Integrity

Michael Dubruiel

I have been away for a while from blogging due to personal life events.  But, through a friend, I was alerted to the sad news of the sudden passing of Michael Dubruiel (Amy Welborn's husband).  Please join me in saying a prayer for Michael, Amy and their whole family.  Michael will be missed.  Nearly all of St. Blog's, as far as I can tell, can trace its origins in some way back to Michael.  Rest in peace, Michael.

Questions about Christopher West's Work

So I am interested in reading more about the Theology of the Body.  Naturally, one can't do an internet search on that topic these days without the first twenty results all being about Christopher West.  Yet, my personal experience has been that whenever I mention his name to serious, faithful Catholics with degrees in moral theology, they tend to cringe.  At best, though, all you can drag out of them as an explanation of the basis for their reaction is this:  "Theology of the Body isn't all about sex."  So, hoping that my few remaining readers can engage in some thoughtful and respectful critique of this popular author and speaker, can someone identify for me the core concerns people have with Christopher West's popularization of the Theology of the Body?  Please leave your comments below and abide my request to be respectful.  I'm also not looking for any criticism that revolves around his style of writing, personality, popularity, etc.  In other words, tell me if there is a substantive concern about the theology he is teaching.

The Conversation Continued

One of the challenges of having a conversation like the voting one in the blogosphere is that it tends to happen in bits and parts all over the place.  As I am aware now that some people (other than the commentators) have read my entry into the conversation, I thought I'd point out this post by Disputations.  I think Tom offers up here a subtle but important contribution and is the first response to Zippy's critique that I find meritorious.  I'm not sure it answers everything, but it does a couple of things that seem to be right: (1) it accepts Zippy's point about the wrong proportionate reasons we often speak of when we say we are going to vote for the less imperfect major-party candidate; (2) it offers a response to Zippy's conclusion on the meaning/nature of the act of voting that seems to better (a) accept his marginal view analysis of the act of an individual vote and yet (b) doesn't seem to reduce the meaning/nature of voting to merely that, rejecting its other components; and (3) offers up a potential proportionate reason that would permit a vote for the less imperfect major-party candidate or a third-party candidate.

Ater reading Tom's approach some might think to claim "Duh, isn't that obvious!"   I think it is more subtle than it is simple.  I also think that, even if correct, the path we have taken to there shows some real errors in the cultural way we speak of voting for the lesser of two evils, potentially even in how some of our bishops have spoken of it, even if the conclusion reached is practically the same.

On Building a Catholic Political Culture

 

 

If you have been around the Catholic blogosphere, you will know that Zippy Catholic (http://zippycatholic.blogspot.com) and Mark Shea (http://markshea.blogspot.com) have caused quite a brouhaha with their comments that they could not see how, as a Catholic, they could vote for John McCain.  A big back and forth has erupted about what a Catholic is permitted to do with his vote and tempers have gotten heated as the discussion has ensued.

 

I do want to weigh in on the meat of the discussion, but let me begin with the following observation:  what a sad state of affairs this is.  I think It shows how much we as Catholics have both (a) succumbed to the culture's viewpoint and (b) feel incapable of offering an alternative to the culture's viewpoint.  The fact that we constantly find ourselves faced with the question of what can we morally get away with, versus what would be a positive Catholic culture says something about us.  It says something about the state of each of our witnesses to Christ.  We should all be ashamed on some level and be willing to acknowledge that this is far from what we are called to be.  It's like the person who is always asking whether this or that has crossed the line and is sin versus asking instead what will truly make me happy and correspond to the needs of my heart written there by God Himself.  We all know that the former is sometimes necessary, but we would never mistake it for the ideal.

 

Zippy and Mark have been raising a number of serious questions about how to properly make prudential judgments about who to vote for using the Church's moral teaching.  In particular, I think Zippy has brought a rigor to the question that I haven't seen in quite some time and that I think is worthy of real evaluation.  Let me begin by stating that I don't know the answer to many of the questions I raise below.  And where I am criticizing positions that have been advocated by some of the bishops I'm not necessarily saying they are wrong.  I'm simply holding open the possibility that they, like the rest of us, are infected by living in the same cultural environment as the rest of us.  So they are not immune from the same cultural assumptions, assumptions that may prove to be not factual.

