Father Scott, I found your position on "free will" very well argued.  A
good lawyer you no doubt would have made.  I appreciate your copious
reference to Scripture. I have seen the other side of the issue ably
supported from Scripture. I'll give only one example, one I used in a
posting yesterday: James and John, the sons of Zebedee, approached [Jesus]
and said, "Teacher, we should like you to do us a favor." (Mark 10:35-38.)
"What is it that you want me to do for you," he asked. They answered, "Allow
us to sit with you in your glory, one at your right hand and the other at
your left." Jesus said to them, "You do not understand what you are asking.
Can you drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism I am
baptized with?" "We can," they answered. Jesus said, "The cup that I drink
you shall drink, and the baptism I am baptized with shall be your baptism;
but to sit on my right or on my left is not for me to grant; that honor is
for those to whom it has already been assigned."
  I would comment, additionally, that Augustine and Calvin, et. al., are not
so easily dismissed; otherwise, scientists would not still be debating
fervently the role of genetics in behavior.  Mentioning "science" in support
of a theological position, I invoke Hooker's position  that "truth is
truth," never contradictory to "true religion."  On a personal level, having
fathered and reared seven children, I have moved over the years much closer
to Augustine and Calvin on this issue.  "Genes determine mental and physical
characteristics, and those characteristics determine our behavior patterns."
On a physical level,"feet are made for walking and wings for flying."  And,
as you no doubt know, studies of identical twins separated at birth and
brought up continents apart show astounding  general and specific behavioral
similarities.  By the way,  the cover story of Time Magazine this week (2
June 2003) asks:  "Are you programmed from birth, or does life change the
program?"  I've not finished the article,  but this "radical new look"
offers the hypothesis that the perennial controversy--nature vs.
nurture--may turn out to be moot.  That is to say, scientists are
discovering that genes that determine behavior can change in response to
external stimuli throughout one's life.   Still, we have to believe in free
will.  We have no choice!"
    My personal quest is to apply our Lord's New Commandment--to love my
neighbor as myself.--that is, to balance concern for myself with concern for
others.  The command suggests a "balance" of concern for self with concern
for others.   Obviously, those who do not love or respect themselves cannot
love or respect others. Prayer and reflection in a "secret corner"--by
definition not a corporate exercise--gives me insight into what I am and
what I may become, in the words of Abp. Fenelon.  Moving from external or
"corporate" direction toward internal "self-direction" has been called the
"middle passage" by Carl Jung, the psychoanalyst.  He describes it as a
natural, inborn progression of a healthy psyche, one that can take place at
any age, but usually in the middle years--40, 50, or 60-- as we mature
intellectually and are better able to see life as a whole. In the words that
Jung asked for on his tombstone--"BIDDEN OR UNBIDDEN, GOD IS PRESENT"-- I
detect an Augustinian outlook I find supported elsewhere in his writing.
    Honestly, I cannot  tell you why such "in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit"
came to me, as Augustine might turn the phrase. ("Has love entered your
heart?  God has begun to dwell there.") Certainly, in my case the process
has been a very gradual "enlightenment."  Early on, I sensed something
pointing me in directions my life eventually took.  Resist them I often did.
At age 12, in church alone, I answered an altar call in a small-town
Presbyterian church, having assured myself earlier that I would not do it.
I can credit no one for encouraging or discouraging me. My attendance at
church afterward, though, was casually and irregular, and eventually I tried
other denominations.  My "enlightenment" certainly did not arise from
"corporate" or community influence.  the behavior of certain individuals
with whom I interacted "in the world" did carry positive and negative
lessons.  On the negative side, for example, I discovered that in prison or
out, no sociopath I ever counseled would--could (?)-- effectively balance
concern for self with concern for others.  Habitual miscreants I found to be
supreme egoists.   Efforts to rehabiliate prisoners, as you no doubt know,
have proved notoriously ineffective.  Reform schools for juveniles fail
miserably also.   Around age 40, however, there is is a dramatic drop in
recidivism, the success coming not from any corporate effort but from
biological changes within the individual.
    "Loving our neighbors as ourselves," are words easy to repeat,
profoundly difficult to achieve.   The sacrament of Holy Communion--the
external memorial also commanded by our Lord--reinforces my quest for that
"peace which passes understanding." I doubt that I will ever complete my
quest in this world, and so I don't know whether I am "saved" or not.
(PBPWMGINFWMY:  "Please be patient with me, God is not finished with me
yet.") Nevertheless, as time goes by, the light at the end of my tunnel
glows brighter, and I fret  much less frequently.
    I enjoyed re-reading the passage from Henry IV.  Once I memorized Prince
Hal's speech at Agincourt after hearing the Ivy League athletes among Teddy
Roosevelt's Rough Riders recited it before the charge up San Juan Hill.  I
have known quite a few Falstaffs in my time, and I have to say that I can
take them a lot better on stage than off!  W.C. Fields has given me some
hearty laughs, but I have read too much about his personal life to feel
altogether comfortable when I watch his old movies.  As Shirley Temple said
in disdain of her film work, "I know what went on behind the camera."   A
constant level of alcohol in Field's blood left him ill-tempered, brain and
liver damaged, anything but a good-natured comic.  Whether he ever could
have proved Augustine and Calvin wrong, I don't know.  Statistics show that
alcoholics make up perhaps a third of the homeless.  (Another third are
mentally ill, and the others are "down on their luck.")  Christian
assistance ministries around here have been able to help significantly only
the last mentioned third of the homeless.  Stereotypically, alcoholics drink
till they die.  Alcoholics Anonymous claims some success.  A newspaper
columnist, a friend of mine, claims AA turned her around, and so says a
fellow priest about himself.  When I went off to university at 16, some of
my new friends in Austin invited me to Schulz's Bier Garten.  I tried
mightily to imitate their guzzling stein after stein. It didn't work!
Invariably, after two steins, I threw up in the rest room.  After a while, I
went my own way and made a lot better grades than they.   Whatever the
reason--with a tip of the hat to St. Augustine-- drunkenness was easy for me
to resist.  But as I said, PBPWMGINFWMY!

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "charles scott" <charlesrscott@...>
To: <faithandlife@...>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 1:53 PM
Subject: [FaithandLife] PAUL THE PHARISEE