About Christopher Smith, OP

Mr. Christopher Smith, OP was born and raised in Northern Michigan.  After graduating high school, he joined the United States Navy and had the honor of serving his country for almost 21 years.  He retired from active duty in March 2010 and now works as a cybersecurity consultant for the Department of Defense.  Christopher, his wife, and their two children live near Baltimore, Maryland.

Christopher earned a BA degree in Philosophy and Religious Studies from Chaminade University in Honolulu, Hawaii in 2005 and a MA degree in Theology (AOC: Moral Theology) from St. Mary's Seminary and University in Baltimore, Maryland in 2010. In June 2007, he was received into the Dominican Order as a member of the Immaculate Conception Chapter of Third Order Dominicans located at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington D.C.

When he is not blogging, Christopher is involved in several ministries in his parish, including: RCIA catechist, adult formation leader, and parish council.  He also conducts workshops on a variety of theological subjects.  Some of Christopher’s favorite research topics include: apologetics, theodicy, just war theory, church/state relations, and public theology.  He also enjoys digital photography, soccer, reading, and playing on his drum set.

In addition to writing for AC, you can find Christopher on his blog Christopher's Apologies.  He also hangs out on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, and YouTube.

Book Review: Judie Brown’s The Broken Path

Judie Brown, President of the American Life League (ALL), recently published a bold book entitled, The Broken Path: How Catholic Bishops Got Lost in the Weeds of American Politics (2011).  In the interest of full disclosure, I was contacted by the ALL and asked if I would be willing to read and review the book.  My only compensation was a free copy of the book.

Ms. Brown has been a staunch pro-life advocate for over 30 years and has been appointed to The Pontifical Academy for Life three times, by both Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.  Her credentials in the advancement of pro-life causes are without question and she is rightly regarded as one of the pioneers in the quest to end the murder of unborn children.

I originally picked up Ms. Brown’s book in the second week of January to read it; however, different pressures at work and school prevented me from actually doing it.  Instead, I read it over the past two months as the drama between the Obama administration and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was reaching a fever pitch.  As part of President Obama’s national health care plan, The United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a mandate on January 20th requiring Catholic organizations to provide sterilization, contraception, and abortifacient drugs in their health care plans.  Essentially, the religious freedom clause allowing religious organizations to refuse providing these services was removed.  Now, anyone even remotely familiar with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church knows these services and drugs are directly opposed by the Church’s teachings.  To require Church organizations to provide, and pay for, these services is an absolute slap in the face.

So it was while these events were unfolding that I read Ms. Brown’s book.  In a way, it was really strange reading the book while following the news between HHS and the Catholic Bishops.  Since Ms. Brown makes a considerable effort to demonstrate which bishops are more vocal in supporting authentic, Catholic teachings on sexual ethics and which ones are silent (or outright contradicting it), I found myself looking to see who would stand up to the challenge the Obama administration had thrown down and which ones would cower.  To my great relief, and hopefully Ms. Brown’s as well, every bishop actively shepherding a diocese has spoken out against the mandate.

The primary point, at least in my mind, Ms. Brown is attempting to communicate in her book is any change in the status quo regarding America’s sexual ethics, which most people would likely agree is a mess, can only come by adhering to a natural law based, common sense approach – the approach the Catholic Church takes.  I don’t think there are too many people, regardless of religious affiliation, who believe a country with a 50% divorce rate, 1 million+ abortions per year, and millions of teens getting pregnant or contracting a sexually transmitted disease is headed in the right direction when it comes to the its sexual ethics.  But what can be done?  More “comprehensive sex education?”  More condoms?  Should we start teaching kids about sex at an even younger age?  That has been the course America has taken for the past 40 years with only miserable results to show for it.  We need to move in a different direction and we need to start now!

While a person can easily find thick, scholarly tomes on Catholic sexual ethics, I believe the basic gist can be widdled down to a few, basic, common sense statements: 1) wait until marriage to have sex; 2) don’t get married until you are ready to also be a parent; 3) reproduction can only naturally occur between a male and a female; 3) don’t fill your body with potentially dangerous chemicals in an attempt to avoid pregnancy.  That’s it!  Pretty simple and straightforward.

These uncomplicated statements are representative of the Catholic teachings on chastity, parenthood, the nature of marriage (i.e. “traditional marriage”), and artificial contraception.   In fact, these statements are so simplistic that it seems almost nonsensical to even have to spell them out for anyone.  Yet, these four statements are anathema in our current culture that is so intent on having as much sex as possible, without any restrictions and without any boundaries.  And in this sex-saturated culture if an “accident” should happen (i.e. pregnancy), well, there’s a ready answer for that too.  Our society is indeed in a sad state.

Now since the aforementioned statements can be found within the larger framework of Catholic sexual ethics, we can ask, “Who is primarily responsible for teaching them to Catholics and presenting them as an alternative to our country’s current ‘anything goes’ culture?”

The answer is, “Catholic Bishops.”

How are they doing at it?  Well, according to Ms. Brown, some are doing a pretty good job while some others appear to be lagging behind in their responsibilities.

In addition to their role as teachers, bishops are also responsible for ensuring Catholics who publicly, and with full intent, distort the Catholic Church’s teachings are held accountable (e.g. Catholic politicians publicly endorsing abortion).  Bishops have a responsibility to ensure the Church’s teachings are not twisted for personal gain and if they are, to reprimand the guilty party and set the record straight with sound doctrine.  When this is not done, as Ms. Brown clearly demonstrates with numerous examples in her book, subversiveness spreads.  Doubt and confusion cloud the minds of Catholics until they are unsure of what is true or permissible?  The drama concludes with poorly catechized Catholics falling away from the Church due to a lack of clear guidance from their bishops.  This tragedy, of people leaving Church, is initiated in many instances by a public officials’ sin of scandal.  Ms. Brown rightly calls for bishops to be held accountable for allowing such public, heretical displays to go unchallenged.

