I have been thinking about something, well actually observing something about the Catholic blogosphere. There are so many wonderful sites out there that write regularly about Catholic thought, Catholic culture, liturgy, rubrics, social policy, even Catholic curial gossip. You name it, if it is Catholic somebody very knowledgeable is probably writing about it. Increasingly, however, I have noticed that there is a hole there, a vacuum if you will.
The blogosphere, like nature, abhors a vacuum. So when knowledgeable and scholarly folk decline to treat on a subject, the tottering take their place. I am speaking about eschatology.
General eschatology, loosely defined, is a systematic theology that deals with the latter things. Specifically I refer to the study of the final events of the history of the world. You know, the Gospel being preached throughout the world, the great apostasy, the Antichrist (yes, him), the two witnesses, the end of / purification of the world, resurrection of the dead, the whole kit ‘n kaboodle.
In the history of the church, every Father and Doctor of the Church, from Augustine to Bellarmine, wrote about the end times. Some of them did extensive work in this area. Many of the great scriptural exegetes including Hippolytus, Ambrose, St. John Damascene, Jerome, Aquinas, Cajetan, and many more all studied and wrote about this subject. One can be forgiven if they leap to the crazy conclusion that this stuff may be important.
Bellarmine did extensive work in this area some 1500 years after the Ascension, so he was likely under no delusions about Jesus’ return being only fifteeen minutes away as some claim of the earlier Fathers and Doctors, saints and scholars. But he and many others still thought the topic was important.
Never before in the history of human kind has access to information been easier than it is now. Imagine what the litany of saints and scholars would have done with the access to information we now take for granted.
So why the silence? Why are the learned ceding this territory to the looney? You can find in depth analysis of the footwear of the Ambrosian Rite in the seventeenth century, but not a word about the two wintesses or the Parousia. I suspect that there may be several contributing factors to the eschatological quietness, but I am not sure if they complete the picture. One factor may be simple fear. The learned and the scholarly might simply not want to risk being lumped into the Jesus in a tomato crowd or the various end times conspiracy nuts that dominate the Internet on this topic.
I also wonder if another factor in the reticence to study and write on this topic is as a counterbalance to some of our fundamentalist / evangelical brethren. Is the thought that because some of our protestant brethren are so singularly focused on these issues, even if they get them wrong, that is it would almost seem un-Catholic to show some of that same focus? I don’t know. While I have seen some good work dissecting and debunking “the rapture”, I haven’t seen to much that treats the subject generally.
Another reason may be the desire to avoid being associated with any of the more controversial purported apparitions or messages that claim some imminent chastisement.
While there are certainly some good modern books out there that deal with some of this, they seem to be written narrowly, attempting to refute a particular erroneous doctrine. However, I don’t know of much that discusses these topics generally in any depth from a Catholic point of view (With a very few notable exceptions). Perhaps there are and I just haven’t heard of them. Perhaps some readers can point them out.
What I do know, is that on the Catholic blogosphere, the topic is generally taboo. The closest you come to any discussion of this topic in this realm is when someone mentions the dreaded Medj.. word and is forced to shut down their combox fifteen minutes later. Michael Brown’s Spiritdaily attempts to deal with some of these topics, but I think it is fair to say that it isn’t done in any systematic or scholarly way. (Although he does have bunches of readers)
Anyway, this is something I have been wondering about. Where is the scholarly work? Where is the real, but polite debate about the finer points of Catholic eschatology? To me, this seems like a big hole right in the middle of the Catholic blogsphere.
Someone really ought to write about these important topics. Not me, of course, I am not a nut. But someone…
August 4, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Red,
I am not talking about speculation at all, by the Fathers and Doctors or anyone else. I am talking about teaching that has been handed down from the beginning. Held by the Fathers of the Church as being handed down by the Apostles themselves.
I am not talking about speculation, I am talking about is education.
August 4, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Just saw your recent comment, Patrick, and I’m still trying to understand.
What, exactly, are Catholics “purposefully and proudly” ignoring? We know that the end times will come; that there will be certain features of them which have been discussed in the Bible, the Catechism, and throughout the history of the Church; that the Last Judgment will come, etc. What is there to discuss–especially in combox format?
I mean, looking around I don’t see deep and meaningful discussion among Catholic bloggers about the finer points of Mariology, either, and there’s no shortage of Church teaching about Mary. I don’t see the Big Catholic Bloggers (TM) spending hours and hours discussing the exact nature of Purgatory, despite the Pope’s relatively recent words on the subject. This doesn’t mean a lack of interest in the teachings, to me, so much as a recognition that certain topics will suffer if bandied about on blogs, while other topics, like liturgical norms or devotional spirituality or certain moral theology points (torture) do not suffer from such treatment and can indeed be adequately addressed within the sphere of a blog.
August 4, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Patrick: First, who is suggesting that we focus on the end times to the exclusion of charity? Certainly not me. Second the Church does not prohibit the faithful from focusing on anything.
