But now that Fr. Barron is a more well-known name on the parish level (definitely a good thing!), I hear about him off and on. Yesterday, it took the form of a parking lot conversation after our youth ministry finished caroling at a nursing home. Dude, believe me: if nothing else, I am an expert in parking lot conversations. I'm not truly at home with someone unless I can talk with them for hours in the cold/snow/heat/dark. You know how when you were a little kid, sometimes after church/at the grocery store/while picking you up from Scouts, your parents chatted with their grown-up friends forever, and you felt like you'll never go home? Now I am that grown-up (minus the little child tugging at my coat).
So one person brings up a talk by Fr. Barron about optimism, pessimism, and hope. Usually, in this particular group, we're all on track with each other. But this time, controversy! Definitions being demanded! Dictionaries being threatened! Frowns and dismay! Okay, it wasn't really that serious... we were all still friendly. But this was the issue: apparently Fr. Barron said that pessimism is better than optimism, because it's more realistic. Now mind you, one of the people in our little parking-lot-conversation-circle is probably one of the most joyful, bubbly, happy people the world has ever known. Really. And I'm not really the gloom-and-doom type either, you know. So of course, we demanded an explanation.
Tonight, I looked up this homily, and found that the explanation we got was pretty accurate to what Fr. Barron said. I'll let you listen for yourself, if you'd like. Basically, the idea is that optimists are ignoring reality, because everything isn't fine - we live in a fallen world. Pessimists are much more realistic, due to the brokenness and sin around us. We cannot hope in the present world - the only way we will ever be totally fulfilled, the only way everything will be completely fine, is in eternity.
I understand what Father is saying. Of course things aren't perfect here, and they won't be until heaven! Of course! I totally agree! I don't think that Fr. Barron is advocating escapism, where we avoid the world altogether. And I don't think he's advocating a gloom-and-doom reality, where we view life as a drudgery (although when he brought up Sartre, I was tempted to think so. I had to read him in college, and I hated it! No Exit was one of the most depressing reads ever. Blech. But at least it's interesting to compare and contrast with C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce! And now I'm just rambling in parentheses).
Yet, I think he might come across that way, if you're not listening carefully. I suggest that we throw out the terms "optimist" and "pessimist" in this talk, since they already come with so many pre-conceived definitions. Instead, let's just focus on the concepts - that instead of pretending evil doesn't exist, we should look realistically at the world. But we shouldn't lose hope! God can bring good out of evil, and we have a perfect, beautiful eternity with him to look forward to! So far, I'm totally on board.
(Side note: dude, sometimes I think that half of coming to terms with theology is working through the language that different theologians use. Specific, precise definitions for all words, and ya gotta know how those definitions differ from common usage. So for Fr. Barron to hone in on a certain definition of "optimism" and "pessimism," which isn't the exact way that most of us mean it, I shouldn't be surprised. It's just what they do. I think it's the same thing with philosophy... but I don't know enough about it to go there.)
But maybe the part that rubs me wrong is the impression I got from listening to him, which is that we can have no hope in this world. Even Pope Benedict, in the encyclical that Fr. Barron quoted, said:
"Let us say once again: we need the greater and lesser hopes that keep us
going day by day. But these are not enough without the great hope, which must
surpass everything else. This great hope can only be God, who encompasses the
whole of reality and who can bestow upon us what we, by ourselves, cannot
attain." -Spe Salvi
Gotta love a good Catholic "both-and." Little "h" hopes, if you will, in the day-to-day world. And big "H" Hope, for eternity. Not one or the other... both are important! But, bottom line: if the little "h" hope fails, we'll still turn out okay in the end, because we've got big "H" Hope.
(Another side note: if you were here with me as I'm writing this, you'd totally know that I'm phlegmatic in temperament. I keep wanting to include caveats: "But I really do love Fr. Barron! I think he's great! I'm sure he didn't mean what I think he's saying!" It's a struggle, but I decided that he'll be okay, that you won't assume I'm trying to martyr him, and that I'm allowed to think. Phlegmatic victory!)
With all this pessimism/optimism talk on my brain, it really stuck out to me in the Scriptures today. The first reading was from Isaiah 7, so I wanted to read the whole chapter to get the context. These two lines jumped off the page at me:
"If you will not believe,
surely you shall not be established."
-Isaiah 7:9b
Which, of course, reminded me of tomorrow's Gospel reading:
"Blessed are you who believed
that what was spoken to you by the Lord
would be fulfilled."
-Luke 1:45
God works in time. This Old Testament attack that Isaiah is referring to, as well as the angel appearing to Mary, were events in human history. They happened here, not in eternity. I think that is why I am so hesitant to say that we only can have hope for heaven... because God is working right now, too.
(Maybe I'm mixing up my definitions of hope and faith?? Papa B goes over that in the encyclical I quoted above, if you want to dig into that more. If I remember correctly, he intertwines them very closely.)
At any rate, I have many more thoughts swirling in my head about this, but hey, it's not a dissertation. I encourage you to devour anything that Fr. Barron puts out, because his stuff is phenomenal - I just wanted to spend some time doing a bit more thinking on this one topic. (I particularly recommend his series about the deadly sins and their corresponding virtues!)
And now I'm rambling... time to see if my laundry is done, and then go to bed! God bless you all - take heart, have hope, trust in the Lord!
