo.com
www.convoid.blogspot.com

Though the rhetoric is heated in Jeff Jacoby's article, and I do not wish to add any suffering to the family of the man who killed himself, a useful contrast is seen between the choice of suicide taken by Hunter Thompson, may he find peace, and the Pope's decision to endure suffering. You may wish to read Jeff Jacoby's piece, An Inglorious Suicide which reads in part:

''It wouldn't be accurate to say Thompson had a death wish,'' Mark Layman wrote for Knight Ridder. ''Just the opposite: He was the self-described 'champion of fun.' '' Douglas Brinkley, the well-known historian and Thompson family friend, declared that Thompson ''made a conscious decision that he had an incredible run of 67 years, lived the way he wanted to, and wasn't going to suffer the indignities of old age.'' One journalist after another seized the moment to reminisce about some wild evening once spent with Thompson, whose suicide they seem to regard as one last piece of roguish bad craziness from an irrepressible original.

How striking is the contrast between Thompson's tawdry death and the excruciating struggle of Pope John Paul II, whose passionate belief in the sanctity of life remains unwavering, even as Parkinson's disease slowly ravages him. The pope's example of courage and dignity sends a powerful message, but the chattering class would rather talk instead about why this stubborn man won't resign. Meanwhile they extol Hunter Thompson and are itching to know — are his ashes really going to be fired from a cannon?