 

In addition, let me make clear that whatever you might conclude about the questions raised below, I am confident that the one thing we should conclude is that something is terribly amiss.  This is not the political culture we as Catholics have been called to build up.  We shouldn't settle for this.  And since we keep finding ourselves back at this same position, election cycle after election cycle, maybe we need to re-examine some of the things we have taken for granted or assumed true without as much evidentiary basis as we normally think as we search for a path forward.  Otherwise, I can predict what type of discussion we will once again be having in 2012.

 

I think everyone agrees on certain aspects of Catholic moral teaching regarding voting.  I think the challenges come in the application.  The line between where the moral doctrine ends and prudential application to specific facts begin is sometimes hard to draw.  So please, again, understand that I am not meaning to suggest the Bishops are teaching incorrect moral doctrine.  Where I raise some questions is in the application to specific circumstances, which surely the Bishops can make mistakes with just as the rest of us can.

 

Here's what I think we all agree on.  First, a Catholic could never support a candidate who says he will use his office to advocate for an intrinsic evil in order to support that candidate's advocacy for the intrinsic evil.  This has been the traditional basis by which the pro-life movement has argued that a Catholic could not support Democrat candidates since Roe v. Wade and the Democrat's support for abortion.

 

The second principle is that, where all candidates say they will use their office to advocate for intrinsic evils a Catholic could vote for such an imperfect candidate nonetheless if (a) his vote is despite the candidate's advocacy for the intrinsic evil (i.e., he only tolerates not supports the candidate's position in this area and the potential results of his election) and (b) provided there is a proportional reason for still voting for the candidate.  The potential proportional reason is typically spoken of as voting for the candidate, despite his imperfections, in an effort to prevent grave evil that would likely occur if the other candidate wins.  Stated more generally, Catholic analysis of proportional reasons usually focuses on whether the act in remote material cooperation with evil to be undertaken by the Catholic is (i) reasonably expected to be successful in preventing the intrinsic evil that the Catholic aims to prevent by undertaking the act and (ii) the act being undertaken doesn't result in graver evil than the evil it is aimed to prevent.

 

That's what we all agree upon.  Although if I think we are all honest, we'll admit that our analysis of our circumstances when deciding our vote rarely involves a robust analysis along these principles, but instead uses various assumptions (largely absorbed from the culture) about the meaning and nature of the act of voting and the likely consequences of one act versus another to reach our conclusions.  If nothing else, I hope all can agree on that and take it as an indication of how far removed from the ideal we have become and that we shouldn't just become complacent that we live in an imperfect world and not try to again pursue the ideal.  In particular, I think the present environment (arguably our first national election in recent times) where both major party candidates advocate for an intrinsic evil (either embryonic stem cell research or both embryonic stem cell research and abortion) has revealed the shortcomings of relying on these cultural assumptions instead of a more thoughtful analysis of the situation.

 

Let's take a look at a few of the assumptions.  One initial question we all face is what to do about third party candidates.  Many don't consider them at all.  We speak of there being two parties even though nothing in the Constitution requires that and, in fact, each and every one of us will find more than two parties on the ballots we cast when we go to the polls.  You even see this in some of the statements from the bishops, which (presumably unintentionally) speak of two-person races even though the facts are that there are more than two candidates. So what is a Catholic to do when there exists a third-party candidate who doesn't advocate for any intrinsic evils, and is otherwise competent and qualified for office, yet in the present environment is unlikely to win the election?  Should a Catholic support such a candidate for, among other reasons, it is better to not remotely materially cooperate with evil if that can be avoided (focusing on the fact that it is not true that all candidates support intrinsic evils)?  Or is it permissible for a Catholic to apply an "electability/viability" filter, focusing on the fact that there is a clear difference in the magnitude of the intrinsic evils supported by the two candidates likely to win and we should do our part to try to mitigate how much intrinsic evil is done?

