Is Perception Reality?

James V. Schall in The Mind That Is Catholic speaks to the matter of moral relativism and the one virtue left standing when all objective ground for the good is abolished - namley tolerance. He demonstrates how it is that the modern western world unwittingly and superficially imports Christian categories into their understanding of the good without realizing that in our global society such talk is philosophically deracinated from any shared first principles with other cultures. It then becomes observationally true that all the talk of tolerance is hollow, leaving no means to discover any ground for truth .

One reads:

"We hear much about the fact that "terrorists," as they are quaintly called, seem to epitomize what is evil in a world in which the content of evil is not discussed or defined. That the "terrorists" themselves do not think they are terrorists seems remarkable. In their own terms, they are purusing a good cause by necessary means. They reject the standards by which we define them as terrorists. If they succeed, however, the world will be at "peace," and there will be no more violence. Violence is caused by those who oppose this effort to subject the world to Allah, not by the terrorist."

The obvious implication of his observation is that true peace is not obtained by tolerating falsehood. Tolerating that which is false just stalls the inevitable. Genuine peace is had by the recognition of the objective good - something which is impossible to agree on without a thorough consideration of the underpinnings of our beliefs.

In sum, if there is no reality outside our respective perceptions, then all that is left is the will to power. That is, the brute force which demands that one's will be done, that one's perception prevail. Not because it's objectively true - for on this view there is no such thing. But because it's the perception held by those with most influence and power.

The Cowardly Lion

Well, he's back folks! The ill-tempered king of illogic is roaring new accuations at yours truly.

For those who don't remember him, it's "Bob/Peter" the filibustering phoney philosopher, the abject relativist who accuses God of absolute wrongs, the great unread scholar who had the gall to declare Mother Teresa (Now Blessed Teresa) "a hypocrite of the highest sort."

We're treated this time to more vaccuous assertions, ad hominem attacks, hissy fits and feminine retreats from actual discussion.

Bob continues with the tired accusation that I have edited damaging evidence from our exchanges and ups the ante by falsely claiming that I stated to have published every jot and tittle that proceeded from his keyboard. This, though, is manifestly false.

On my blog one can read the following:

http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2007/01/metaphysicssilly-and-boring.html

_____

"Hi Bob,

I intend to deal with your email Socratically, as is my custom. First, though, I'd like to address your false accusations to the effect that I'm stonewalling or omitting parts of your email that "blow my arguments away."

It is a fact that I deal with every single one of your thoughts with the exception of those thoughts tied to your Johnny-one-scripture obsession."

______

Notice, I never said that I publish every single word of his email. But that I deal with every single one of his thoughts. Those thoughts I didn't deal with were the ones "tied to" his "Johnny-one-Scripture obsession."

At the time he was making a case against God, declaring Him absolutely immoral for certain commands He gave to the Israelites regarding the destruction of another people. I wished to have him FIRST establish how he went about determining right from wrong, his philosophy of morality, whether he was an absolutist or a relativist.

In fact, in my very next words I say as much. We read:

"Those questions will be fielded when we get you to consistently hold to one worldview."

In other words, he claimed on the one hand that man was the measure of all morality, that morality came from his own ideas of what was good or bad, the sum total of his own invention of what best works for society. On the other hand, however, he launched out on a moral tirade against God who was said (according to him) to be absolutely wrong to command x, y and z.

So, my desire was to figure out FIRST whether he was a moral relativist or a moral absolutist. That is, I wasn't going to let him talk out of both side of his mouth - something he proceeded to do throughout the rest of our dialogue.

The above demonstrates that I did the following:

1. I openly admitted to omitting parts of his email.

2. I stated which parts were ommitted.

3. I furnished a logical reason for so doing.

4. Expressed complete willingness to deal with the omitted parts once he conceded a philosophical positon on the nature of morality.

My guess is that Bob/Peter still is not sure if he's a moral relativist or a moral absolutist. Or that he even understands the difference given his limitations with conceptual thought.

If he declares himself the former, I'm quite certain he would not follow the logical implications of such a position and admit that he has no leg to stand on in charging God with absolute moral evils.

If he declares himself to be the latter, then I'd love to know in what he grounds his moral absolutism. As my readers have seen, however, a thirty-thousand some word exchange couldn't get him to come to grips with any of those matters.

What follows is our latest series of exchanges. In them he huffs, puffs, asserts, ascends the moral soap box and runs away like the cowardly lion that he is.

His presentation is proof positive that we are living in intellectually limp-wristed times, that intellectual cowardice has emasculated a generation of men.

___________________________

Hi Bob,

Thought you might be interested in this given that you're reading Erhman's book:

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection debate-transcript.pdf

I hope this email finds you healthy and of good cheer.

James:)

_______________

(Bob's Email to me)

I have heard so much more about you after I had the misfortune of interacting with you, and the more I hear the more I wish I had never given you a second chance. I am sure if I could have met you in a face to face dialogue, I would have seen through your facade much quicker. The more I find out about you and your demeanor, integrity, honesty, etc, the more I see why you were given the boot. Find someone else to play games with, then cut and paste your edited bullshit on the web and then go pat yourself on the back. Maybe, just maybe you can get someone else to read it who doesn't know just how full of yourself you are to pat you on the back too. Wouldn't that be great!! I am really surprised and actually quite honored that a person of your great intellect and being so well read, that you would have to resort to that kind of BS to in your mind "win a discussion.

> I hope this email finds you healthy and of good cheer.>>

Yup, I believe that. They say you attract more flies with honey, but growing up on a farm, I would say BS does a damn fine job too. You apparently been around it so long you can no longer tell the difference.

___________________

Bob,

I merely sent you a link to a written transcript between two scholars given that I read on Channel C that you had purchased a book authored by one of the scholars. No where did I attempt to engage you in dialogue. The salutation at the bottom of the email was in good faith.

In our last exchange you accused me of misrepresenting you by editing the damaging evidence purportedly found in your email submissions to me against the views I advocated. Yet no evidence to that effect was ever brought to the table on your part. Not one sentence, in fact.

I, on the other hand, shored up my position by furnishing reams of evidence to the contrary - basically, the larger part of our email corpus. I even did a bit of inductive reasoning to demonstrate the fallaciousness of your claims. See here:

http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2008/05/inductive-reasoning.html

I have no desire to discuss anything philosophical or religious with you. I don't perceive an open mind and dispassionate spirit. But I am happy to learn that you're reading books. So, I do offer my sincere kudos to you on that point.