I think you guys misplaced the focus of Fr. Barron’s homily. I do think that some people would have qualms with what he is actually saying, but I suspect that you will not.
ReplyDeleteThe focus of this homily is not optimism vs. pessimism but rather hope vs. both optimism and pessimism. The homily is about hope. Optimism and pessimism are brought up in order to clarify what we don’t mean by hope (common misconceptions). The essential difference that Fr. Barron notes between these terms is that hope considers this world in light of the promised eternal life while both optimism and pessimism belong to a worldview that considers only this life with no reference whatsoever to the promised eternity. This is why he so frequently used phrases like “from a purely worldly perspective” and “in a worldly sense” when talking about optimism and especially pessimism. He says that optimism cannot be equated with hope, because optimism is a secularized hope – everything will be fine in this world. In the context of a secular worldview optimism is mere wishful thinking and pessimism more adequately grasps our reality because ultimately we die and that is the end. This is why he mentions the danger of optimists (where that term implies a secular worldview). They are utopian. They want to make this world perfect without any reference to an eternity because they do not believe it exists. Thus, Marx’s communist ideal, Hitler’s Arian ideal, etc. They are all this worldly ideals that are bound to be frustrated while significantly harming people in the process. Why are people necessarily harmed? Because these views presuppose that the transcendent is not a legitimate dimension of human existence.
Well, can’t one be optimistic because of his confidence in the power of Christ and so reject the secular worldview? Yes, and this is precisely the point. This is not optimism but the theological virtue of hope. Both are confident in an ultimate goodness but the optimist could not tell you why because everything around him suggests otherwise, while one filled with hope will speak of the Savior and His promise of salvation.
Continuation from above:
ReplyDeletePerhaps it would be helpful to resituate this distinction in the context of St. Paul. In chapter 15 of his first letter to the Corinthians he talks about the importance of Christ’s resurrection from the dead. “If there is no resurrection of the dead, then neither has Christ been raised. If Christ has not been raised, then empty too is our preaching; empty, too, your faith” (v. 13-14). “If the dead are not raised: Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” (v. 32). This is Fr. Barron’s point. You cannot have a secular worldview and confidence in the ultimate triumph of goodness. There is no reason for it. The conclusion is not that we should all be pessimists; rather it is that Christ, precisely by His resurrection, has IN SHATTERING THE NARROW CONFINES OF A SECULAR WORLDVIEW GIVEN US REASON TO HOPE IN THE ULTIMATE TRIUMPH OF GOODNESS, a promise which spills over even into this world yielding a foreshadow of things to come. This is why we have Good News. It is insightful regarding a difficulty in evangelization today. We live in a post-Christian society where people have kept the good conclusion and rejected everything leading up to that conclusion. We struggle to present the Gospel as GOOD News because people think that they already possess what we have to offer and without all of the strings attached. Our task is difficult because we have to tear down a false confidence before people will see their need for the full truth, but that is a negative way to start. To put this same point in other terms, when we talk about salvation people wonder, “What the heck do I need to be saved from?” We are in the unfortunate position of having to make that clear (a guaranteed sore spot) before proposing a Savior makes any sense at all.
To reconnect with Fr. Barron’s homily and perhaps provide a much shorter summary of what I have tried to articulate above: pessimists are looking for a Savior, optimists don’t think they need one (most often, because they are their own saviors), and people of hope know their need for a Savior and rejoice for they have found Him.
I think your last sentence hits the nail on the head! See, when you explain it, it all makes sense! Maybe you and Fr. Barron should team up. ;)
DeleteThis clears a lot up for me: "Well, can’t one be optimistic because of his confidence in the power of Christ and so reject the secular worldview? Yes, and this is precisely the point. This is not optimism but the theological virtue of hope. Both are confident in an ultimate goodness but the optimist could not tell you why because everything around him suggests otherwise, while one filled with hope will speak of the Savior and His promise of salvation." So is the optimist strictly in denial? Or is he "confident in an ultimate goodness" because of natural law, something implanted in him that tells him that there must be more? (Would that even be natural law, or am I confusing things again?) Or is it a combination of both, or one or the other depending on the person?
You're totally right about the bearing that all of this has on evangelization! Many people don't know that they need to be saved; or if they do have the vague sense that they need it, the world still tells them that everything will be okay, smile and keep your head up and it'll all work out in the end. Just like in the movies. But if you ask someone, is your life perfect? Is our world perfect? they clearly know that the answer is no. Then maybe we can go from there. (This is really good to keep in mind, by the way, because we'll be discussing the problem of evil with our youth during Holy Week.)
"We live in a post-Christian society where people have kept the good conclusion and rejected everything leading up to that conclusion." I think that's very insightful. They skip right to the butterflies and rainbows, without passing though the cross. And so instead of true joy, all they get is the fluffy stuff, the butterflies and rainbows.
I love this: "...Christ, precisely by His resurrection, has IN SHATTERING THE NARROW CONFINES OF A SECULAR WORLDVIEW GIVEN US REASON TO HOPE IN THE ULTIMATE TRIUMPH OF GOODNESS, a promise which spills over even into this world yielding a foreshadow of things to come." LOVE it. You were right... once I get it, I agree. :)
Thanks David! You pierced through this with a clarity for which I was fumbling around. It's all very intriguing; I will continue to ponder.