 

I truly don't know the answer to that question.  The individual bishops' statements to date seem to say yes to the latter question, even though recent documents issued by them collectively don't seem to say the same thing.  I also would note some irony that the view of the meaning of the act of voting (which we will discuss more below) given for why it is okay to dismiss a third-party candidate (the fact that he won't win and one individual vote marginally isn't going to change that) is the very same view of the meaning of the act of voting rejected when responding to the proportionate reason questions I'll discuss next.  Furthermore, it seems clear that, given the demographic numbers of Catholics in this country, Catholics voting for a third party candidate, in the aggregate, would in fact absolutely change the election results.  The irony is that, together, we are fully capable of bringing about the Catholic political culture that we want, based on sheer numbers.  Yet because that result isn't guaranteed when looked at on an individual vote by vote basis the approach that could lead to the political culture we want is rejected.  I'm not saying that's not without reason, but there's something tragic in all that.  My experience of this tragedy is only heightened when I see some bishops go so far as to even suggest maybe that a Catholic must remotely materially cooperate with evil by suggesting that voting for a third-party candidate would be worse than voting for the less imperfect major-party candidate by equating the act of voting for a third-party candidate with voting for the more imperfect major-party candidate.  This seems to me to be entirely incorrect, by reducing all of the various meanings and outcomes of the act of voting down to the simple question of whether it helps or hurts in the effort to defeat the more imperfect major-party candidate.  But surely we all can acknowledge that there is a legitimate difference between the act of voting for Obama and the act of voting for a pro-life third-party candidate who is judged unlikely to win?

 

Another set of assumptions will get drawn out in a look at proportionate reasoning analysis.  These assumptions relate to: (i) the meaning/nature of the act of voting and its effectiveness in preventing the intrinsic evil promoted by a candidate that we don't want to win and (ii) the evaluation of the consequences (good and bad) of such candidate winning, the less imperfect candidate winning, and from the act of voting itself for the less imperfect candidate.

 

Zippy has been arguing that there does not exist a proportionate reason for voting for McCain.  He notes that John McCain supports embryonic stem cell research and that this is a grave intrinsic evil as it is the murdering of the innocent.  After all, it is essentially just a form of abortion, not something distinct and different from abortion.  Zippy then points to the fact that you can't vote against Obama, you can only vote for a candidate.  Coupled with the fact that an individual vote, viewed on a marginal basis, is highly unlikely to determine the outcome of the election, he concludes that an act of voting for McCain cannot be reasonably expected to prevent the evil anticipated from a victory by Obama. As such, a proportional reason to vote for McCain and materially cooperate with evil doesn't exit.  And for good measure, Zippy highlights the fact that we often fail to account for the corrosive impacts of supporting intrinsic evil, even through remote material cooperation, has on the voter and the friends and family in his sphere of influence. 

 

(Please note that I have taken for granted the fact that a McCain administration would result in less intrinsic evil than an Obama one.  While I agree with the conclusion, it should be noted that it isn't entirely obvious and not worthy of analysis.  It is possible that McCain has overstated his commitment to what pro-life principles he does have and that Obama will be constrained by exterior forces from implementing all the anti-life policies he has said he wants to implement.  Unlike the delusional "pro-life Catholic" Obama supporters out there, I don't think a reasonable evaluation of the facts supports such a conclusion.  But they are correct that an evaluation of the facts is required.  I think many individuals unfortunately are (unjustifiably) scared by the fact that a true evaluation of the facts requires being open to all possibilities the facts might suggest, even the counter-intuitive ones, rather than dismissing some of those possibilities a priori.  I think we have nothing to fear from reason.)

 

Those arguing with Zippy think he is focusing too much on the marginal view of an individual vote when deciding the meaning/nature of the act of voting and whether the act can reasonably be expected to prevent the intrinsic evil they associate with an Obama victory.  After all, they are right, if all Catholics were to vote for McCain or not for McCain, it likely would decide whether he wins.  And they emphasize the magnitude of the evil of abortion and suggest that that evil outweighs the evil Zippy thinks will come from the remote material cooperation with evil that is a vote for McCain. 