I chose my words carefully. I said “hyper-focus” (i.e. obsess), in which case the church certainly does prohibit this (at best case censure, at worst case excommunication, as was the case with “the Bayside Bimbo”). And I would have to say, that if you simply go by the fundies who rant and obsess about the rapture being “left behind”, you would have to admit that they do so at the expense of their own salvation (i.e. doing good works and focusing on the FULL gospel).
AS for your personal opinion on what Jesus meant, that is fine, but it is emphatically NOT what the Church teaches.
Prove it. Source please.
August 4, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Red,
Thank you so much for addressing one of the key questions of my original post.
You make a good point that perhaps blogs are not the best place to have such detailed discussions. I am not entirely convinced yet, but this post and comments lead me to believe that perhaps you are right.
While some of the finer points of other aspects of theology are not addressed on blogs as you say, this subject is unique that in the modern era, it is largely ignored in books as well where these other branches of theology do get discussed.
I must admit that the attitudes on many Catholics toward this topic is a frustration for me(perhaps you can tell). So many have such a shallow understanding of what eschatology even means that they think it is only about interpreting Revelation or think that the Catholic Church doesn’t have anything to say beyond the few lines in the Catechism. There is so much more there that is worthy of understanding. So many think “We’re Catholics, we’re not supposed to talk about that stuff.”
Again, perhaps you are right that blogs do not lend themselves to this type of discussion, but I would like to see more of the really smart people out there address it at least in books.
Oh well, we can’t get everything.
August 4, 2008 at 8:26 pm
deusdonat,
The Bayside incident that you refer to was not eschatology (the systematic study of the theology and teaching of the church) but some crazy wacko claiming visions. That has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion here.
I hope you see the difference.
August 4, 2008 at 8:36 pm
The Bayside incident that you refer to was not eschatology (the systematic study of the theology and teaching of the church) but some crazy wacko claiming visions. That has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion here.
Au contraire. If you knew the history of the Bayside Bimbo incident, you’d understand the logic. Veronika was obsessed with “the end times”. Her false visions were about a) the end times, usually involving “Russian” missiles being hid underneath tunnels in our cities b) UFO’s abducting children and being used as tools for Satan c) the JW’s, SDA’s and other sects and their impact on derailing our church.
It is a bit of an easy jump from her obsession to being validated by personal visions. The church condemned her visions and her apocalyptic views. It is a very slippery slope which is IMHO left to legitimate theologians.
August 4, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Some people drive. A few crazy people kill people with cars. Therefore it is impossible to drive a car without killing someone. Ergo, only professional should drive cars. Oh, and by the way, don’t even read the drivers manual.
I don’t think so.
August 4, 2008 at 9:05 pm
In this specific analogy, I believe it would be more appropriate to say, “some people operate nuclear reactors. Some nuclear reactors go awry and kill thousands of people in surrounding areas. Ergo, only professionals should operate nuclear reactors.”
I would hazard a guess to say the average car accident takes 2 – 5 fatalities with it. An apocalyptic cult?
As for reading “the manual”, therein lies the problem. There is no manual. There simply is no teaching saying “this is what the Catholic church definitively teaches regarding the exact shape of the end times and Revelation”. Of course we as Catholics should know and understand what exactly the church DOES definitively teach on the subject. And this can be read in the Catechism. Beyond that, as I said, I believe this is something to be left to “professionals”. There is indeed a reason you don’t see the subject on Catholic blogs and literature in general as was the premise of this thread. A very good reason.
And that’s all I have to say on the subject.
August 4, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Mostly, because I was raised Lutheran, the end times scared the heck out of me – to the point I had a nightmare about me, a band mate, and the end of the world. I was convinced the guy would have something to do with the end of the world and thus avoided him like the plague (I was in 8th grade, and young and stupid). Also – and perhaps this was just the church of my youth – but it was always a scary thing. In that we’d all be roasted or drown or blown up or something and so I shied away from the topic.
Now that I’m a Catholic I’d like to learn more – and from more learned individuals than me. I see a lot more hope and joy in Catholicism than I did in my upbringing, so I’m hoping eschatology is in the same vein.
Last weekend, driving home from Mass, the car in front of us had a bumper sticker that read “Warning: In case of Rapture, this car will be unmanned” to which my father-in-law (who was on the phone with my hubby) said he’d like one that reads, “Warning: In case of Rapture, I will steal your car.”
August 4, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Actually, if we are making analogies. I think that DeoDonut is really making the claim that because certain people “hyper” focused on the bible during the reformation to the exclusion of all else to the point of schism. The bible is therefore a dangerous thing in the hands of a Catholic. Reading the bible should be avoided. Slippery slope and all.
Obviously, this is silly. Catholics should not be afraid of what the Church teaches. Catholics should not be afraid to read this ancient and historical exegesis on this topic and learn anymore than they should be afraid to read the bible and learn. But as always, this needs to be in union with the magisterial teaching of the Church. If you do this, there is nothing to be afraid of.
I agree with Patrick that much of this sentiment is an over-reaction to the bible thumping self created magical mystery tour that is fundamentalist end times mania.
Myself, I haven’t done too much reading beyond the basics but I wouldn’t be afraid to read the Apocalypse or Daniel in one hand, as long as I have the Catechism in the other.
August 4, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Obviously, this is silly. Catholics should not be afraid of what the Church teaches.
You obviously have dificulties in civility, charity and basic reading comprehension. I said clearly we should ALL know what the church teaches on this (and any subject) and gave a link to the Catechism which outlines it.
The fact that you childishly distort the name I use on this blog which comes from the bible to some rather pedestrian attempt at humour underscores the fact that the internet’s one great flaw is that there is no test for IQ or maturity in order to use it.
August 4, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Deusdonat,
While the Catechism is a great place to start, I am sure you will agree that there is much more that can be learned. While nothing can contradict what is in the Catechism, it does not necessarily follow that the 12 paragraphs or so in the CCC is all there is.
While nobody needs to know any of this stuff, it does not mean that it is not worth study.
p.s. Your nuclear reactor analogy made me chuckle. You are clearly not afraid to use hyperbole.
August 4, 2008 at 10:29 pm
p.s. Your nuclear reactor analogy made me chuckle. You are clearly not afraid to use hyperbole.
I would rather jump off a thousand-foot cliff than succumb to the use of hyperbole.
August 4, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Why don’t you try? 😉
August 4, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Hmmm. Apparently neither humour nor charisma run in your family…
August 4, 2008 at 11:49 pm
http://www.audiosancto.org
Search for “End times” and about 7 sermons come up… All of them worth listening to.
I never write about it as I feel I have near nothing to contribute in perspective… (My silly little blog is mostly about profiling Polish martyrs, the Pope’s prayer intentions, Humanae Vitae, and growing orthodox orders…)
Perhaps this also reveals something of my own personal obsession with ASimpleSinner’s End Time. I am rather confident (the way my life goes) that 15 minutes before the Second Coming I will be hit by a Mack Truck… So I am worried mostly about my own end.
August 4, 2008 at 11:52 pm
To go back to the main question, I think the issue is not just blogs, but the focus of catholic instruction generally.
The CCC gives the topic little space. And how many theology courses deal with things like St Thomas’ ideas on the nature of our resurrected bodies, and the different rewards that await us depending on merit?
The only book I know of on these topics is Peter Kreeft’s (and I guess that just because he’s written on everything else imaginable!), and one never hears these things talked about in sermons.
My own theory is that it reflects the extent of our secularisation and protestantisation.
First, since the prevailing culture denies that there is anything after death, it becomes very hard for the rest of us to talk about anything except the here and now….unless of coure you are a loony, hence only the loonies talk about it!
Secondly, when you start talking about death and judgment, heaven and hell, the implicit egalitarianism we have all absorbed becomes impossible to sustain and we instinctively rebell at something that shatters our worldview.
August 5, 2008 at 12:03 am
Terra – My own theory is that it reflects the extent of our secularisation and protestantisation.
I agree. And to me, as I have spent upwards towards 1/3 of my life in a Protestant country (the US) I find those who are most obsessed with the “end days” are in fact Protestants. Note: not “interested” but obsessed. I guess I have to make the distinction yet again : (
First, since the prevailing culture denies that there is anything after death, it becomes very hard for the rest of us to talk about anything except the here and now….
I don’t know where you are, but in the US, the prevailing culture is by far Christian. The majority/prevailing culture DOES in fact believe in the afterlife. But granted, since we are also in an extremely consumeristic society, the here and now is probably priority #1.
Secondly, when you start talking about death and judgment, heaven and hell, the implicit egalitarianism we have all absorbed becomes impossible to sustain and we instinctively rebell at something that shatters our worldview.
Hmmm. Once again, there might be a disconnect between where you live and where I’m currently writing from. There is always talk of heaven and hell as well as the last judgement, from the pulpit or otherwise. But I’d like to point out that when I hear or talk about heaven and hell, it is as Asimplesinner rightly ponts out: with respect to our own personal salvation (i.e. the end of “our” world), and not the end of the world”.
One final thought: I think the biggest difference in Catholic vs Protestant eschatology is that Protestants focus on what will happen here on earth during the end times (i.e. the torments, the black helicopters, the rapture etc). Meanwhile, Catholicism has generally focused on what will happen directly afterwards (i.e. the last judgement and the kingdom of God). This is definitely referenced in church artwork throughout the centuries.
August 5, 2008 at 1:42 am
Thank you for bringing up this topic. Imo, it is very important not to remain blissfully ignorant about the depth of Catholic eschatology, especially for people like myself, who are Catholics married to non-Catholics.
August 5, 2008 at 1:43 am
Okay, I’ll bite.
Perhaps one reason there is so little debate about eschatology, is that we as a people are so unsure of it. We know that an end will come, and the mere thought of it is not pretty. We fear the unknown, what happens next. Even devout Catholics will assume their dear old Auntie Minnie is in heaven, and that on the Last Day, she’ll be sittin’ pretty. Either we are not so sure of ourselves, and try not to think about it, or we are all too sure of ourselves, and want the discussion to end with that.
Of course, this is just off the top of my head, okay?