I will step out on a limb and predict that you'll follow the same modus operandi in the case regarding my alleged bad character as you did in the case of my alleged selective editing of your email. That is, all the bravado and stridency of your claim to have learned so much about me, my demeanor, lack of integrity and honesty etc. will be followed by a deafening silence as it relates to actual names of people and the actual cases admitting of evidence supporting the claim against me. The arrows shot from the fog will prove to have no concrete origin, nothing open to public scrutiny and mutual discussion. yours,

James:)

Dear Bob,

Over a week ago I predicted the following:

"I will step out on a limb and predict that you'll follow the same modus operandi in the case regarding my alleged bad character as you did in the case of my alleged selective editing of your email. That is, all the bravado and stridency of your claim to have learned so much about me, my demeanor, lack of integrity and honesty etc. will be followed by a deafening silence as it relates to actual names of people and the actual cases admitting of evidence supporting the claim against me. The arrows shot from the fog will prove to have no concrete origin, nothing open to public scrutiny and mutual discussion." END QUOTE

This is becoming quite a disconcerting and predictable pattern. You have a hissy fit and charge me with an unconscionable act (ex: editing all the "damaging evidence" from our exchanges) or call into question my character (ex:"The more I find out about you and your demeanor, integrity, honesty, etc.") to then run in the other direction with your tail between your legs. Not a very manly course, my friend.

I'm honestly not upset with you, though. I believe this phenomenon is owing to a certain type of psychological make-up. You probably are of the view that I really did edit damaging evidence from our conversations even though you can't seem to produce one example thereof. That is, you genuinely believe it even though you don't have any proof for it. If you had the proof, you'd simply furnish it and that would be that. I'd have mud on my face. But you don't. So, you up the emotion and the rhetoric in an effort to keep yourself convinced of the veracity of your claim in the teeth of evidence to the contrary.

http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2008/05/inductive-reasoning.html

The same goes for this whole calumnious claim against my character. You've been publicly beaten pretty bad in debate by me and you're feeling kind of lumped up and sore. Hence, I must be evil. I mean, it can't be that you don't have a philosophical leg to stand on, or that you're talking out your derriere on topics about which your interlocutor (ie. Yours truly) is much more educated and well-read. No! The problem is that I'm evil. I edited all the damaging evidence, the very evidence that would have vindicated you and your position if my readership only had access to it. Furnish evidence for my evil character? Never! It's enough just to make the claim and hope it sticks - that is, hope I don't actually call you on it and - heaven forbid - publish our exchange to the Internet thus revealing you to be (yet again!) all hot air.

James:)

_______________________

Hi Bob,

In my last email I stated that due to the lack of evidence of your claims against me, your modus operandi is to "up the emotion and the rhetoric in an effort to keep yourself convinced of the veracity of your claim in the teeth of evidence to the contrary."

And that's precisely what you've done again. That is, you simply assert without ever giving me anything tangible to discuss.

>>In fact none of the other people I mentioned want to have anything to do with a dishonest person such as yourself.>> (Good Font Color for the Cowardly Lion, me thinks)

You didn’t' mention any "other people" or furnish any evidence for my alleged dishonesty. Nothing in the above sentence admits of evidence furnished by actual people with names. It's bald assertion.

>> You denied doing ANY edits OVER and OVER again and demanded I prove otherwise.>>

I didn't deny doing ANY edits. I've never claimed that I include every sentence written by interlocutors when I engage them Socratically. I know of no one who does so. It would make online dialogue unruly and cumbersome.

My claim is that I didn't edit what you allege to be "damaging evidence," evidence that would upend the position I was advocating. You've yet to furnish evidence toward that end. You merely assert it.

>>You denied doing this over and over again till I went back and pulled up only of couple of our emails and pointed out many of your edits and this was in only in the first two of the dozens of emails we exchanged.>>

I don't remember your doing any such thing. Please produce these edits in the first couple of dozen of email and I will engage them.

Remember, for your assertion to stick, you'd have to do much more than simply assert that the edited evidence is damaging. That's simply declaring victory before you go to war. You'd have to prove as much, which is a whole other ball of wax.

You're illegitimately trying to forward your case by a sleight of hand maneuver.

1. You assert that I claimed to include every word of our dialogues in my Socratic responses published to the web. This, though, is false. I made no such claim.

2. You then merely assert that those things which were allegedly edited constitute "damaging evidence." That, though, must be proven. Not merely asserted.

3. Instead of actually furnishing evidence to shore your claims, you engage in ad hominem arguments by calling into question my honesty and integrity. This is intellectual cowardice, a trap-door that allows you to avoid engagement with my arguments against your claims.

4. What's worse is that such ad hominem arguments follow your usual pattern of making claims all while refusing to furnish evidence for them. So, we're left with a two-story assertion on the order of "You did x, y and z. But since you're so dishonest, lack integrity, etc (all things for which I won't furnish concrete evidence), I'm going to turn on my heels and refuse to talk to you.

The rest of your diatribe is but another hissy fit. It's an unmanly retreat from genuine exchange. It demonstrates that you're an intellectual coward who disguises his cowardice behind a spurious moral indignation which rests on a string of demonstrably false assertions.

You can't keep equanimity in your tone because there is nothing to back up your claims but bluster and name-calling. Anyone who reads these exchanges and has a modicum of logical acumen will recognize that much.

Wishing you well,

James:)

Inductive Reasoning

Recently the accusation of dishonesty was leveled against me by a former interlocutor. He argued that I intentionally omitted damning evidence furnished by him throughout our dialogues in an effort to keep intact the positions I was defending. The accusation didn't graduate past an assertion, however, since he never presented copies of our email dialogues, or even his own initial emails to me, which were then published with my responses in a Socratic format. In short, I was the only one with any actual data from said exchanges.

To be fair, there were a few phrases - and I say a few because there were five in total out of a thirty-five thousand plus word exchange - that were omitted. All five took place in our very last exchange on Mother Teresa. Three of them in one exchange and two in another. This was owing to publishing problems with blogspot.com, however. Apparently, certain bracketed words were lost regardless of their having appeared in the text I sought to publish. They appear as empty brackets in the published version with my commentary rather nonsensically following them.

A simple use of inductive reasoning quite easily puts the lie to my interlocutor's accusation of dishonesty on my part, as I shall demonstrate.

