Amazon.com Widgets

No one else can want for me

The incommunicable, the inalienable, in a person is intrinsic to that person’s inner self, to the power of self determination, free will.  No one else can want for me.  No one can substitute his act of will for mine.  It does sometimes happen that someone very much wants me to want what he wants.  This is the moment when the impassable frontier between him and me, which is drawn by free will, becomes most obvious.  I may not want that which he wants me to want—and in this precisely I am incommunicabilis.  I am, and I must be, independent in my actions.  All human relationships are posited on this fact.  All true conceptions about education and culture begin from and return to this point.

Karol Wojtyla

Love and Responsibility

Katie van Schaijik

Liturgy and Personality

Nov. 14, 2011, at 11:46am

Since the Church in the English-speaking world is about to be renewed by the introduction of a new translation of the novis ordo, it seems a good moment to delve into Dietrich von Hildebrand's great classic Liturgy and Personality, which unfolds the unrealized depths and riches in the Liturgy, in the human personality, and in the mysterious relation between the two.

Accordingly, the first four sessions of our newly re-instituted First Friday Reading Circle gatherings for members will be dedicated to it.  If you'd like to participate either by coming to our home on December 2, or by reading along and listening to Jules' introduction to the text via podcast, be sure to become a member.

For

continue reading

Jules van Schaijik

True simplicity

Nov. 12, 2011, at 1:35pm

Steve Jobs, whose genius I've long admired and whose biography I've been listening to lately, was well known for his desire to simplify products and make them more user friendly. (There is a friendly and funny spoof on this, by the Onion.) "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication," Apple's first brochure proclaimed. But simple is not to be confused with simplistic. True simplicity, Jobs knew, comes "from conquering complexities, not ignoring them."

This put me in mind of a chapter on "True Simplicity" in Dietrich von Hildebrand's classic work, Transformation in Christa context about as far removed from computers as can be imagined. Von Hildebrand makes a similar distinction within the

continue reading

Katie van Schaijik

The kindness of strangers

Nov. 12, 2011, at 7:08am

Last night, looking for a mom's potluck dinner, I went to the wrong address.  I knew it must be wrong when I saw so few cars.  But movement at the window gave me the courage to ring the bell.  The woman who answered saw me standing there with a bottle of wine and a doubtful look on my face.  

"This isn't the Swifts, is it?"  

She didn't recognize the name, but she did recognize my perplexity.  She opened her door wider and said, "Come on in.  We'll figure it out."

I had the street number wrong.  But now I was doubting that I was even looking for the right house.  Maybe the party wasn't at the Swift's at all.  I said to her, "If there's no one there, can I come back and use your phone?"

continue reading

Katie van Schaijik

Practical wisdom about love

Nov. 10, 2011, at 10:12am

Last night the Personalist Project hosted a lecture in our home by Catholic psychologist and marriage counsellor, Dr. Peter Damgaard-Hansen, titled: "The art of loving your spouse, and what to do when you can't."  We'll be posting it soon for members.  

It was a treasure trove of deep practical wisdom.  One line among many that struck a chord with me was: "It's okay not to be able to love;  It's not okay to be unloving."

For me this resolves a difficulty I experience constantly, especially in parenting my children.  I often feel crushed by the weight of my responsibility toward them and sort of wail inwardly to God, "I can hardly be responsible for myself, morally--what were you thinking

continue reading

Jules van Schaijik

The effects of thinking the unthinkable

Nov. 5, 2011, at 6:36am

The idea that there are intrinsically evil acts—acts that are always and everywhere wrong no matter what the circumstances or consequences may be—is often challenged by appeals to extraordinary cases, real or imagined. Killing one innocent person, it is said, though obviously wrong in most cases, may be justified if it is the only way to save fifty others. Or adultery, though morally bad in general, can hardly be considered wrong in the case of Mrs. Bergmeier, for whom it was the only way to get out of prison and rejoin her family.

I have always found such arguments troubling, especially when they are used extensively in the classroom. Rather than nourishing, clarifying and strengthening

continue reading

Katie van Schaijik

Frances Chesterton, kindred spirit

Oct. 31, 2011, at 2:11pm

Reading Ian Ker’s biography of G.K. Chesterton this morning, I learned some things about his beloved wife, Frances.  For one, she was prone to depression; grey, wet weather effected her terribly.  Yet her faith was deep and true, and essentially personalistic.

Here is Fr. Ker, quoting from her journal:

Unlike her husband, who enjoyed rain and grey skies, Frances felt like a new person ‘because the sun is shining’, which made her feel ‘warm with the thought of all I have and warmer with the thought of all I am going to have and warmest of all with the thought that Love thought well to include me in his list of favored persons’.


Katie van Schaijik

Public morality and the common good

Oct. 18, 2011, at 1:36pm

Over at the Witherspoon Institute Robert George has a characteristically thoughtful and helpful article on pornography and public morality.

He shows the limits of the distinction (favored by liberals and libertarians) between public and private acts.

Theorists of public morality—from the ancient Greek philosophers and Roman jurists on—have noticed that apparently private acts of vice, when they multiply and become widespread, can imperil important public interests.

(And this is not yet to mention the still deeper moral truth that even my most secret and isolated sinful act has repercussions for others; that every wrong, no matter how small and hidden, proportionately lowers the

continue reading

Katie van Schaijik

Validating feelings

Oct. 16, 2011, at 12:01am

In a book on hospice care for the dying called Final Journeys, I came across these lines:

When I first meet people who are adjusting to a terminal diagnosis, I never try to diminish their emotions. “Yes, this is terrible news and it’s very, very sad,” I say. “You don’t need to make excuses for the way you feel. You have a right to feel this way.” These words identify and recognize the struggle the dying person and family are going through. Validation is one of the first and most important tools for opening a different door. [Emphasis added.]

It struck me as a true and beautiful insight, and a typically modern one. It reflects the “turn toward subjectivity” that is a major hallmark of our

continue reading

Katie van Schaijik

Choice and borderline personality disorder

Feb. 10, 2011, at 1:26pm

Cleaning off my laptop desktop today, I find this passage from a James Bowman review of the movie My Summer of Love. Good food for thought.

Writing in The Times of London about the Michael Jackson trial, Oliver James, a psychologist, notes that “The thing about people with borderline personality disorder, which I believe Jackson has, is that they have a weak sense of self — as evidenced by the need to change his skin color, his erratic moods and the fact that he thinks he is Peter Pan. They are constantly acting out different personalities, which means that the boundary between fantasy and reality is blurred.” As in other ways, however, in this Michael Jackson stands for so much

continue reading

Katie van Schaijik

A personalist approach to Natural Family Planning

Jan. 20, 2011, at 3:12pm

An acquaintance from many years back, in Steubenville, sent a note just now:

I just came across today, by accident as it were, one of the old articles
which you wrote for the university concourse some time ago.

I thought I would write you to let you know that I think your assessment of this matter was “spot on”! It’s too bad that so many people are still tying themselves up in knots trying to figure this one out. I’d encourage you, if you haven’t already done so, to republish this article on the
personalist project web-site. Hope all is well.

I think perhaps I have posted it here before, but, no harm in repetition.

The topic of came up for me again too recently, when my newly engaged

continue reading

Katie van Schaijik

Fr. John Courtney Murray

Dec. 29, 2010, at 3:48pm

A good article over at the American Spectator today, in honor of the 50th anniversary of the publication of John Courtney Murray’s book of essays, We Hold These Truths.

Murray had a keen intellect, steeped in the classical and Western traditions once common among Jesuits of his stature. He was comfortable arguing politics, theology, national defense policy and history. He challenged assumptions of both the Left and Right. He offered precise and subtle arguments that have been used and, sometimes, misused by both sides in debates over different issues over the years. But his faith in the inherent reasonableness of God and man is a welcome tonic to the corrosive anti-intellectualism, power politics and relativism of the present age.


Katie van Schaijik

Christmas meditation

Dec. 24, 2010, at 11:55am

Here is Christmas sermon of Newman’s framed to awaken and deepen our sense of the religious meaning of this feast and the way it tests our hearts and sensibilities. 

When He was born into the world, the world knew it not. He was laid in a rude manger, among the cattle, but “all {252} the Angels of God worshipped Him.” Now too He is present upon a table, homely perhaps in make, and dishonoured in its circumstances; and faith adores, but the world passes by.

Let us then pray Him ever to enlighten the eyes of our understanding, that we may belong to the Heavenly Host, not to this world. As the carnal-minded would not perceive Him even in Heaven, so the spiritual heart may approach Him, possess Him, see Him, even upon earth.

May Blessed John Henry Newman help us with his prayers to be properly present to the great mystery at hand.


Jules van Schaijik

Humbug

Dec. 20, 2010, at 8:55pm

In an as yet unpublished essay on William James (the centenary of whose death is this year), John Crosby reminds us of the fact that James “was a man with the mind of a scientist and the heart of a believer.” This gives him special relevance for today’s world in which the harmony between faith and science is once again challenged by the so called “new atheists”.

These new atheists are convinced that an objective and scientific approach to the world inevitably reveals all religion to be mere superstition. But Crosby points out that the very opposite was true for James:

…the empiricism of science is one main source of James’ openness to religion. He absorbed in his early

continue reading

Katie van Schaijik

A feast of beauty brought to you by mind-blowing technology

Dec. 19, 2010, at 2:04pm

I have lately been feeling what a cursed temptation the internet is—how easily it ensnares me and lures me further into its endless titillating wastes, devouring all my time and energy.  Some days I feel as if it has become for me that nasty little reptile sitting on one of the torn souls in Lewis’ The Great Divorce—something I must kill in order to get free.  Other times I think rather it is something analogous to sexuality as such (as opposed to a particular perversion): a potent force that I must to learn to curb and master, so that it serves my true good aims.

Whatever it is, there’s no denying its uses and charms.

Consider this virtual tour of the Sistine Chapel—and don’t fail to have

continue reading

Katie van Schaijik

Advent souls

Dec. 18, 2010, at 12:54pm

Today we received in the mail a Christmas card from the Dietrich von Hildebrand Legacy Project. Its outside features a painting of the adoration of the magi by Hugo van der Goes:

The inside features a beautiful quotation from von Hildebrand’s Transformation in Christ.

Blessed are the Advent souls, unsatisfied in the world, awakened to the truth that God alone can give us true peace, witnesses to the worlds of St. Augustine, “Restless is our heart until it rests in Thee.”

“Advent souls” is a mystery worth pondering. The coming of Christ into our lives at one and the same time brings deep peace and renders us unsatisfied with the world. How is this? And what does it mean?


Katie van Schaijik

Should we say “no” to facebook?

Dec. 15, 2010, at 1:25pm

Good post with some great links by Michael Knox Beran today at the Corner.

Electronic community has its virtues, but the morbid craving for it evident in the success of Facebook reveals the degree to which actual community has collapsed in much of the West. A multitude of causes have brought the civilization closer to Tocqueville’s prophecy of the last democratic man, shut up in “the solitude of his own heart,” but among these the war a number of our elites have waged against traditional town-square culture is surely not the least.

Personalism is in the air.


Katie van Schaijik

Persons and responsibility

Dec. 15, 2010, at 10:19am

An NRO interview with economist Dierdre McCloskey offers some food for personalist reflection.  Keep in mind a thought from the post below, viz. that pre-modern man did not conceive of himself as a person; “person” was reserved for trinitarian theology.

But, in fact, rhetoric and dignity are rather easily measured, and that is the task of the next book, The Bourgeois Revaluation: How Innovation Became Ethical, 1600–1848. Stay tuned. You can measure the shifting significance of bourgeois words: honesty, profit, responsibility, monopoly, etc., by looking in historical dictionaries and historical texts in all the languages of commerce, from 1600 to 1848. “Responsibility,” for example,

continue reading

Katie van Schaijik

The vision at the center of it all

Dec. 13, 2010, at 11:42am

I haven’t read this article about human nature and capitalism yet, but the opening lines provide a good articulation of the Personalist Project’s raison d’etre.

