Hart of Theology
Thank you God for bringing Fr. Addison Hart to Christ the Teacher Parish. This wonderful man began his Trinity Sunday homily:
“Thank God for heresies. Debates over teachings that are seen as heretical help us see important things more clearly.”
Many parishioners laughed uneasily – I laughed pretty fucking hard. Fr. Hart makes some of our parishioners uneasy because:
A.) He is married.
B.) He spends much time with theology and in-depth Scriptural interpretation.
…B. of course makes people more uncomfortable than A.
Ironically enough, an important part of this homily was dedicated to framing theology in an unconventional way – or to separate theology from book learnin’…quoting from one of the ancient Desert Fathers, Fr. Hart reminds us:
“Theology is, at bottom, prayer and the theologian is a man of prayer.”
Fr. Hart continues by helping us see the limits of viewing the Holy Trinity as an abstraction theological, mathematical, metaphysical etc…this is not what we do, believe, or opine as Catholics. Without mentioning the recent encyclical, Fr. Hart inserts the role of love, the understanding of love, the personal quality that we as Catholics need to perceive as the thing that makes the universe go – and in a bigger sense – makes/is the universe. He concludes this portion of the homily saying:
“If all we end up with is theology, then to Hell with it, literally.”
The purpose of this homily isn’t to offer empirical evidence for the existence of the Holy Trinity – obviously. It doesn’t employ inductive, deductive (proper), or fuzzy logic/reasoning. Rather, as Fr. Hart says in the last words of this amazing message:
“The next time you say in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit you will know what you are saying.”
“Thank God for heresies. Debates over teachings that are seen as heretical help us see important things more clearly.”
Many parishioners laughed uneasily – I laughed pretty fucking hard. Fr. Hart makes some of our parishioners uneasy because:
A.) He is married.
B.) He spends much time with theology and in-depth Scriptural interpretation.
…B. of course makes people more uncomfortable than A.
Ironically enough, an important part of this homily was dedicated to framing theology in an unconventional way – or to separate theology from book learnin’…quoting from one of the ancient Desert Fathers, Fr. Hart reminds us:
“Theology is, at bottom, prayer and the theologian is a man of prayer.”
Fr. Hart continues by helping us see the limits of viewing the Holy Trinity as an abstraction theological, mathematical, metaphysical etc…this is not what we do, believe, or opine as Catholics. Without mentioning the recent encyclical, Fr. Hart inserts the role of love, the understanding of love, the personal quality that we as Catholics need to perceive as the thing that makes the universe go – and in a bigger sense – makes/is the universe. He concludes this portion of the homily saying:
“If all we end up with is theology, then to Hell with it, literally.”
The purpose of this homily isn’t to offer empirical evidence for the existence of the Holy Trinity – obviously. It doesn’t employ inductive, deductive (proper), or fuzzy logic/reasoning. Rather, as Fr. Hart says in the last words of this amazing message:
“The next time you say in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit you will know what you are saying.”
posted by edP | 9:46 AM
9 Comments:
He's a good man. I like him, too. I went there last week. His explanation of the Pentecost and the nature of the Holy Spirit was truly enjoyable to listen to.
"the personal quality that we as Catholics need to perceive as the thing that makes the universe go – and in a bigger sense – makes/is the universe."
I wonder if you'd expand on this bit - at the moment it strikes me as loaded with hubris, but I don't think that's how you meant it.
Sure jeanz
"We as Catholics" as I used it here was an effort not to prostitutize I mean uh...preach to you or anyone who is probably not gonna be all that interested in hearing that Christ's message directs us to see our lives, the world, the natural universe as directed by and understood through this notion of love.
This does not mean I do not believe in strong or weak forces, dark matter, someplace where gravity and time meet and shake hands - whatever...
Nor does it mean that I think only a study of the Gospels is required to understand the universe...(see my earlier remarks about Albert the Great somewhere in this blog - there is a reason why we have the capacity to investigate questions re the nature of the universe)
The teaching as presented by Fr. Hart is for Catholics to begin to see the nature (that's the wrong word) of the Trinity and in a bigger sense the nature of everything. We understand God in a relationship w/ these other "persons"
Not that you sick bastards!
To other Christians that don't care about the Trinity in the same way, the teaching is irrelevant to them (not to say they do not think love is important)
...anyway, I did not want to say "we as Catholics" are the only people who know the true nature of the universe
for the purposes of this entry and this teaching re a mystery that is very important to me - I wanted to make clear that what was important from that sermon was important to me.
I think I can make the above argument without tailspinning into relativism "this is a truth to me" blah blah blah - I'd rather be Pat Robertsonasssssssss than be a relativist - and PR is an idiot
But it is important for me as a Catholic to learn about love, the nature of God's inter-personal (wrong word) relationship, relationship with me and the whole of creation. I need to believe this to be what I claim to be - and to love the world as I should.
Most days I do a pretty shitty job of this. I know my presentation of these things can divide readers of this blog...
I want to be very careful not to preach/teach this stuff that is so important to me but I'm sure is unwelcome to many of our friends
...but I feel the need to write about it because each day I learn and grow more...and it becomes a bigger part of me.
If I can see this love as the thing that makes the universe and the universe as a thing made of and for love...maybe I won't be such a prickload!
Phew, I'm a windy bastard.
ok, when I said this:
"for the purposes of this entry and this teaching re a mystery that is very important to me - I wanted to make clear that what was important from that sermon was important to me."
Alex was talking to me and therefore it is unintelligible
the mystery is important to me...I wrote about the teaching in the blog because I want to remember it - not deliver it to you or anyone else as something you must embrace
For the record, I love these entries of yours. No, I don't buy it all down the line, but I enjoy toying with the notions and seeing what fits me and what doesn't. And I never think you're preaching (and even if you were, it's your durned blog! You're allowed!).
Back to the substance. I'm starting to think maybe you're distinguishing between humans' love for each other and for God on the one hand, and God's love for people & all the other created stuff on the other. And I think that would solve the hubris problem for me (my initial question was, does anybody really think the giraffes and beetles and meteorites really give a hoot about whether people love them enough? The universe will not cease to exist when people do. And generally I think the world would be a far better & more peaceful place if the giraffes were in charge, anyway).
OK, re: the end of your response - it doesn't matter if giraffes or assteroids think they are loved...part of Fr. Hart's purpose here is to help the audience understand love in an unconventional way - it's not 'oh I love you universe and I know you love me too'
...but the purpose (telos) of and in everything is God's love...which (according to the Gospels) goes right down to the number of feathers on a sparrows head or some shit like that. When we look at the universe properly (or so the homily goes) we see God's love - I think that's it.
You rock girl!
I just figured out exactly where my confusion began. In the bit I quoted, I initially thought "the thing" referred to "the personal quality [of] Catholics" - I see now where I misinterpreted. Duh. I'm a rock, alright.
jeanz - your confusion was helped by my mish-mashed writing here.
Rock on
I have to get his Chadwyck's history of the early church back to him, before he says to hell with me, literally.
Post a Comment
<< Home