Since I actually responded to the empty brackets, let's give a squint at my responses so as to reason by induction what might have been omitted .

http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2007/09/unbeliever.html

Empty brackets # 1 - << >>

My response # 1 - "let's see if that's true in this case."

Empty brackets # 2 - << >>

My response # 2 - "I relate to that one"

Empty brackets # 3 - << >>

My response # 3 - "Lack of sweetness in prayer and even a lack of a desire to pray is not the same thing as doubting God’s existence. You consistently confuse two disparate things."
Induction: Response 1 is a very general statement of inquiry that seeks to test the validity of something you're about to set out to prove. My statement wouldn't make sense if it were damning evidence. Both responses # 2 and 3 were commentary on Mother Teresa's words as found in her letters. The first one I said I could personally relate to. And the second one was a general commentary on the aridity of prayer. Neither can logically count as damning evidence. (unless, of course, I relate to damning evidence:>))

http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2007/09/swimming-in-shallow-waters.html

Empty Brackets # 4 - << >>

My response # 4 - You’re heart is deceiving you on a monumental scale. That’s the furthest thing from reality and why I put a big photo of the word DELUSION on my blog and titled our last exchange "When Cynicism Leads to Delusion. Your above statement is proof positive of how your cynicism is leading to a solipsistic state of mind. Psychologically, it’s fascinating to watch. You’re at the point now that you’ll go to every extent to vindicate your views – views premised in ignorance and zero actual learning – even if it entails imputing to your interlocutors the opposite beliefs for which they argue. According to this kind of delusion, all the experts on the matter are "spin doctors" and your dialogue partner (i.e. me) who has spent the last decade studying these matters *really knows* deep down that you’re spot on and he’s in error. And since he realizes how spot on you are, chances are that those who are more informed than he on the matter and hold to the same views must also know deep down that they’re just telling a big fat lie." END QUOTE

Empty Brackets # 5 - << >>

My respnose # 5 - "Anyone with an ounce of good faith would trust that he’s speaking the truth as he sees it and understands it from his highly studied vantage point. Anyone with an ounce of reasoning would not reduce the understanding of Christian mysticism and the life of Mother Teresa to a personal interpretive parsing of a few disjointed citations found in a book he has not read. Again, this is what I mean by "bad form." It’s the very cast of mind I wrote to you about in the past. Failure to disabuse yourself of it will keep you locked in your own mind and from truly learning. In other words, it will keep you a Jehovah’s Witness."

Induction: In response # 4 I was accusing my interlocutor of being so cynical that he was led to the delusion that I actually knew him to be right even though I argued contrarily. I also argued, based on what he said, that he had gotten to the point where he did not trust the authority of anyone, but saw people as spin doctors.

In response 5 I underscore yet further that if he were not so cynical he would at least give the benefit of the doubt to Mother Teresa's biographer and take him at his word and understanding of her letters rather than trusting his own interpretation of a few statements pulled out of the context of an entire anthology of letters published in a book.

The following questions remain: What does he think was omitted in those brackets which was so damning, so pivotal to my losing a debate with him? Can he give a general idea of what he might have written - one which makes sense with the commentary that follows it?

How does his "observation" of five omitted phrases constitute a "pattern" out of a thirty-five thousand plus word exchange, much less act as the basis for a "tentative hypothesis" undergirding a "theory" of even the most remote credibility?

As of yet, no response is forthcoming.

For those interested, I will provide a chronological order of our exchanges. I believe they can only be read at Studiositas because I am the only one who is actually in possession of them. Put another way, my interlocutor is simply asserting what he cannot prove since he has no actual copies of what he wrote. If he did, he could easily indict me:

Monday, December 04, 2006
http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2006/12/discovery-of-what-we-already-know.html

Thursday, December 14, 2006

http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2006/12/case-against-godnatureknowledge-of.html

Friday, December 15, 2006 -
http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2006/12/oh-well-i-tried.html

Monday, December 18, 2006
http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2006/12/on-road-to-nihilism.html

Monday, December 18, 2006
http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2006/12/syllogismjusticehell.html

Tuesday, December 19, 2006
http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2006/12/summary.html

Wednesday, January 03, 2007
http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2007/01/self-refuting-philosophy.html

Thursday, January 18, 2007
http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2007/01/logic-justice-and-first-principles.html
http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2007/01/christian-philosophy-of-justice.html

Monday, January 22, 2007
http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2007/01/fixity-of-logicjustice.html

Tuesday, January 23, 2007
http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2007/01/smart-dog.html

Wednesday, January 24, 2007
http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2007/01/difference-in-degree-or-kind.html

Wednesday, January 24, 2007
http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2007/01/straddling-worldviews.html

Thursday, January 25, 2007
http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2007/01/thinking-monkeys-other.html

Thursday, January 25, 2007

http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2007/01/youre-unjusttherefore-justice-doesnt.html

Friday, January 26, 2007
http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2007/01/metaphysicssilly-and-boring.html

Monday, September 03, 2007
http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2007/09/unbeliever.html

Tuesday, September 04, 2007
http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2007/09/absence-of-one-sidedness.html

Wednesday, September 05, 2007
http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2007/09/when-cynicism-leads-to-delusion.html

Friday, September 07, 2007
http://studiositas.blogspot.com/2007/09/swimming-in-shallow-waters.html

On Disordered Passions

Good Morning,

I can't thank you enough for sharing your story with me. Such exchanges always result in solidarity. They help us realize that our struggles are not unique, but rather the common patrimony of sinful humanity.

Much of what you write resonates with me, not so much in terms of content per se, but in terms of the dynamic of your struggle. What forcibly jumps off the page when I read you is passion. One senses an almost inexhaustible soul, one who feels deeply and with immediacy on all scores. Such a temperament is a gift often mistaken for a curse. The passions in such a one as yourself churn in every direction and require ordering at every turn. Resolutions prove ephemeral too given the "law of oscillation" in such a soul - that is, that disturbing reality of feeling strongly one way today and another tomorrow.

If I speak with even a modicum of accuracy in re: of my hasty assumptions about you it is owing to the fact that I'm a similar person. We belong to that sub-category of saints-in-the-making known as the "saint/sinners." If you notice, I speak often about disorder and proper configuration of the passions. I do this because I believe it's the proper way to view such phenomena - not to mention the most productive and philosophically powerful.