At the core of every social, political, and economic system is a picture of human nature (to paraphrase 20th-century columnist Walter Lippmann). The suppositions we begin with—the ways in which that picture is developed—determine the lives we lead, the institutions we build, and the civilizations we create. They are the foundation stone.

I’ll say more. The modern period has seen a dramatic development in our understanding of human nature, viz. we have come to see ourselves as persons. We were with John Crosby this

continue reading

Katie van Schaijik

Benedict on condoms

Dec. 13, 2010, at 10:45am

At our reading circle last week, the topic of the Pope’s recent remarks about condom use came up. Our friend Bill thought the Pope had made a terrible mistake, creating some unnecessary moral confusion. Others (self included) disagreed, and suggested he read George Weigel’s NRO article on the subject.

Weigel didn’t convince Bill.

I remain much of the same opinion regarding the lack of tact or wisdom in the pope’s remarks answering the question about condom use. Both Weigel and [Janet] Smith rush to defend the pope and place all the blame for the misunderstanding squarely on the media. In my view, this reaction should have been easily predicted and I place little blame on the media for simply being what they are, a secular sound bite machine.

A thought in reply to that last line before I go on to the central question:
Regardless of its predictability, media malpractice deserves condemnation. News outlets have a grave responsibility to inform the public accurately. When they instead distort and sensationalize, they do a serious disservice to the body politic. They ought to be called on it; they ought to be blamed for it.

Bill’s main concern, though, is not with the misreporting, but with the unwisdom of the Pope’s actual words, which he quotes.

“Seewald: Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?
Benedict XVI: She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

This was a weak response in my view. More appropriate response would have been, “No, I’m not saying that! The church IS opposed.” To only say “does not regard” sounds like its just a matter of opinion and to say, “not a REAL or moral solution” implies that nonetheless if does have some merit or may be tolerated. Leaving the discussion this way with no further follow up emphasizing the negative on condom use leaves the media and the world with just the exact impression it got, that the church was taking a step towards accepting or at least tolerating condom use.

To me, the question of the wisdom and prudence of the Pope’s way of speaking can only be ascertained in light of what he intended to convey. What moral problem is he addressing? Bill seems to take it for granted that the Pope’s concern is (or should be) exclusively, or at least primarily, the problem of artificial contraception. I think he has much broader and deeper concerns.

For instance, to me it is plain that the Pope is addressing a legalistic habit in Catholic ethos. He wants to say, in part, something like: “The way you look at this issue is not the way the Church looks at this issue. Your ways are not God’s ways. We are much more interested in and concerned with souls and with the interior life than you imagine, and it is there that we would like to direct your attention.”

In other words, the Pope is correcting an excessive objectivism and externalism in the approach to the moral life. He is being a personalist. He is teaching the rest of us to be more personalist.

And I, for one, love him for it.


Jules van Schaijik

Paternalism in the Hippocratic Oath

Nov. 15, 2010, at 2:48pm

I tend to be leery of attempts to tinker with and improve upon the Hippocratic Oath. The suspicion is that such efforts might be framed to loosen the medical profession’s commitment to protecting life from conception to natural death. A moment’s reflection, however, reminds me that certain adjustments to ancient practical codes simply can’t be avoided. There is need for both translation and development. With translation I mean that the underlying normative principles of the Hippocratic ethic must be reformulated in order to make sense in a different age. We no longer “swear by Apollo the Physician” or think of our teacher as “equal to my parents.” So much is obvious. But the idea of development goes beyond mere translation. It includes the incorporation of new values that were not (or not sufficiently) recognized by Hippocrates and his followers.

Something I am reading right now, by Edmund D. Pellegrino, provides a good example.* The Hippocratic ethic, Pellegrino thinks, is paternalistic to a degree that is simply no longer acceptable. It views the physician as “an authoritative and competent practicioner, devoted to his patients well-being. He is a benevolent and sole arbiter who knows what is best for the patient and makes all decisions for him.” He cites a Hippocratic source in which the doctor is adviced to “Perform all things calmly and adroitly, concealing most things from the patient while you are attending to him.” A little later the doctor is told to treat the patient with solicitude, “revealing nothing of the patient’s present and future condition.”

This the-doctor-knows-best view of the relationship between the physician and his patient, while “still too often the modus operandi of physicians dreaming of a simpler world in which authority and paternalistic benevolence were the order of the day,” is no longer valid. The modern principle of “patient autonomy” must be allowed to qualify and interpret the older principle of beneficence.

Incorporating this modern value into the Hippocratic ethic represents, it seems to me, a genuine and positive development of the latter, not a corruption. Even if beneficence was traditionally understood and practiced in a paternalistic way, we should be able to see that beneficence and paternalism are two different things. In fact, as Pellegrino shows, the latter detracts from the former.

Medical paternalism and parentalism, however, are not to be equated with beneficence, conceptually or in practice. Paternalism does not account for the patient’s preferences or values that are part and parcel of her good or best interests. Paternalism makes the medical good of the patient the only good and subverts other goods to that good. Paternalism violates the patient’s autonomy in the name of the patient’s best interests while ignoring or overriding some of the most vital of those interests. This cannot be a beneficent act because the patient’s own choices are so much an expression of his or her own life story or personhood. To violate or ignore the patient’s choices is, by definition, a maleficent act, an injury to the patient’s humanity. Only when the patient’s human capacity to act autonomously is impaired (i.e., when the patient is incompetent) may we resort to paternalism as a beneficent act to override objections to treatment.

But patient autonomy should not only be understood negatively, as something with which the doctor may not interfere, but also positively, as something he should try to encourage and make possible to the best of his abilities.

It is the physician’s obligation to enhance, empower, and enrich the patient’s capacity to be autonomous. An autonomous choice requires that we fill in, to the extent possible, the action or choice that maximizes realization of the patient’s values. Thus, autonomy has a positive as well as a negative aspect. To become a reality, patient autonomy requires cooperation and assistance from the physician. In short, it requires the physician’s beneficent attention to make the patient’s autonomy an authentic, as well as an independent, reality.

I don’t want to end without saying that the idea of patient autonomy can also be misinterpreted. For instance, we should avoid thinking of it in terms of independence only. The last point makes this very clear. The patient really needs the doctor. She is dependent on him. And that not only for her physical well-being, but even for the ability to exercise her own autonomy. Also, the emphasis on the autonomy of the patient should not lead us to overlook the equally important autonomy of the doctor. It is not true, for instance, that the doctor, after giving his best advice, has to simply execute the wishes of the patient, no matter what they are. The doctor is also an autonomous person. He may never be viewed, either by himself or by his patient, as a mere means to the patient’s health (or other goals). Pellegrino has a lot to say on this as well, but that would be for another post.

- - - -

* The two articles I cite in this post are not freely available online (1. “Toward an Expanded Medical Ethics: The Hippocratic Ethic Revisited”; 2. “Patient and Physician Autonomy: Conflicting Rights and Obligations in the Physician-Patent Relationship”). But there is another article on similar themes that is: “Toward a Reconstruction of Medical Morality


Stay informed

Latest comments

  • Re: Is all confusion evil? A Socratic thought.
  • By: Jules van Schaijik
  • Re: Is all confusion evil? A Socratic thought.
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: Merry Christmas, You Miserable Pagan!
  • By: Devra Torres
  • Re: Merry Christmas, You Miserable Pagan!
  • By: Gary Gibson
  • Re: Factions
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: Personalism and the Judeo-Christian tradition
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: Too Much, Too Little, Too Late
  • By: Peter
  • Re: Too Much, Too Little, Too Late
  • By: Peter
  • Re: Too Much, Too Little, Too Late
  • By: Peter
  • Re: Too Much, Too Little, Too Late
  • By: Peter

Latest active posts

Reading circles

Lectures