 

It is all made all so muddled by that mystery that is the vote.  Each individual vote does matter; when gathered with other like votes, their bulk builds up.  Yet,  it is a very rare political campaign where the election will turn on the margin of an individual vote.  It is no wonder that elections and voting is a field ripe with analysis by game theory.  The subject matter is just so complex.  Personally, I find a lot of merit to Zippy's argument.  Living in a state that Obama is pretty much guaranteed to carry, given that he represents that state already, I think Zippy is right that my vote for someone other than McCain will have no bearing on whether Obama becomes President.  And yet, Zippy's argument, taken to the extreme, would seem to deny the reality that individual votes do matter, for it arguably would suggest a conclusion that there is never a proportional reason for voting for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil (barring a race that literally turns on a single vote, such as "Zippy the race is a tie; whomever you vote for will be President").  Whatever conclusion we reach, it seems to me that it needs to acknowledge both realities about the meaning/nature of voting.

 

Similarly, evaluating the likely outcomes of an election are challenging beyond belief.  Example:  would I have predicted that George Bush would be as authoritarian, anti-civil liberties, militaristic, and pro-torture as he has been back in 2000 when I voted for him?  Absolutely not.  But those are results that flowed from his election.  Zippy likes to speak of outcome-dependent and outcome-independent consequences from the election.  I think this is a useful tool, because it reminds us that there are consequences to the election that go beyond merely who wins the election.  For example, I think people arguing with Zippy grossly underestimate the truth of his claim that there are damaging consequences that come from the remote material cooperation with evil of voting for a candidate that supports an intrinsic evil.  I can't help but look at this election and how the issue of embryonic stem cell research has been tossed aside.  Think back only four years and consider how at the forefront this issue was for the pro-life movement.  Yet, in today's parlance, say pro-life and no one thinks of opposition to ESCR anymore, just abortion.  We see groups labeling McCain as "pro-life", without clear reference to ESCR and his problems there.  This is all the more striking when you consider, as I said above, that ESCR is a form of abortion.  I would posit that we dismiss the concerns about this damage to ourselves and the culture at our own peril.  For this damage is insidious as it is slow to reveal itself, develops out of clear sight and is more amorphous as it can't be attached to a single action by some other person.  Yet is it not possible that this very nature of the damage is part of what keeps us from developing that truly Catholic political culture we all long for, because of how it damages our own perceptions of reality in ways that we typically don't acknowledge?

 

In the end, I don't have an easy answer to the questions.  But I think they shouldn't be dismissed because their examination might wake us all up to how far we have missed the mark and keep missing the mark, and they might give us an indication of where to begin anew.

St. John Cantius

St John Cantius is a paradox to me. Everyone tells me that I should love the place. You love the liturgy, you will love St John Cantius. You love sung liturgies, you will love St John Cantius. You love Latin, you will love St John Cantius. And so on.

I have been there twice now.  It has been a lousy experience both times. Last week, I left the celebration of Tenebrae early it was that bad. And I have pinpointed the problem. The choir. Not the Latin. Not the chant. The choir. There is nothing that turns me off more than a choir that sings a polyphonic setting that I can neither understand what they are saying nor dare participate. It was no doubt beautiful. But it was not prayerful. Maybe the fault rests with me, but I would seriously like to know how people overcome the distraction. I have participated in sung liturgies before, of several rites and in a number of languages. I have never had this problem before and, upon reflection, all of them had in common the fact that their music was participatory or at least capable of it.

I would really love to hear from some who go to St John Cantius.  Tell me how you or others deal with this. Spare me abstract defenses of polyphony or the traditional liturgy. You are talking to someone who is favorably disposed to all of that. I went to St John Cantius because of its treasures. But how does it become prayerful?  Because twice now I have gone and it has not been. It became a concert. And I struggled tonight to avoid that. 