G. K. Chesterton once wrote that every boy who knocks on the door of a brothel is searching for God. What he meant is that lust and desire for women (and vice versa - lust and desire for men), in the case of the young man at the door of the brothel, are really scapegoats for a deeper desire, a desire for ecstatic communion with another. And that, of course, is precisely what sex is according to scripture. It's an iconic representation of Christ' love for the Church. It's about communion, ecstatic communion. We were hard-wired to desire it with all our hearts. And the human representation of it is but a bland foretaste of what is to come.

The same is true of food and other pleasures. Bread was given to us so as to understand and savor the ultimate bread - the bread from heaven who is Christ. It is little wonder then that mankind's fall is had by eating (Garden of Eden, tree of knowledge) and his redemption is likewise obtained via ingestion (Eucharist). Sex and food thus are but weak and paltry pointers to transcendant realities for which our hearts were created.

Similarly, the puff of a cigarette and the accompanying sense of calm is an unwitting longing for peace and tranquility, something that only the Lord can confer. The fact, however, that we cherish such things is evidence that God's grace is working in our lives. We're seeking God in the things made, the manifest expression of God's glory and majesty. The next step in the journey - and where I believe you are now given the trajectory of your life - is to go to the source, the reality to which all these created things lead us.

I labor on these theological points for several reasons; The evil one would like us to capitulate, to concede that we're worthless and powerless to change who we are. That voice of doubt must be silenced. And it is silenced by learning to think in the manner outlined above - for it is true.

Christ came to restore our dignity, to help us realize our human nature with the hope of adding to it a divine nature - just as he is both human and divine. That upward call can only commence from lower rungs on the celestial ladder. Put another way, there is no way up but from the bottom. You can't desire ecstatic communion with God until you first know/mistake ecstatic union with man for the real thing. One can't appreciate how in eating we're born to eternal life until one first has a somewhat disordered love affair with food. In other words, God uses his creation to draw us to himself. Even when we mistake it for the real thing (i.e. God himself), we are paying him a compliment, offering a sort of worship - albeit in a mal-configured manner.

So, I guess the purpose of this email is to encourage you in your walk, to help you understand that far from your mistakes making you evil, they actually bear witness to your long-standing search for God. The "hound of heaven" has been pursuing you with a panting love. That thought - if you have any artistic imagination at all - has got to make your heart skip a beat.

What the father of your daughter sought for evil, God used for good. As you say so beautifully, it resulted in your knowing the purpose of your life. An accident? No way! God is at the helm and you are the diamond he's fashioning in the likeness of His son. And he'll use any and all of our disordered desires and misuses of His creation toward that end. In fact, given your/our temperament, there would be no other way he could draw us to him and have us retain our free will but via this circuitous route of mistaking the icon for the Real McCoy.

I apologize for writing a book. But your email inspired me and touched my soul. Please know that I'm no saint. If I write with conviction on sin and the spiritual walk it's owing to the fact that I'm "chief among sinners" and thus highly qualified to wax theological. I'm just a fellow beggar who has found bread and wishes to share it with you in whatever humble and pathetically weak way possible. I'm all too human.

I'll keep praying for you and your daughter. And I'll ask that you do likewise for me.

With genuine affection,

Jim:)

Letter to a Friend in Prison

Dear Jason,

Please excuse my belated response to your letters. I feel horrible that so much time has elapsed without my contacting you. The summer has been a bit of a whirlwind for me. It’s not so much that I’m inundated with work as much as it is that I’ve lost all structure to my life given my three modes of earning income. Also, I’ve called Patricia several times and she doesn’t respond to any of my calls. Are you two still together?

With that said, I really have no excuse for not contacting you sooner. Please accept my sincere apologies. I know this is a challenging time for you and I really want to be present in your life.

Life here is good. I’m teaching singing, personal training and working as a cantor for St. George on the weekends. Apart from work I’m busy in a few charities. I work at the Branford Soup Kitchen once a month, sing at hospice when I can and just starting to teach 8th grade catechism again. I like everything I’m doing, but the singing is really my passion. It’s there that I feel most at home and at peace with the world.

How are you doing? I was so happy to receive your letters. It seems that you’re faring well, that you have a good attitude and are resolute in charting a new course once you’re out. That’s wonderful! I can sense that you’ve turned a corner.

Sometimes things befall us in life so as to teach us. I know that I’m so stubborn at times that anything short of God knocking me upside the head won’t work. I’ve learned over the years to see every single life experience as something meaningful, something that highlights the shape of reality and points out where we’ve gone off and must realign ourselves with it.

One of my favorite writers, G. K. Chesterton, was once asked to write an essay for a leading newspaper on the topic of what’s wrong with the world. His essay appeared in the newspaper as follows:

What’s Wrong with the World

I am.

G. K. Chesterton

The point he was making, of course, is that the problem is not “out there.” It’s within the heart of every man. And when you have 7 billion defective people on a planet interacting with each other and having to share the world’s resources, you’re going to have lots of problems.

I’m coming to the point wherein I simply concentrate on changing myself (and impossible task in and of itself) and doing so one day at a time. It’s simply too daunting to take more than one day at a time given what C. S. Lewis called “the law of oscillation” – that human tendency to feel resolute about something one day and to feel wholly indifferent (if not opposite) about it the next. Suffice it to say, I’m proud of you! All this is not for naught. In the future you’ll come to see this experience as inestimable. It will form you in ways unimaginable from your current perspective. Life is known retrospectively. How you make sense out of it, however, will determine how it forms you. What do I mean?

To illustrate my point I’ll recount and interesting story:

There were two brothers who came from a very dysfunctional family. Their mom had died when they were just infants leaving them with their highly abusive father as the only parent and source of influence. The dad was not only verbally abusive, but physically as well. Being an alcoholic with a formidable temper, he had an impossible time holding a job. Hence, both boys lived in squalor and had very little of life’s goods. Once they became of age they moved out of the house and went their separate ways. Not only had the father ruined his relationship with them, but he had managed to drive a wedge between them. So, off they went to opposite coasts of the country. Twenty years later their story was published given the huge economic success of one of the brothers. And here is where we come to the nub of the principle to which I’m speaking. One of the brothers turned out just like his dad, whereas the other became the epitome of success not only financially, but personally. He kept himself fit, had a beautiful family, fostered healthy and loving relationships with his wife and children, was respected in the community as an upstanding man and citizen, etc. When interviewed separately and asked why they had turned out as they did, surprisingly, both gave the identical response;

“With a father like mine, how could I not turn out like this?”