So where is the pastoral guidance from the bishops?  When will they exercise their teaching authority?  And, perhaps even more importantly for Ms. Brown, when will the bishops take corrective action to discipline wayward public officials (e.g. excommunication)?  There is no question these are important and timely questions as doubts continue to spread throughout the Church and little seems to be done about it.

As I contemplated these questions while reading the book, I came up with another question: if the discharge of ecclesial authority can be executed swiftly against those who are perceived to break the rules or not uphold the standard, then why hasn’t the Vatican held wayward bishops to account for failing to be faithful teachers and pastors?  We can easily point to our local bishops and accuse them of everything from apathy to outright heresy, but why aren’t they held accountable?  Is it because they are not as wayward as we think they are or is the system that is supposed to hold them accountable broken as well?  Maybe bishops keep letting public officials slide by (i.e. a failure of leadership their part) because Rome never held them to account for their failure of leadership.  It’s just a thought.

In a recent conversation with my brother, a permanent deacon in the Archdiocese of Dubuque, we were discussing the various roles of the bishop and he reminded me that in addition to pastor, teacher, and arbiter of justice, the bishop is also a shepherd, a role signified by the crosier (i.e. shepherd’s staff) he carries with him.  What is the symbolic purpose of that staff?  Is it to poke and prod the sheep in order to get them to follow or is it to be used as a deterrent/protection against those who seek to kill members of the flock?  I think we can get a sense of the answer to that last question in John’s gospel where Jesus told the Jews in Solomon’s portico that his sheep follow because they know and hear his voice (John 10:22-28).  They do not follow because they are prodded along with a stick.

Since I read the book and wrote this review during Lent, it may also be helpful to consider some of the readings we recently heard over the past few weeks.  In them, we can see the different “faces” of Jesus.  I think given the topics Ms. Brown addresses in her book, and the style in which she engages them, it would be helpful to look at the Gospel readings from the Third Sunday of Lent (John 2:13-25) and Palm Sunday (Mark 14:1 – 15:47).

In John’s Gospel from the Third Sunday in Lent, we see a “zealous Jesus,” maybe even an “angry Jesus,” cleansing the temple by chasing out the money-changers with a whip he fashioned from cords.  We often times say his anger was justified or even righteous.  Pointing to that Jesus, we can justify our own indignation as we witness our country and our beloved Church sliding into what we believe to be decay.  We believe we must not back down from a “fight” (a word used regularly by Cardinal Dolan).

On Palm Sunday, Mark shows us another face of Jesus, the one where he stands silent before Pilate (Mark 15:5).  If there was ever a time for Jesus to be screaming for justice, it was then!  Yet, Jesus wouldn’t even fight for his own life.  He was purposefully silent so that it made Pilate “wonder” why.  When we contemplate this face of Jesus, we are also reminded of his birth.  We reflect on his humility, his meekness, his modesty.  Interestingly, these are the traits we most commonly think of when we contemplate the spirituality and personalities of The Saints.

So what of our bishops?  Indeed there are some who more vocal than others.  For example, scarcely a day goes by when Cardinal Dolan, Cardinal Burke, or Archbishop Chaput (“heroes” in Ms. Brown’s book (pg. 204)) are not in the news for their latest comments when speaking truth to power and loudly proclaiming the Church’s teachings (and rightly so!).  Then there are other bishops, who Ms. Brown claims, lack “the strength of conviction when the rubber meets the road,” and “look the other way” in the face of controversy (e.g. Cardinal George (pg. 51)).  But could it be their divergent approaches to difficult situations reflect the many faces of Jesus?  Is it necessary for all of our bishops to be type-A, in your face, kind of shepherds, leading with their staff rather than with the soft call of their voice?  Once again, it’s only a thought.

What about Catholics in general?  I believe the Catholic Church needs all kinds of people, from the loud and raucous to the meek and unassuming.  By incorporating all kinds of people, the Church will reflect the many different faces of Jesus and become “all things to all men (I Cor 9:22).

The issues primarily covered in Ms. Brown’s book: sexual ethics, pro-life concerns, religious liberty are more much theologically nuanced than people on either the “right” or “left” knows, acknowledges, or understands.  For example, the personhood issue is something clearly near and dear to Ms. Brown’s heart but it has many complex sides to it within the disciplines of theology, philosophy, anthropology, and sociology.  To chastise bishops, individually or collectively, for not supporting state level personhood initiatives is too simple an answer when the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has stated in its Declaration on Procured Abortion (1974): “This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement” (para #13 and footnote #19).  For bishops in the United States to avoid championing such initiatives is to follow the example the CDF gave in its declaration (also see by the CDF: Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions of the Day (1987), paragraph 1 under Respect for Human Embryos).

These last few paragraphs are not meant to defend weak bishops.  I think Ms. Brown has done Catholics a great service by writing this book and I heartily endorse it (for whatever that is worth).  However, I would just say that it may be a bridge too far to say a poorly worded blog entry by a bishop or a less than rousing endorsement from the USCCB (“middle management” as Ms. Brown calls them (pg 78)) on state level initiatives is automatically indicative of a weak will, a desire to purposefully deceive, a lack of conviction, or a desire to be on the “A-list” at social events (charges Ms. Brown levies against bishops she is dissatisfied with).