I hope someone from St John Cantius or who loves the traditional Latin mass can read this and understand what I am identifying and speak to my real need expressed above. I don't think I am alone in my experience and that this is my stumbling block with the way the extraordinary form is celebrated in many places.   All screeds about the pitiful state of folk music in the ordinary form of the liturgy will be deleted. I'm not pining for a guitar mass. I am genuinely asking where that line is between beautiful, mystical musical prayer and a concert?  And if it primarily rests in the way one approaches the mass and one's participation in it, what am I not getting?

Experience

[Yeah, I know it has been a long time and here I jump right into inside minutia.  Well, what do you expect from a blogger?  BTW, if you haven't checked out Rethinking Economics in a while, I'm back to blogging there.  Also, take a look at Diary of a Disillusioned Voter if you're interested in politics but frustrated with the present political landscape.]

Something mentioned tonight at School of Community triggered me thinking about the role of experience.  Don't take the following to be a critique of tonight's School of Community, because it is not.   The one merely served as the trigger for the following.

In CL we make a great emphasis on the importance of experience and rightly so.  But I think sometimes we slip a bit when it comes to why it is important.  We are not looking to verify our experiences.  And, in particular, we are not looking to verify our feelings (which certainly is a dimension of experience, but often what we reduce all of an experience down to).  We are looking to verify truth.  In a very concrete way.  We are looking to verify, in our experiences, the truth.  What CL is saying is that experience is the place in which this becomes possible.  But let's not lose sight that it is truth that we are after.  Consider again the wonderful passage from St. John about the encounter of Andrew and John with Christ and how it beautifully opens with the Baptist's claim "Behold the Lamb of God!" and closes with Andrew's words to his brother "We have found the Messiah!"  Why was Andrew's experience of the encounter with Christ so vital?  Not because it verified his experiences.  But because it is in that powerful encounter he was able to verify the truth of the Baptist's claim and that fact took on concreteness for him and his life.  The face of Truth became known.

Okay, I'm done rambling.  Just felt the need to clarify on this.

So It Has Been A While

I know that it has been a while since I have posted anything on Integrity.

Well, I hate to disappoint, but you will have to wait a bit longer.  I've got much to do between now and when I return from a trip.  But I do plan to restart this blog, in that ever-starting-ever-stopping sort of way that has been its life.  I'll even post again over at Intentional Disciples soon.  (I promise Sherry!)

In the meantime, visit Rethinking Economics.  I know, a post promising posts is not much of anything.  But I will be posting there probably before I post here.

Also, check out Diary of a Disillusioned Voter.  Political season is on us and this blogger captures many of my own sentiments.

Some Fruits of My Labor

I know I haven't been around the blog much.  I've been quite busy at work and, in what free time I have had, I've been busily organizing my videos, pictures, etc., from my Rome trip onto a DVD.  My, oh my, did I not realize how tedious that would be.  Still working on it, but I thought I would share the fruits of some of my labor.  Here's the intro to the DVD.  The pictures are all mine.  The music is a sample from Claudio Chieffo's work and is a beloved song within CL and was the one sung when the Pope arrived at the audience.  (I know it has been over a month, but I will post on the trip soon, I promise!)

Way Of the Cross Chicago - 2007

No fabulous commentary this year as I was only able to stay for the first couple stations of the Way of the Cross that our local CL community conducted through the streets of downtown Chicago.  Nonetheless, it is amazing how much the event has grown.  We have a website now.  Parishes (including my own) announced the event.  This year, the city not only didn't lose our permit application, but granted us a permit!  And the police fully supported us in our intersection crossings.  News media and reporters attended.  And Bishop Paprocki participated with us.  Even the 25 degree weather (before wind chill) didn't scare off too many people. 

The one benefit of not being able to stay is that I'm the only one capable of taking a few of the shots you see below.  Not bad for a point and shoot camera, shooting from quite a few city blocks away.

Have a Blessed Easter!  Positng will resume sometime next week.

Home At Last!

Well, after a day's delay, I finally walked in the door at my house about 6pm.  Much to do, so the reflections on the papal audience will have to wait a bit.  But in the meantime, here's a couple of pictures, a link to a Flickr photo album of the raw digital files and the audio broadcast of Vatican Radio's coverage.  (I'm guessing they will indulge me in my posting of it.)