Moral of the story; How we interpret life’s events determines our future. I’ll go one philosophical step further and assert that it’s not merely a hermeneutical head-game in which we choose to interpret a thing one way over against another so as to benefit ourselves. I contend that one interpretation is actually true (i.e. in accordance with reality) and the other isn’t. The brother who became the spitting image of his father was misinterpreting his life, the meaning of the things that befell him, the lessons that they were meant to teach. The brother who developed into a wholly contrary person to that of his father actually saw reality as it really was. He apprehended that his father’s course in life was *actually* wrong and disordered, that it led to certain failure and misery. He saw this truth as clearly as one sees the truth that 1 + 1 = 2. As a result, he lived a beautiful life, a life that accords with how things truly are. And that, my friend, is the entire task of man – to discover what’s true and conform our lives to it.

So, how do I set up a visit? I want to come see you as much as possible in the remaining months. Please write me as soon as possible.

Your friend,

Jim

Swimming in Intellectually Shallow Waters

I publish the following dialogue so as to demonstrate that ignorance is often owing to the fact that individuals many times broach topics with the belief that they can be understood without even cursory background knowledge of the topic's entailments. This phenomenon of intellectual naiveté/shallowness is particularly common these days since it's considered highly undemocratic to suggest that the opinion of a certain class of people deserves more respect and should enjoy more credibility than our own hastily constructed theories. After all, how dare you say their opinion is superior to mine!

One can simply turn on the evening news to see the man in the street being interviewed on his thoughts about American war strategy and if he believes the president sent enough troops to Iraq (as if the man in the street was remotely in a position to address such a question with a necessary degree of proficiency).

What follows evidences that such an inanity does not restrict itself to politics. In this exchange my interlocutor makes no pretense to knowing the first thing about Christian mysticism, the Catholic Tradition of "the dark night of the soul," Catholic Hagiography or Mother Teresa's life. Yet by parsing a few citation's culled from the newly released biography of her, he believes himself capable not only of knowing the truth about her faith life (something highly subjective/complex in and of itself), but to possess evidence that those who are most informed on the topic are misleading the general public through spin-doctoring. That this is the case, we're told, is "obvious" to any reasoning soul who has taken the pain to consider the citations in question.

One cannot take offense at ignorance. And I believe my dialogue partner to be sincere in his visceral assertions. But one who persists in ignorance - and openly refuses to educate himself on the very topics about which he waxes ignorantly - is beyond the pale of intellectual respect.


Hi Peter,

>>You cant be serious! After all the name calling I have endured from you>>

Kindly point me to emails in which I’ve called you names. Most of our dialogues I’ve published to my blog. So, that should be pretty easy to prove.

>>Lets see you have called me a moron>>

I’ve argued that your views and arguments were moronic. I’ve never called you a moron.

>>idiot>>

I don’t recall ever calling you an idiot. Can you produce evidence for this? If I have, I’ll definitely apologize.

>>talking out of my ass<<

As yes, you talk out your ass exactly all of the time given that you’re admittedly not educated in the matters about which you write and pronounce judgment upon so prolifically. To date, you’ve yet to ever produce ONE ACTUAL BOOK as the source of your knowledge on any of the myriad of topics we’ve treated. (i.e. biblical interpretation, canon of scripture, history of Christianity, historicity of Christianity, epistemology, Church fathers, metaphysics Christian mysticism and the saints of the Catholic Church) If that is not talking out your ass, Peter, nothing is.

>>you have the gall to accuse me of bad form?>>

There is no gall involved given the reality of your intellectually benighted “form” as mentioned above.

For example, how seriously should I take a dialogue partner who wishes to engage me on the topic of Grand Opera if he’s never been to the opera, has never read anything about the development of opera and its various instantiations and whose only extensive contact with live theater and music discussion is attending Brittany Spears concerts and talking to her present and former fans? (Brittany Spears Concerts = Watchtower Religion and present/past fans = participants on Nuts & Bolts forum) Yet, this is precisely your background in religion and knowledge of Christianity/Catholicism. This perfectly depicts the shallowness of your approach to religious matters and why I call it bad form. Rather than necessitating “gall” to pronounce such a form “bad,” it’s a fair assessment.

You are the religious counterpart to the opera know-nothing who dogmatically prattles on endlessly about things he has not the faintest clue. Your saving grace, however, is your genuine ignorance of the fact that there is actually something to know. You simply assume that reading an article on Mother Teresa’s private letters - in which a few disjointed sentences from said letters are highlighted - is more than sufficient to make a definitive pronouncement on her character and faith. And accompanying this dark bent of mind is the ancillary assumption that those who are in the know (i.e. her spiritual directors, confessors, biographer, scholars of mysticism and hagiography, the Vatican who has been meticulously studying the EIGHT VOLUMES that comprise her canonical cause) are nothing but “spin doctors” and you really know better. If this were true, Peter, you would be a recognized authority on Mother Teresa. But you’re not. And that’s because you have not a clue about her life, Christian mysticism and the Catholic tradition on the nature of Christian faith. As one who dedicates all his free time to this study, you really expect me to take you seriously? On what grounds?

> >

You’re heart is deceiving you on a monumental scale. That’s the furthest thing from reality and why I put a big photo of the word DELUSION on my blog and titled our last exchange “When Cynicism Leads to Delusion.”

Your above statement is proof positive of how your cynicism is leading to a solipsistic state of mind. Psychologically, it’s fascinating to watch. You’re at the point now that you’ll go to every extent to vindicate your views – views premised in ignorance and zero actual learning – even if it entails imputing to your interlocutors the opposite beliefs for which they argue. According to this kind of delusion, all the experts on the matter are “spin doctors” and your dialogue partner (i.e. me) who has spent the last decade studying these matters *really knows* deep down that you’re spot on and he’s in error. And since he realizes how spot on you are, chances are that those who are more informed than he on the matter and hold to the same views must also know deep down that they’re just telling a big fat lie.

And that’s what I meant when I wrote that “abject cynicism and distrust (wounds from the Watchtower) are paralyzing your soul and darkening your mind.” You don’t believe anything anyone says. Now please try to understand what I mean by that. I didn’t say you don’t agree with what anyone says. I said you don’t believe/trust that I honestly believe what I say. (See your statement above) That is, you actually question my honesty. Furthermore, you don’t believe that the experts on Mother Teresa’s life and spiritual walk believe what they write otherwise you wouldn’t refer to them as “spin doctors” – as people who present favorable interpretations of issues so as to mask the reality of the issues upon which they speak. That is, you distrust their honesty. And that’s why I wrote that “There is no way we can ever know the truth about each other if we don’t take each other’s words in good faith (i.e. as we understand them and mean them) and trust the testimony of people in good faith.” And it’s also why you can’t learn. What do I mean?

Your lack of trust is what keeps you from purchasing books about religion. You unwittingly start with the assumption that all religionists are “spin doctors,” people who can’t be trusted since religion is a scam in the first place. And if religion is a scam in the first place, to be an expert in said scam makes one about as credentialed and credible as an expert in unicorns. Your self-inflicted ignorance on these topics is borne out of those assumptions. It’s the net result of rank cynicism, a lack of trust in the people with whom you’re in dialogue. You say it’s because you’re not interested and don’t have the time to study for real. But the truth is that you’re VERY interested and have found hundreds of hours to write prolifically on these topics about which you’re allegedly not interested and for which you allegedly have no time. Who invests such time and concentration on something one is not interested in? You are immensely interested. It’s a passion of yours, in fact. But study, read books, give people the benefit of the doubt that they mean what they say in good faith, trust the judgment of people who know more than you, etc. – that will never happen. For your cynicism prevents it from happening. And that’s why you’re incapable of learning.

>> I proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt by parsing his statements with Teresa's, exactly as you do with mine by the way.>>

See what I mean?!? That’s the “form” about which I’m speaking and why it is I don’t take you serious on matters intellectual.

You believe you “proved” your case “beyond a shadow of a doubt” over against the experts by simply reading an article on Mother Teresa and parsing a few disjointed sentences from her private letters and comparing said parsing with the interpretations of the experts on the matter. You honestly think (notice I presume honesty and good faith in you even if I disagree) that that’s all one needs to do to get to the bottom of the matter. That, though, is like arguing that all one needs to do in order to enter a serious dialogue on grand opera is go down to the local Walmart and buy Pavarotti’s greatest hits CD. You are being that simplistic, Peter. But I believe this to be your honest cast of mind. After all, this is precisely how The Watchtower delt with most matters in its publications. So, you come by it naturally. It’s part of your intellectual/spiritual formation. Well, I’m contesting that there is a better way to go about things, that the “bad form” of the Watchtower should be replaced with genuine learning (i.e actually reading books and trusting acknowledged authorities in matters) and with more caution.

>>Trying to appeal to authority is of no use and a fallacious argument to try to employ and you KNOW this. I KNOW you do.>>

Appealing to authority is an absolutely valid means to shore one’s case unless it can be demonstrated that the authority in question is untrustworthy. When you demonstrate how it is that Father Cantalamessa, Mother Teresa’s confessors/spiritual directors/biographer and the Vatican Commission for her cause of canonization are not truly authoritative on the matter in question, I’ll cease from appealing to their authority. Until then, though, your protesting such appeals is akin to protesting against appeals to Einstein while in a discussion on the theory of relativity.

< <

Anyone with an ounce of good faith would trust that he’s speaking the truth as he sees it and understands it from his highly studied vantage point. Anyone with an ounce of reasoning would not reduce the understanding of Christian mysticism and the life of Mother Teresa to a personal interpretive parsing of a few disjointed citations found in a book he has not read. Again, this is what I mean by “bad form.” It’s the very cast of mind I wrote to you about in the past. Failure to disabuse yourself of it will keep you locked in your own mind and from truly learning. In other words, it will keep you a Jehovah’s Witness.

I’m purchasing the book today. If you’d like to discuss it and Christian mysticism/the dark night of the soul as understood from the Catholic perspective, I’d be more than happy to do so telephonically.

Peace,

James

Addio Pavarotti

Famed tenor Luciano Pavarotti died today at 71 in his hometown of Modena, Italy. Having been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer over a year ago, the Italian tenor fell into kidney failure on Monday and breathed his last at 5:00 AM this morning European time.

The world mourns the loss of this great singer. But for me his death signals more than merely the end of a chapter in opera. For Pavarotti was my mentor and even my friend.

The year is 1985 and my father is driving a limousine in New York to earn extra money for the family. He overhears the passengers in the back seat discussing opera and Pavarotti in general, at which point he chimes into the conversation by informing them that his son is a fanatic follower of the legend and is a promising tenor himself. As fate would have it, one of the passengers's brother turns out to be Pavarotti’s official throat doctor whenever the great tenor finds himself singing in San Francisco. Since Pavarotti is keenly interested in young talent, the gentleman suggests that my father have me record my voice and forward the tape to him, who in turn will forward it to his brother the doctor, who – provided the stars of the firmament align – will pass it on to Pavarotti.

A year passes and I'm living in New York City and attending Manhattan School of Music. My mother rings me and asks: “Guess who I just spoke to on the phone?” Before I could hazard a guess, she exclaims; “Pavarotti!” Apparently he had received my tape and wanted to talk to me about my voice. Since I was away my mother made plans for us to meet with him backstage at the Metropolitan Opera before a performance of Puccini’s Tosca in which he was playing the protagonist Cavaradossi.

I met Mr. Pavarotti that night and sang for him in his dressing room. That encounter started a friendship that would span many years. At the age of 21 I became the youngest winner of the Luciano Pavarotti International Voice Competition, a competition whose prize consisted in understudying the great tenor and daily working with him in two productions (Elisir D’amore, Luisa Miller). Subsequently, we shared many phone conversations, backstage visits and even private coaching sessions in his New York Apartment at the Hampshire House on 150 Central Park South. When I made my professional debut, Pavarotti couldn’t attend as he had promised, but did call and leave a very encouraging message; “Come on, Tenor. Go out there and do it. It will be great.” Those were heady days indeed!

I shed tears this morning when I learned the news of his death. In fact, tears and even sobbing have comprised most of the day. But as in all things in life, there is a bitter/sweetness to this story. You see, Pavarotti took center stage in my thoughts and artistic aspirations all through my youth. In my naïve adolescence he represented success, happiness and self-realization. Little did I know, however, that when I would eventually get to work side by side with him, my Panglossian view of the world and him would be forever altered as fantasy kissed reality.

Since it is bad form to speak ill of the dead, I will limit myself to say that Mr. Pavarotti’s public persona was quite possibly the very opposite of who he was in private. I believe he suffered a great deal in his life given the stress and temptations of fame and fortune. And now that that life is over, I remember him with joy, respect and gratitude. And so I pray:

Lord have mercy on Mr. Pavarotti’s soul. Even though sin abounds, Lord, may your grace abound that much more. He has brought the world hope and joy through the instrument you so generously bestowed upon him. If for nothing else, Lord, be merciful toward him for the great stewardship he has demonstrated therewith. I pray Lord that he may be purged of his sins and lead to the heavenly choruses wherein his voice can praise you for all eternity. Amen.

Pavarotti the great tenor, Pavarotti my mentor, Pavarotti my friend - Ti adoro. Resquiat in pacem.

When Cynicism Leads To Delusion

I promised myself yesterday that I wouldn't bore my vast readership with more trite exchanges of the quality manifested over the last few days in relation to Blessed Teresa of Calcutta. I'm publishing this last installment only to highlight the deleterious nature of cynicism, it's power to close one's mind and heart to truth and - if grave enough - lead one to delusion.

Hi Peter

>>I only have a few minutes to respond to this nonsense.>>

I know you put a smiley icon next to that statement, but referring to my reasoning capabilities and my knowledge on the topic at hand as “nonsense” is risible. Especially when you are, with every probability, ignorant on Christian mysticism and the rich tradition of the Church in re: of the dark night of the soul.

>>True, she hid her real feelings.>>

If you bothered to read Father Cantalamessa’s article, you would have recalled his speaking to this matter as follows:

“The most insidious danger for the soul that is in the dark night is that of realizing that she is, in fact, in the dark night, in what the great mystics before her had experienced, and that she is therefore part of a circle of privileged souls. With the grace of God, Mother Teresa avoided this danger, hiding her torment from everyone under an ever-present smile... A saying of the desert Fathers says: "However great your sufferings may be, your victory over them lies in silence." Mother Teresa put this into practice in an heroic way.”

Now to upend Father Cantalamessa (who, by the way, is an historian of early Christianity and the official preacher of the pontifical household), you’ll have to do more than simply assert that her motives were to deceive. Mind you, Father Cantalamessa is in the inner circle of the papal household, in daily communication with the pope and aware of the committee commissioned to investigate Blessed Teresa’s cause for canonization. Hence, to discredit his take on her motives in re: of her silence about her doubts you’ll have to do one of two things:

1. Prove that he’s dishonestly biased
2. Prove to have more knowledge of the matter than he

But there is more, Peter; the author of the biography of Blessed Teresa (Father Brian Kolodiejchuk) - the one in which these letters appear - is the postulator of her cause! That is to say, the very man who is officially making public Blessed Teresa’s private letters (i.e. the world-leading authority on those letters) is the same man who is spearheading her cause for canonization. This places you on the horns of a dilemma, for there is simply no way your interpretation of these letters is more authoritative and comprehensive than his. After all, he knew the woman for twenty years - from 1977 until her death in 1997. You read a couple of quotes taken out of the context of his book and conclude that Blessed Teresa was a “hypocrite of the highest sort” and yet Father Kolodiejchuk knows her intimately for twenty years, is the leading authority on said letters (together with the Vatican), is granted the privilege to be her biographer and – wonder of wonders – throws himself head-first into the cause of her canonization. (And I VERY SERIOUSLY doubt he will attribute her silence in re: of her doubts or her request to have her correspondence destroyed to a desire to hoodwink the world)

Given the foregoing, to discredit his take on the topic you’ll have to do one of two things:

1. Prove that he’s dishonestly biased
2. Prove to have more knowledge of the matter than he

>>Not so, she didnt feel his existence. Leave out the 'icon of christ' part and you have something.<<

How can one leave out the “icon of Christ’ part when discussing the foremost Christian saint of the 20th century? Leave out the “icon of Christ’ part and you can’t understand Mother Teresa or her words. That’s like discussing opera and leaving out the “music part.” Blessed Teresa’s self-understanding was viewed through the prism of her Catholic faith. Hence, she didn’t construe the hiddenness of God or her doubts as confirmation of the veracity of atheism or disbelief. Rather, she understood it as a sharing in Christ’ suffering, his agony on the cross. She stands in line behind a formidable list of mystics down through the centuries. Hence, she writes:

“"If my pain and suffering, my darkness and separation from you give you even a drop of consolation, my Jesus, then do with me what you will... Impress the suffering of your heart upon my soul and my life... I want to quench your thirst with every last drop of blood you can find in me. Don't be concerned about returning soon: I am ready to wait for you for all eternity."

You read of her suffering, her sense of emptiness, her cloaking her pain behind the mask of a smile, etc. and conclude she’s not a true believer, when, in fact she understands the matter wholly differently from you. None of this can make any sense if divorced from the woman’s life, from her worldview, from her life’s work, from the great Catholic Tradition. Plus, it’s a totally uncharitable and partial treatment of what she has actually written. You cull those statements that speak of suffering, doubt and emptiness and argue that they confirm her atheism/disbelief or hypocrisy. And this you can only do by glossing over all the statements in which she openly expresses her titanic faith, union with God and reasons why she wished her letters to be destroyed.

Blessed Teresa’s words about hiding her suffering from the world cannot be construed as evidence of her being deceptive in the connotative sense of the word. (i.e. done with malice, bad intentions, selfish-interests) As Father Cantalamessa brings out, her “silence” on the matter was out of self-preservation in the interests of remaining faithful and humble. Did you read the article?

>>I didnt assert so from this sentence of hers. I am taking the rest of what she says into account. You apparently are grasping at straws.<<

You’re NOT taking the rest of what she says into account given that you gloss all her statements of faith as dishonest, seize upon only those statement regarding doubt and emptiness and choose to understand the latter divorced from the Christian context of mysticism – the very self-understanding of Blessed Teresa!

>>Something of this magnitude should be made known considering her show to the world.>>

Correct. That’s why the Vatican saw to it that it was made known. The letters now published, together with other similar writings, were already contained in the eight volumes for the cause of Mother Teresa's beatification. Yet, oddly enough, the Vatican does not impute dishonesty to Blessed Teresa or suggest that the reason she requested the destruction of her letters was deceptive in nature. You simply assert this on the authority of your own interpretation of her words – words yanked out of the context of an entire book that promises to be a classic for centuries to come. And this you do even in light of the fact that the biographer himself is the postulator of her cause.

On October 19, 2003, these were the exact words printed in her official biography released by the Vatican:

"There was an heroic side of this great woman that was revealed only after her death. Hidden from all eyes, hidden even from those closest to her, was her interior life marked by an experience of a deep, painful and abiding feeling of being separated from God, even rejected by Him, along with an ever-increasing longing for His love. She called her inner experience, 'the darkness.' The painful night of her soul, which began around the time she started her work for the poor and continued to the end of her life, led Mother Teresa to an ever more profound union with God. Through the darkness she mystically participated in the thirst of Jesus, in His painful and burning longing for love, and she shared in the interior desolation of the poor."

This, of course, is exactly how Mother Teresa understood her struggle. Apparently, though, your understanding of Mother Teresa’s beliefs and motives are more on point than Mother Teresa herself. That is, after all, what you’re asserting, Peter. You’re reading her words on doubt and emptiness, on wearing a smile as a mask in a totalistic sense and with an atheistic bent of mind when she herself attributes her silence to a desire to be humble, when she herself attributes her suffering and emptiness to a sharing in the passion of Christ. So, not only are you more authoritative on Mother Teresa’s beliefs, motives and self-understanding than the Vatican and her biographer (her knew her personally for 20 years), you know more about Mother Teresa than she knew about herself.

>>I think that is obvious that she wanted it kept hid for the reasons I mentioned among others.>>

So “obvious” that the Vatican, her confessors, her spiritual directors and her biographer missed it. So obvious that Mother Teresa missed it too. Me thinks someone takes his own hasty opinion a wee bit too seriously.

>>Yes it is. SHe spent her whole life feeling as if God wasn't in existence in her life.<<

You say this because you don’t understand Christian mysticism. If you had taken the pain to read the article I sent you yesterday, you wouldn’t be persisting in this error. Father Cantalamessa writes:

“And there is an even deeper reason that explains these nights that extend through an entire life: the imitation of Christ, participation in the dark night of the soul that enfolded Jesus in Gethsemane, and in which he died on Calvary, crying: "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?" Mother Teresa came to see her trial more and more clearly as a response to her desire to gasp, together with Jesus on the cross, "I thirst": "If my pain and suffering, my darkness and separation from you give you even a drop of consolation, my Jesus, then do with me what you will... Impress the suffering of your heart upon my soul and my life... I want to quench your thirst with every last drop of blood you can find in me. Don't be concerned about returning soon: I am ready to wait for you for all eternity." “It would be a grave mistake to think that such people's lives are nothing but gloomy suffering. In the depth of their souls, they enjoy a peace and a joy that are unknown to the rest of mankind, arising from the certainty - stronger in them than their doubts - that they are living according the will of God. Saint Catherine of Genoa compares the suffering of souls in this condition with that of Purgatory, and says that it "is so great that it can be compared only to that of Hell," but that there is in it a "tremendous contentment" that can be compared only to that of the saints in Paradise. The joy and serenity that radiated from Mother Teresa's face was not a mask, but rather the reflection of the profound union with God she experienced within her soul.”

Furthermore, he contrasts the emotions experienced by many atheists with that of Christian mystics as follows:

“The word "atheist" can have an active or a passive meaning. It can indicate someone who rejects God, but also someone who is rejected by God - or at least feels himself to be. The first case is one of culpable atheism (when it is not in good faith), while the second is an atheism of suffering or expiation. In the latter sense, we can say that the mystics, in the night of the soul, are a-theists - without God – and that on the cross Jesus, too, was an a-theist, one without God.”

When the Christian mystics suffer the same empty emotions as those suffered by Atheists, they do so with belief in God and in deep union with Christ. Hence, Mother Teresa’s words cannot be understood in an atheistic manner, no sooner than Christ’ exclamation on the cross (“My God my God, why have you abandoned me”) can be construed as a confirmation of His atheism or disbelief in God. You’re reading her in the wrong spirit. You’re reading her outside the framework of her life, her Tradition, her self-understanding. You’re simply imputing motives to her that she herself never expressed. (i.e. that she wanted her letters destroyed so that the world wouldn't find out that she was a big sham, a non-believer)

The rest of your email doesn’t merit refutation since it’s pretty much a recital of what comes before it.

This is wrong on so many levels, Peter. There is no way we can ever know the truth about each other if we don’t take each other’s words in good faith (i.e. as we understand them and mean them) and trust the testimony of people in good faith. You don’t realize it, but your abject cynicism and distrust (wounds from the Watchtower) are paralyzing your soul and darkening your mind. How do I know this?

Well, you say things of Mother Teresa and understand her words in ways that are antithetical to how those closest to her (i.e her spiritual directors, confessors, and biographer) understood them. You say things of Mother Teresa and understand her words in ways that are antithetical to how great scholars of mysticism (i.e. Father Cantalamessa) understand them. You say things of Mother Teresa and understand her words in ways that are antithetical to how she even understood them.

And here is why I say what I say; most likely you’ll continue to believe that you’re right and that they’re wrong. But you won’t believe this because you think they’re all dolts and you’re more informed on the topic than they. That would make you crazy. And you’re not crazy. You’ll hold to your view of things because you are cynical and distrusting of people. The Vatican, on your view, puts a “spin” on things. Her confessors, spiritual directors are simply “spinning” reality to make it appear like it’s something that it isn’t. The biographer who knew her personally, who initiated her cause of canonization and is the leading authority on her letters is simply “spinning” the story to make it appear that Mother Teresa was something other than who she truly was. And the conspiracy and fraud doesn’t end there. This cancer of cynicism in your soul is so bad that you’re quick to critical judgment even when the person under discussion is the century’s foremost saint by just about everyone’s reckoning. If you can be so cynical in relation to Mother Teresa, nothing is sacred and believable.

No doubt you’re going through your own dark night of the soul over the last few years. Yours has got to be a torturous frame of mind in light of how you write and express your ideas. I can’t even imagine what it’s like. And I don’t’ say that in a mocking way at all. I say it with empathy. You must really be hurting. To not trust and believe is to start the process of spiritual death. I believe, though, that Mother Teresa is praying for you.

Peace,

James