Are there bishops like that?  Yes, I’m quite sure there are.  They are human after all.  Yet, knowing all the angles in complex issues is almost an insurmountable task and then sufficiently documenting them all in a curial document, a diocesan press release, or a chapter in a book, can be equally as challenging.

This is why charity must abound in all things.  Charity, as understood within the context of our Catholic faith is not for the faint of heart.  We must present our concerns with clear voices, but always with charity.  Ms. Brown calls the virtue of charity “a merciful salve” (pg. 216).  I rather like that term!

If someone asked me, “Christopher, what did you like the most about Judie Brown’s book?” I would tell them I liked the fact that I could see myself in it.  I easily relate to Ms. Brown’s frustration with lackadaisical bishops and her anger with unrepentant “Catholic” politicians who twist and distort the beauty of the Catholic faith for their own selfish gain.  But in between readings, I calmed down and thought how we must act more cautiously because there are too many dangers if we proceed too hastily with condemnations of our bishops without knowing all the specifics (i.e. theological, philosophical, sociological, and yes, even political).  But then I thought, “Doesn’t cautiousness only prolong the matter and mean more innocent children will die within their mother’s wombs?”  When I considered it that way, I felt the heat rising in my face and I wanted to charge out and do something.  Anything!!

Reading Ms. Brown’s A Broken Path was a back and forth emotional experience for me.  Any book that can evoke those kinds of emotions and cause me to think a little more is worth the time to read!  You may find the same is true for you.


This review was originally published on my website Christopher’s Apologies on 4/12/12.

Ash Wednesday and Being Thankful for the Changing of Seasons

So I put the brown, Volume III of the Liturgy of the Hours (Ordinary Time) back on the shelf and pulled down the red, Volume II (Lent/Easter).  I noticed something about it this time as I held it in my hand.  The cover and the spine are a lot more malleable then when I originally purchased the set and a few pages have the corners turned up on them.  Then I opened it and read the antiphon for the Invitatory:

Come, let us worship Christ the Lord, who for our sake endured temptation and suffering.

It sounded familiar and I suddenly became thankful for the changing of seasons, the opportunity once again to begin the observance of Lent.  Through all the changes that have taken place in my life in the past year, and there have been a lot of them, the Lord shows his constancy through the Church’s liturgical seasons.  He always invites us to go deeper with him.  As I meditated on that for a few minutes in my office this morning, the “burden” of Lent disappeared and it was replaced by joy.

Lent is best known for “giving up something” and not for its focus on fasting, almsgiving, and prayer.  The problem with the idea of ”giving up something” is that we never seem ready to give up our sense of entitlement.  We may put aside chocolate, caffeine, or sweets, and in a sense meet the letter of the law, but we never seem to give up the idea that we are somehow entitled to those things (and many others).  The end result of Lent is that we celebrate Easter by binging in a week long period of self-indulgence.  Somehow I don’t think that is the point of Lent.  What is it that gets lost in the transition from Lent to Easter: from self denial to self-gratification?  The practice of fasting is like the preparation of an athlete for a competition; we are trying to “get fit” (again) as believers in preparation for Easter and the renewal of Christian living beyond Lent.

True fasting, according to Isaiah 58, is not a endurance test for the body to abstain from certain types of food, or even food altogether, but it is an abstaining from sin, injustice, corruption and deceit.  This type of fasting is related to almsgiving and social justice.  The bonus about focusing on this type of fasting is that it doesn’t end at Easter.  In the book of Isaiah, we read:

Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke?  Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?  Then shall your light break forth like the dawn, and your healing shall spring up speedily; your righteousness shall go before you, the glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard.  Then you shall call, and the LORD will answer; you shall cry, and he will say, Here I am. “If you take away from the midst of you the yoke, the pointing of the finger, and speaking wickedness, if you pour yourself out for the hungry and satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then shall your light rise in the darkness and your gloom be as the noonday (Is 58:6-10).

Once again, this is the type of fast that can, and should, be lived year round.  It is a very practical kind where fasting means Christians truly living their faith.  It requires recognizing injustice, protesting against it, and protecting its victims.

Another Lenten focus is on prayer.  Rarely is prayer easy.  At least it’s not for me.  I often wonder if prayer something we do or something we allow God to do in us.  I suppose it could be a little of both.  Prayer is our attempt to remain in conscious contact with God, to remain open to his wisdom and love.  Prayer means remaining open to receiving God’s gifts.  It also means allowing God to work through us in order to bring about the change God wants for his people.  The type of change that ushers in the justice that Isaiah spoke of.

The observance of Lent and its associated “tasks” – fasting, almsgiving, and prayer – last for 40 in remembrance of the 40 days Jesus spent being tempted in the wilderness after his baptism by John (Luke 4:1-13).  There he was tested: was he really serious about the mission he was called to?  Did he really love the Father with all his heart, all his mind, and all his strength?  Was he, at heart, serious about serving God fully, no matter what that might require, even death?

We are tested in this way, not “in the wilderness,” but by life.  Through temptation we learn about our weakness and about the depth of our commitment.  When tempted we should ask ourselves: “To what extent am I willing to serve the Lord?”  During Lent, we consciously invite this kind of test through our fasting; we hold our lives up to God for his scrutiny and beg for his mercy.

During our 40 day observance of Lent we not only have Jesus example to guide us, but his Spirit to accompany us on the journey.  My prayer this Lent is that at the end of it I’ll be a bit more like the red volume of my breviary – a little more malleable than when I began.

 

 

Spirituality for 2012 – part 2

Talk about famous last words…I concluded my last post on Amazing Catechists – “Spirituality for 2012” – with the statement, “I will be publishing a follow-up to this article in a few days.”  Ummmm….that was over a month ago.  Yikes!  Obviously, I need to invest in a new watch or a new planner.  Or maybe I should learn how to use the ones I have!

I suppose I could have moved on and written about something else; I haven’t seen any indications that the masses are sitting on the edge of their seat waiting for the conclusion to my ideas about spirituality in 2012.  However, the ideas that I started kicking around in my head over a month ago are still floating around up there (which I’m interpreting as a good sign) and so I really felt like I needed to get out what I’ve been thinking.

I would certainly encourage you to familiarize yourself with my first posting prior to jumping ahead into this one.  The overarching theme for that first post can be expressed in the following statement from the former Master General of the Dominican Order, Fr. Timothy Radcliffe, OP, who once said the Christian life is one that is “moral, reflective, prayerful, and imaginative.”

The big news story in the United States, as far as the Catholic Church goes, is the recent decision by the Obama administration to demand that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans, including ones provided by employers who have a moral objection to such procedures and prescriptions (e.g. Catholic Church).  In addition to the news cycle, there is a constant stream of commentary on what the Church should do in response to it.  Admittedly, I have contributed to that stream on my own blog.

But as I keep tabs on that developing story line in the news, I come back to this post on spirituality and on looking forward in 2012 and I see a connection that I didn’t see 5 1/2 weeks ago when I wrote the first installment.  So instead of being distracted maybe it was the Holy Spirit that lead me to wait so long to write part two.  :-)

In the ongoing remarks on the USCCB and HHS, I’ve seen a lot of commentators offer potential responses the Church should take.  The two most common are: 1) the Church should just retreat in to itself and 2) the Church should just get with the times.  I would like to label these two ideas as the “Catholic Ghetto” and “assimilation,” respectively.  Additionally, I would add that both of them are dead-ends.

The idea or label, “Catholic Ghetto,” does not belong to me.  I think a good definition of it is provided here:

It is common for certain sociologist and theologians to refer to the Catholic situation of the 1940’s and 50’s as a time when the Church in America lived in a Catholic ghetto.  What this is getting at is that the Catholic population in the U.S. lived as a minority population that held together strongly by means of clearly defining itself over and against the rest of American culture.

As parishes in the United States became less nationalistic and more inclusive of a variety of ethnicities, the Catholic Ghetto largely broke apart.  For the most part, the break up of Catholic Ghettos is a good thing because in addition to the ones listed above, another of its characteristics was that Catholics “did not see themselves as called to influence the culture around them,” a view that is contrary to both scripture and the Church’s teaching.

You can still see some signs of the Catholic Ghetto mentality.  For example Tom Monaghan, the founder of Domino’s Pizza, has tried to create a “Catholic” town in Ave Maria, Florida.  In this town, with Monaghan’s Catholic College in the center, Catholic families will live together, their children will grow up with other Catholics, marry other Catholics, and live in Ave Maria.  Monaghan’s vision is founded on the premise that Christianity, along with many academic disciplines, was kept alive in the Dark Ages in monasteries; they were small pockets of truth in an otherwise corrupt world.  At first brush this idea seems solid but as I’ll point out later, it is not without significant flaws.

The other dead-end is “assimilation,” where Catholicism just becomes like everything else and Catholics look like everyone else.  Through assimilation, Jesus can henceforth be referred to as a “good man” and Christianity can be seen by society as “good thing” but neither should be spoken too loudly.  In this way, Catholics and the faith they profess becomes invisible.  In 1994, Jonathan Sacks wrote a book called, “Will we have Jewish Grandchildren?“  In it, he reflects on how to keep the faith of Jewish antiquity alive and flourishing in future generations.  This idea is something we also need to reflect on within the Catholic community.

I think of an oak tree with its roots running deep into the ground where it draws life giving nutrients and water, the things necessary for its survival.  The trunk of the tree, its base, provides the foundation for continued growth.  But ask yourself: where do we see the greatest signs of life on a tree?  Do we see it when we look at its trunk?  No.  It is when we look at its tips, where new leaves sprout each spring.  We see the greatest signs of life, growth, and vitality at its extreme ends.  But all parts, from the massive trunk to the smallest buds sprouting at the tips of the highest branch, are 100% oak tree.

The tree is a familiar metaphor for the Body of Christ, the Church.  The ground represents God where the tree trunk (i.e. the Church) is firmly planted.  It is the ground (God) that feeds the oak tree (Church) all it needs to survive.  From the trunk, branches (individual Catholics) grow, reaching out in an endless amount of directions, always springing forth with new signs of life and vitality.  This metaphor shows us God’s plan.

God has promised to provide everything we need, but we can’t get it when we are not connected to the tree trunk; we can’t just be a branch suspended in the air (cf. Jn 15:5).  Nor can we be a branch just laying on the ground, cut away from the tree.  When that happens, the tree is weakened and the direction that particular branch was growing out towards will not be reached.  The fallen away branch just lays on the ground and eventually dies.  It is possible, indeed it is necessary, for the tree branches (Catholics) to be 100% Catholic and reaching out to a world that is not the same as itself.

The unity within Catholicism of God, the Church, and its people, is an earthly example of the the most perfect unity, that of The Blessed Trinity.  The doctrine of the Trinity is what Christianity has that no other religion does and we can demonstrate it by living our lives, firmly grounded in the Church.  In fact, I would submit the doctrine of the Trinity may be the most important aspect of a spirituality for 2012 and beyond.

During the Enlightenment, man developed a deep seated resentment towards doctrine, especially Catholic doctrine.  Nicholas Lash wrote in his book, Believing Three Ways in One God:

The Enlightenment left us with what we might call a crisis of docility. Unless we have the courage to work things out for ourselves, to take as true only that which we have personally attained or, perhaps, invented, then meanings and values, descriptions and instructions, imposed by other people, feeding other people’s power, will inhibit and enslave us, bind us into fables and falsehoods from the past. Even God’s truth, perhaps especially God’s truth, is no exception to this rule. Only slaves and children should be teachable, or docile.

But the ancient doctrine of the Trinity, regardless of what those enlightened individuals might believe, may be the most exciting thing we have to offer as Catholics.  However, it will only be exciting if it is in contact with something outside of itself.  Keeping it locked up, like in a Catholic Ghetto, will strip the doctrine of all its power and vitality.

The doctrine of the Trinity is often held up as something remote and obscure.  I would submit that it only becomes remote and obscure in its presentation, not in its actuality.  The best way Catholics can communicate the truths encapsulated in the doctrine of the Trinity is to communicate their faith in the doctrine through conversation.  It is the personal aspect of taking time to talk with people that will resonate with others.

This should make perfect sense to us!  After all, what is the Trinity but the eternal, equal, living conversation between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?  Additionally, we see the Trinity made real for us in the person of Jesus, who, among many other things, is a man of conversation.  Take a look at him through the eyes of John.

  • Jesus’ conversations when calling his disciples (Jn 1:29-51)
  • The conversation with Nicodemus who came to talk to Jesus at night (Jn 3)
  • The conversation with the Samaritan Woman at the well (Jn 4:4-42)
  • The Bread of Life Discourse (Jn 6:22-71)
  • The conversation with the woman caught in adultery (Jn 8:1-11)
  • The conversation with the man born blind (Jn 9)
  • Last Supper discourses (Jn 14)
  • Jesus’ conversation with Pilate (Jn 18:28-40)
  • Jesus’ conversation with Thomas (Jn 20:24-29)

There are a couple of keys to understanding these passages and to ultimately discerning our own response to challenges in our time.  Jesus was constantly in conversation with people and not just his disciples, but he was reaching out to people that were outside his “comfort zone” or outside convention (e.g. conversation with the Samaritan woman).  We continually see Jesus in contact with “the other” and offering them the love and peace of his father.  This is what the Catholic Ghetto can not do.  It betrays the openness to the other that is so obvious in the Gospel.

Secondly, true conversation, the type that has the potential to be life-changing, is open, mutually respectful, and loving.  We don’t see Jesus talking down to people nor do we witness him talking about people; rather, he spoke to them.  The story of the man born blind really illustrates that point.

Third, everyone that hears the conversation is converted.  Converted to what and to what degree can not necessarily be determine and in the grand scheme of things, it is not that important that we know.  A good conversation will take you to unfamiliar ground and lead you in unexpected directions.  Through them, all will grow in grace.  We are not in charge of that grace; at best, we can only hope to be channels of it.

We never know who may be touched by our conversations.  It may be the person we are most directly involved in speaking with is the least moved, but the person who merely overheard it is changed for ever.  Jesus held many conversations in crowds, big and small, and we read in the scriptures how people would “murmur” among themselves while Jesus spoke.  They were being touched by what Jesus had to say and they weren’t even in the conversation.

Our thinking is mostly dualistic: white/black, up/down, left/right, Republican/Democrat, Catholic/Protestant, etc.  It is these oppositions that help give us our identity.  But this dualism, does not allow for openness or for love.  Instead we should allow ourselves to be swept up in a Trinitarian love that opens up possibilities for going places beyond these simplistic, either/or distinctions.  We can be immersed in the love between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  This love is not introverted; it can not be kept in a ghetto.  Indeed, it is the Holy Spirit that pushes us to be in contact with people and situations that are beyond ourselves.  It is so alive, so bursting forth with vitality that it can not be made to look like everything else (i.e. assimilated).

The doctrine of the Trinity is the most exciting thing we have to offer others.  It is what should guide our spirituality in 2012 and beyond.  It is the doctrine behind the words of the God who says: “Behold, I make all things new” (Rev 21:5)

 

I am indebted to Fr. Timothy Radcliffe, OP who has helped me see these things in a new, fresh way.

Spirituality for 2012

One of the things you hear from people during this time of year is they “need to beat the rush.” For example, “I need to get up at 4am on ‘black Friday’ so I can get to the mall and beat the rush.

So in keeping with that idea of needing to “beat the rush,” I’ve decided, on Christmas Eve, to write about next year, 2012, in order to beat the rush and get a leg up on all the other bloggers out there.

Okay, that’s not really why I’m writing about the new year before we even have celebrated The Solemnity of the Nativity of the Lord.  I know most Catholic bloggers have focused their writings on the coming of the Messiah, or the meekness of the King of Glory as he lay in the manger; their pieces are timely, powerful, and excellent for reflection and guiding prayer.  But I am looking ahead.  I really want us to be taking those familiar Christmas themes and carrying them forward beyond the Christmas liturgy and into the new year.  I want us to find the spirituality associated with Christmas and recognize that it is not just for the month of December, but for everyday.

I know, I know.  I can imagine the collective groan as people start moving their cursors to the red “X” in the upper right hand corner of the screen.  Most people believe that when Catholics start talking about “spirituality,” orthodoxy gets thrown out the window.  I get it.  I’ve seen plenty of that material too.  However, I can assure you, this is not that kind of post and if you indulge me for a few more minutes, I’ll prove it.

One of my sons, Noah, is seven years old and he has been going crazy for the past two weeks, waiting for Christmas.  In fact, one of the traditions in our home is to buy everyone a new pair of Christmas pajamas to wear to bed on Christmas eve and on Christmas morning.  This year, Noah’s expectation is running so high, that he has been wearing them for the past two days; as in, he hasn’t worn anything else!  I can already see the debate we’ll have later when it’s time to go to Mass.  But, I digress…

This expectation is an important part of Christmas, not only for children, but for adults too.  Indeed, Advent is a season dedicated to expectation.  Consider these snippets taken from the Advent Gospel readings:

  • “Watch, therefore; you do not know when the Lord of the house is coming….” (first week of Advent)
  • One mightier than I is coming after me.  I am not worthy to stoop and loosen the thongs of his sandals.  (second week of Advent)
  • I am the voice of one crying out in the desert, ‘make straight the way of the Lord,’” as Isaiah the prophet said. (third week of Advent)
  • Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.  He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end. (fourth week of Advent)

We can see the Lord’s coming is unexpected, but anticipated.  We don’t know when it will occur, but nonetheless we are exhorted to, “Watch!”  We see John’s testimony about the Lord in the next two weeks.  It not only highlights the coming of Jesus, but serves as foreshadowing of our efforts to evangelize, always pointing to the “one mightier than ourselves.”  And finally in Gabriel’s message to Mary, the Kingdom which Jesus shall rule over will have “no end.”

The expectant message of Advent is not only in anticipation of the Lord’s coming as a baby, the celebration of a historical event, but also serves celebration of a future event when the King of all the Ages comes at the end of history (cf. CCC 526, CCC 1042).  Therefore, the first (i.e. Christ’s incarnation) should influence our spirituality as we journey towards the second (i.e. Christ’s second coming).  But what should our spirituality look like as we anxiously await a world that is not here yet?

Almost exactly forty years ago, in October 1971, John Lennon released the song, “Imagine.”  In it, the former Beatle sang, “Imagine there’s no heaven; it’s easy if you try.”  Coincidentally, for the past forty years people have been living as if there is no heaven; they are not anticipating the return of the King of Heaven.  It would seem the pervasive idea of no heaven and hell, articulated in John Lennon’s famous song, resonates more with modern man than Catholicism’s call for people to lead lives of holiness and charity.

There may be good reason for that.  The rise of religious fundamentalism and fanaticism in the past half century, both  inside and outside of Christianity, has paved the way for a popular (and profitable) backlash against religion in general and Christianity in particular.  Books by Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) and recently deceased Christopher Hitchens (God is not Great) fly off the shelves in great quantities, demonstrating the popularity of the idea that there is no heaven and no hell.

If you survey the “religion” section of your local bookstore, I believe you are likely to see, in addition to books by Dawkins and Hitchens, books written to direct people to a new kind of spirituality apart from religion, or books dressed up as orthodox (i.e. Richard McBrien) that really get many of the facts wrong.  Interestingly, there is no shortage of this type of material being distributed.  From these facts, I can only assume there is a great interest in religion/spirituality, there is a thirst for God, but there is a lot of aggression and ignorance too.  Unfortunately, people like Dawkins and McBrien seem to have the lead in telling the story – our story!

In order for Christianity to grow and truly become the life changing force it is in 2012 (and beyond), it must be something more than just “spirituality.”  The life of the Christian must be, as the former Master General of the Dominican Order, Fr. Timothy Radcliffe, OP, once said, “moral, reflective, prayerful, and imaginative.”  The Christian life, truly understood and lived, would be a synthesis of these four items.   We must use our imagination to combine ethics (i.e. morality), theology (i.e. reflection), and spirituality (i.e. prayer) into our daily lives.  If these items exist apart from one another the result is never good, even sometimes tragic.  For,

  • Ethics/morality detached from spirituality and theology reduces the Christian life to a list of do’s and don’t's.  It is overly moralistic.
  • Theology detached from spirituality and ethics can be arid.  The Christian life was meant to produce fruit, not be a dry wasteland.
  • Spirituality detached from theology and ethics reduces the Christian faith to set of principles based on warm, fuzzy feelings.

The challenge for our spiritual lives in 2012 is to bring together all these aspects.  Advent and the season of Christmas, with all its expectation, awe and wonder should inspire to dive deeper into our faith.  As we contemplate the awesomeness of God becoming man, being born in a state of lowliness, and the worshiping Magi during this season, we should be renewed in our desire to pray more, study more, and live virtuously.

 

I will be publishing a follow-up to this article in a few days.  Right now, I have to go begin to get my seven year old out of his PJ’s and ready for Mass!  Have a blessed Christmas!

Christopher Smith

Mr. Christopher Smith, OP was born and raised in Northern Michigan.  After graduating high school, he joined the United States Navy and had the honor of serving his country for almost 21 years.  He retired from active duty in March 2010 and now works as a cybersecurity consultant for the Department of Defense.  Christopher, his wife, and their two children live near Baltimore, Maryland.

Christopher earned a BA degree in Philosophy and Religious Studies from Chaminade University in Honolulu, Hawaii in 2005 and a MA degree in Theology (AOC: Moral Theology) from St. Mary’s Seminary and University in Baltimore, Maryland in 2010. In June 2007, he was received into the Dominican Order as a member of the Immaculate Conception Chapter of Third Order Dominicans located at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington D.C.

When he is not blogging, Christopher is involved in several ministries in his parish, including: RCIA catechist, adult formation leader, and parish council.  He also conducts workshops on a variety of theological subjects.  Some of Christopher’s favorite research topics include: apologetics, theodicy, just war theory, church/state relations, and public theology.  He also enjoys digital photography, soccer, reading, and playing on his drum set.

In addition to writing for AC, you can find Christopher on his blog Christopher’s Apologies.  He also hangs out on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, and YouTube.

The Graces of the Immaculate Conception Belong To You!

Today the Universal Church celebrates the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception. I think of all the teachings of the Catholic Church, the Immaculate Conception is one of the most misunderstood by our Protestant brothers and sisters and, sadly, by Catholics. Take for example, the art that is associated with it (both pieces are titled “The Immaculate Conception”):

Picture of Mary 1Picture of Mary 2


Artwork such as this, while attractive, doesn’t really help us to understand what the dogma is all about. Actually, it steers us in a direction away from what the dogma is about. If art doesn’t help us to understand the teaching, perhaps the Mass readings would help us understand it better. Unfortunately, the Gospel reading from Luke actually provides the most common misunderstanding of the dogma; specifically, that the Immaculate Conception is about Jesus’ conception. In fact, the teaching is not about Jesus’ conception, but about Mary’s conception.

So here is the exact wording that defines what the Church is teaching; it comes from the Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus issued by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854:

Declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus doctrinam quae tenet beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae conceptionis fuisse singulari Omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi Jesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam

Oh, I suppose you want that in English…

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

So what is important to ask once we have the definition is: What does that really mean and why did God do this?

First, what does the definition mean? It has to do, primarily, with “original sin,” a concept that is unique to Christianity. That is why the first reading in the Mass for the Solemnity is from the third chapter of Genesis. Man was originally created in a “state of holiness and justice” whereby man would not have to suffer or die.” Instead of choosing to remain in such a state, “man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him” (CCC 375-376, 398). The net effect of “Adam’s sin” was a loss of his original holiness, not just for himself, but for “all human beings” (CCC 416). St Augustine taught that Adam and Eve’s sin was then passed down biologically to all human beings so that we all suffer from “the original sin,” even while we may not have done anything ourselves.

The idea behind the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is that Mary was preserved from original sin, not because of anything Mary did so right, remember she hasn’t been born yet, but because of what Jesus Christ would do. We know (believe) that Jesus Christ was the Son of God who saved us from original sin so therefore he must be without original sin himself. However, if he was born of a human mother, how could he avoid being affected by the original sin in her? This is where the idea of the Immaculate Conception comes in. Mary was immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb. Now when Jesus is born of Mary, he would not be affected by that same sin.

So putting the technical aspects aside for a moment, we can turn to the second question; specifically, what was God’s motivation? If God is capable of preserving someone from original sin, why not just do it to Jesus while he is in Mary’s womb? Why Mary first? As I already stated, Mary’s sanctification was as a result of the merits of Jesus Christ in advance of his birth. God the Father granted Mary this “singular grace” to show what Jesus would do for all of humanity, for you and I. Sounds confusing? Stay with me, it’s going to get good.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is not really about Mary. I have to keep stressing, the dogma defines something that happened before her birth! The dogma is really about God wanting to restore the relationship that was lost with humanity and his plan to do that through his son, Jesus Christ. Sadly, Catholics are not taught the faith too well these days and so a combination of ignorance, along with some romanticized notions about Mary, tend to obstruct what this is all about. When we read that Jesus was tempted the same as us but never sinned (Heb 4:15), I think that we say, “Well, of course he isn’t going to sin, he is God.” But then Jesus sets the bar pretty high for us by telling us to be as perfect as our heavenly father (Mt 5:48). Now we think, “Hey, hold up. How am I supposed to do that, I’m not God?” There is a way and Mary’s Immaculate Conception prefigures it for us.

The Immaculate Conception is important for us today because it is integrally related to our baptism. What God did for Mary at her conception, he does for us at our baptism! Yes, it does! Read what the Catechism says: “Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle” (CCC 405). Did you catch that? Our baptism “erases original sin!” What did the Immaculate Conception do? Kept Mary preserved free “from all stain of original sin.” The graces we receive in our baptism are the same as those Mary received in her mother’s womb! They both come from the same wellspring of love and mercy. Now that doesn’t mean that after our baptism we can’t sin anymore, we obviously still do, but the Immaculate Conception didn’t mean that Mary couldn’t sin any more either. God did not take away her free will, just like he didn’t take away Adam and Eve’s. This makes people squirm a bit, but Mary could have sinned, Catholics just believe she didn’t because to sin is to choose something other than God. By always choosing to put God first, Mary was able to rise above the evils of the world. We have been given the same graces as Mary, our choices just don’t seem to be as good as hers.

All of this is pure gift because of what Jesus Christ has done for us. It is certainly not because we are virtuous; we never could have earned it. But then again, Mary did not earn it either because she wasn’t born yet to earn it. Do you know what a consolation this is? You should immediately feel encouraged by this! God has not held anything back from us. In Mary we have such a beautiful model of a human being, not a god or goddess, living fully in cooperation with the abundant graces God provides. And now that we have learned that we are gifted with the exact same graces through our baptism, we should feel even more encouraged, not discouraged, when we contemplate her perfect submission to the will of God. In fact, we have the benefit of additional graces she didn’t (e.g the Eucharist).

Hopefully this post will help to clear up the definition of the Immaculate Conception, as well as, provide some hope and encouragement. God freely chooses to share his grace with us, to share his own self with us, as a pure gift all because of Jesus Christ. We need not earn God’s gifts to us, in fact, we never could earn God’s love and grace in a million years. And because we are so richly blessed with it, we are given the power to cooperate, like Mary, with God’s plan and to rise above the evils of this world.

I’ll close by taking some liberties with the Immaculate Conception definition from Ineffabilis Deus: “In the first instance [after your baptism], by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, [set YOU] free from all stain of original sin.”

Now go and live fully in that grace!

How did I get to Amazing Catechists?

In Canto I of Dante’s Inferno, Dante is “lost in the wood” and comes upon a hill.  Looking up the hill, he sees “three wild beasts” before him.  Terrified, he runs away, finds Virgil and begs his help.  Virgil tells Dante, he “must traverse the unseen world if he would escape the perils of the wood.”  In other words, “You need to go up that hill Dante.”

Well that is not much of a choice, is it?  Stay lost in the woods, “wherein the way of truth was seen no more” or head up a hill where it appears certain death waits.  Dante laments his situation and ponders:

“How first I enter’d there I scarce can say; so heedless was I and so full of sleep that hour wherein I swerved from the straight way.”

Dante is basically asking, “How did I get here?” or “How did I get myself into this situation?”

Ever been there?  Ever been in a seemingly impossible situation wondering how you got there?  I have.

Were you willing to admit that perhaps it was the choices you made when you were “heedless” (syn: careless, inattentive, reckless) and “full of sleep” that led you there?  I have, but only in recent times.  In my younger years, there probably wasn’t much of a chance that I was going to own up to my own poor decision making.

One of the benefits of growing older, and hopefully wiser, is that we take a little more time making decisions; we tend not to be so “heedless.”  A benefit that comes from careful decision making is the amount of times we find ourselves in seemingly impossible situations, like Dante, actually decreases.  I can’t promise that you will never be faced with difficult choices ever again (I don’t even have that expectation for myself).  Some times we are thrust into situations that are beyond our control.  But there is a difference, you see?  The circumstances are beyond our control.  The difficult choice before us may not be a result of poor decision making.  Real wisdom comes in being able to distinguish the difference.

I am new to Amazing Catechists and this is my first posting.  Lisa very generously offered me the opportunity to post here alongside the many other outstanding contributors.  There were a lot of different ideas floating around in my head about what to write for my “introductory post” and I chose the theme of decision making because I wanted to share with you the first bible verse I ever read.  However, before I do, I should provide you with some background.

I grew up in a nominally Catholic home.  We went to Mass on Sunday and I received all of my sacraments “on time,” but none of us, except my mother, really sought to live their faith.  She fervently and diligently pray for all of us kids and for my dad.  I know she prayed for me because I was the “headless” one of the group.  My brother went off to college with a full tuition scholarship and my sister got married to a Marine.  Good choices.  My choices, even as far back as high school, led me into situations where facing three beasts would have seemed like an easy day.  All these bad choices ushered in a lot of pain and served as the basis for wondering: “How did I get here?”

My 20′s weren’t that much better.  Those early years in the Navy provided me with a lot of opportunities for trouble.  By the time I was 25, I had a failed marriage, a mountain of debt, and an addictive personality that I didn’t keep in check as I desperately reached for anything to help ease the pain.  Bad choices.  More pain.  More wondering: “How did I get here?”

Now going back in time to when I was 18 and fresh out of boot camp.  I picked up a bible and opened it to a random page.  The first verses I read were Jer 29:11-13:

For I know the plans I have for you, says the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart….

I didn’t know it at the time, but a seed was planted.  A seed that would grow with the passing of time into a steady and sure anchor.  That seed was the Word of God.

A least a million things have happened since I first read that verse at 18.  There were my turbulent 20′s, my mellowing 30′s and now I’m beginning my peaceful 40′s (at least I hope they’re peaceful).  But all of those things through the years have lead me to compose this blog entry today.

So how did I get here, on Amazing Catechists?  Well, it wasn’t through “heedless” decision making.  Heck, it wasn’t even through careful planning.  It was the Holy Spirit prompting Lisa to reach out to me and she said, “Yes” to the Spirit.  It was the Holy Spirit prompting me to say, “Yes” to her offer.

Remember when I said earlier that as poor decision making decreases so do the times we find ourselves in seemingly impossible situations?  Basically, I find myself with only one decision to make most days, the decision to say “yes” to God, to say “yes” to the promptings of his Holy Spirit.  It’s when I say, “No” that things get hard for me.  But why should I, or anyone else, say “yes?”  Just look back to that verse from Jeremiah: the plans the Lord has for me (and you) are for good and a future filled with hope.  God isn’t planning anything bad for me or for anyone.  His plans are for our good (cf. Rom 8:28).  We just have to be willing to say, “YES!”

When you say, “Yes” to the Lord, the question of, “How did I get here?” is easy to answer.  We can reply that the Lord led me here, to this green pasture, to lie down and he accompanies me through the dark valleys, just like the one Dante had to walk through, and comforts me in the midst of many enemies (beasts) (cf. Ps 23:2, 4, 5).  It is that reaching out in faith in the midst of uncertainty that the Lord honors (cf. Gen 15:6Rom 4:3).  If you need another example, may I recommend you skip ahead in the Mass readings to Thursday, the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception and read how the young girl Mary said, “Yes” to the Lord and offered herself as his “handmaid” (Lk 1:38).

How did I get to Amazing Catechists?  The Lord brought me here.  I just had to say, “Yes.”


Warning: call_user_func_array() [function.call-user-func-array]: First argument is expected to be a valid callback, 'wpfbogp_end_ob' was given in /home/amazing/public_html/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 405