Exhausted, I'm now off to do what I must do and get some rest.  But soon, I'll post tales of the trip.  It was wonderful!

Update:  Alex rightly noted that I didn't post any links or pictures.  Which means of course, I mistakenly hit the "publish" versus "save as draft" button.  I've updated with some pictures (click on them for larger versions) and now YouTubes of short movie captures I did at the papal audience.  I apologize for the quality of some of the pictures you will see in the coming weeks.  Once I learned that Rome was so dark, I decided to forego my flash.  But I am not as patient as I should be, without a tripod as well, to do the camera tricks (the limited ones my cheap digital camera can do) to compensate for that.  Also, does anyone know where I might be able to host the audio for free? YouTube limits length to 10 minutes and if I were to just host it as a file here on the side a mere 7 of you downloading it would eat up all my bandwidth.  Any suggestions?

See You When I Return

Well, I hope that those two new The Religious Sense posts keeps my few readers busy for the next couple of days.  As those of you who follow Intentional Disciples know, I am heading to Rome for a papal audience in honor of the 25th anniversary of pontifical recognition of the Fraternity of Communion and Liberation, which is the lay movement founded by Fr. Giussani.  When I return, we will resume our look at Fr. Giussani's writings.  Plus, I'll have stories from my trip.  If you are interested, EWTN is broadcasting the papal audience both live (5:00 am,  CDT) and an afternoon replay (3:00 pm,  CDT) on Saturday.  If your cable company doesn't get EWTN, you can watch it live over the Internet at this link on their website.

Also, if you live in the Chicago area and are looking for some way to make a concrete expression of your faith this Good Friday, consider joining us for the Way of the Cross, through downtown Chicago.  More information can be found at the event's website.  Bishop Paprocki will be participating this year.

Religious Sense: Chapter 4

Recap:  We have finally worked our way through the three premises -- realism, reasonableness and the need for a love of truth more than yourself -- that Fr. Giussani finds critical to understanding any element of human experience.  Fr. Giussani summarizes this all by saying, "one must be open to the demands imposed by the question [the thing being studied] itself."

Intro:  Now we will begin to look at the phenomenon of religious experience, or the "religious sense", as Fr. Giussani likes to refer to it.  This chapter presents us an introductory look at this phenomenon.

How to Proceed:  The first question that Fr. Giussani asks is how do we begin to take a look at the religious experience.  As we talked about in earlier chapters, Fr. Giussani identifies the religious experience as one about the human person, and thus requiring existential inquiry.  (The method is determined by the object.)  So we must look at our own experience, in all its factors, and see it for what it is.

But what does it mean to start "with ourselves"?  Who is me?  And how do I avoid defining "me" as some mere abstract thing, that falls short of all of who I am?  Fr. Giussani suggests that it is by examining ourselves in action, by looking at our experiences.  So to start with ourselves is to

"observe one's own movements ... within his or her daily experience.  Hence the 'material' of our starting point will not be any sort of preconception about or artificial image of oneself, or even a definition of oneself, perhaps borrowed from current ideas and the dominant ideology.

Religious Sense: Chapter 3

Recap:  In the previous summaries, we took a look at two of the three premises that Fr. Giussani wants us to consider.  First, in the summary of Chapter 1, we looked at the need for realism.  Second, in the summary of Chapter 2, we looked at the nature of reasonableness, how it is the capacity to become aware of reality and how we perceive a behavior as reasonable if it indicates adequate reasons for itself.  Today, we will look at Chapter 3 of The Religious Sense, and the final introductory premise:  the impact of morality on the dynamic of knowing.

Intro:  You will recall in the last summary we noted how there are a diversity of procedures for reaching certainty.  That the way in which we become certain that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen is different than the way in which we become certain that we can trust a business partner.   Fr. Giussani notes that this latter act -- trusting a person -- depends on something more than just "the soundness of the reasoning process". It depends on "a new factor, namely, the attitude of the person -- usually called 'morality'."  In this chapter, we will look at how morality impacts how we come to know something.

Reason Inseparable From The Unity Of The "I":  Fr. Giussani begins this chapter with two examples of people doing poorly in comparison to their ability.  The first, a young woman who is an ace at math, does badly on an exam because of a stomachache.  The second, an aspiring writer, writes a barely passable composition after having eaten and drunk too much at a dinner party.  In both examples, the person didn't lose their ability to do math or write well.  They simply were feeling ill.  The point?   Fr. Giussani wishes to indicate how  there is a unity between "the instrument of reason and the rest of the person."

"Man is one, and reason is not a machine that can be disconnected from the rest of the personality and then left to operate alone like some spring mechanism in a toy.  Reason is inherent in the entire unity of our self; it is organically related to it."

We have all had experiences of this.  Think about the last time you got hurt in an accident or a girlfriend/boyfriend unexpectedly dumped you.  How was your reasoning affected by those events?

Religious Sense: Chapter 2

Recap:  In these first three chapters of The Religious Sense, we are examining three premises about the human experience that will help us in examining religion in particular.  In the summary of Chapter 1, we looked at the need for realism in our approach to the things -- the objects -- we encounter in life.  And from that we considered that the method to learn the truth of an object is given by the object and how matters of human experience need to be examined through existential inquiry and that that can result in learning of objective things.

Intro:  In Chapter 2 of The Religious Sense, we turn our attention more closely to the subject doing the investigation:  man.   And the specific premise that Fr. Giussani wishes to explore here is the need for man to act with reasonableness.  But before we get in too deep, it is worth defining what Fr. Giussani means by reason and reasonableness.  Because our modern ears have been trained to think quite narrowly about these terms.  (Often associating reason with only the scientific method, for example.)  Fr. Giussani defines the terms this way:

"[Reason is] the capacity to become aware of reality according to the totality of its factors.  The term reasonableness, then, represents a mode of action that expresses and realizes reason, the capacity to become aware of reality."

It is worth pondering over these definitions for a moment.  If you followed Pope Benedict's Regensburg lecture and the outcry around it, one of the things Pope Benedict was pointing out was the need for this broadening of reason beyond the narrow terms we have become used to in modern times.  What is appealing about Fr. Giussani's definition of reason is that it doesn't deny anything a priori.  It is ready to tackle all of reality.  It doesn't tie reason to a specific method, thus denying the possibility that anything not discoverable through that method could in fact be reasonable.

Religious Sense: Chapter 1

Background:  Before I dive into the review of The Religious Sense, it makes some sense to set the stage.  As I mentioned in my first post, Fr. Giussani is tracing out a long path.  This first book of his Trilogy focuses on the human experience.  Fr. Giussani is convinced, much in the same way that St. Augustine suggests in his famous line, "Lord, our hearts are restless until they rest in you," that our very humanity points the way to Christ.  So in this work, Fr. Giussani focuses on what it is to be human and a recovery of a full sense of what is meant by reason (far broader than modern reductions to that which can be shown with the methods of science).  In that way, until we reach the point of the Incarnation (something which will come when we look at At The Origin of the Christian Claim), the question of God will be approached in a very natural way.  It may feel weird for a time, to speak of "Mystery", "Another", "the Infinite", but its purpose, again, is to recognize what is revealed by human experience -- and at this stage, prior to Revelation, particularly the event of the Incarnation and the encounter with Christ.  So with that, let's look at Chapter 1.

The Need For Realism:  In the first chapter of The Religious Sense, Fr. Giussani's emphasis is on the need for realism.  Starting with a quote from the Nobel winner Alexis Carrel -- who said, in reference to science, that "few observations and much discussion are conducive to error:  much observation and little discussion to the truth" -- Fr. Giussani argues that any serious inquiry into something requires realism:

"By realism I refer to the urgent necessity not to give a more important role to a scheme already in our minds, but rather to cultivate an entire, passionate, insistent ability to observe the real event, the fact."

This emphasis of the inquiry on observing the fact is further highlighted in a distinction that Fr. Giussani makes between knowing and thinking, inspired by a quotation of St. Augustine.  For he says: