Amazing Catechists

Teaching and learning the faith together

Jesus: Our Eternal Priest

By

Today is the Memorial of Saint Francis de Sales, Bishop of Geneva and Doctor of the Church.  He is also the Patron of writers and journalists so I didn’t think I could let today go by with writing something.  He may be the closest thing to a patron saint for bloggers in the Church (I’ll have to do some checking on that).

St. Francis was appointed as the Bishop of Geneva in 1602, when the Calvinist reformers were having a great deal of success pulling people away from the Church.  Interestingly, St Francis was only in the city of Geneva twice because he traveled so extensively through Europe.  However, he wrote numerous books, articles, and tracts in defense of the faith to encourage those in his diocese.

After looking at today’s Mass readings it seemed only appropriate on the Memorial of St. Francis de Sales to write on salvation, a topic John Calvin greatly twisted in his theology.  The greatest error in Calvin’s soteriology (i.e branch of theology dealing with salvation) was his theory of predestination. The following is taken from the chapter on predestination in Calvin’s magnum opus, The Institutes of the Christian Religion:

If it be evidently the result of the Divine will, that salvation is freely offered to some, and others are prevented from attaining it—this immediately gives rise to important and difficult questions, which are incapable of any other explication, than by the establishment of pious minds in what ought to be received concerning election and predestination—a question, in the opinion of many, full of perplexity; for they consider nothing more unreasonable, than that, of the common mass of mankind, some should be predestinated to salvation, and others to destruction.

The largest problem with the idea some people are predestined for heaven and some are predestined for hell should be fairly obvious – it removes man’s free will.  Why bother loving and serving God when your eternal fate has already been decided for you?  If God has already determined you are heaven bound, then no amount of sin and depravation could keep you out and if you hell bound, then no amount of pious works could keep you out of the fire.

Calvinists, along with the LONG list of Reformed Churches that broke ties with them for various reasons over the years, look at a variety of scriptures with a predestination “lens” and apply a meaning to the Word of God that is not consistent with God’s revelation to man, which began with the early Jewish Patriarchs.  In fact, in this explanation of Calvinism, there are dozens and dozens of scripture references provided; however, only two are from the Old Testament.  One of the hallmark features of Calvinism is its almost exclusive use of the New Testament to justify their positions (cf. Jn 3:36, Titus 3:5, Rm 8:39-39, Jn 10:29).  Let me show you a more holistic approach to scripture and revelation that takes us from the earliest parts of the Old Testament to today.

In today’s Mass readings, the author of the Letter to the Hebrews is instructing his audience by referencing what they already know; specifically, the old covenant ways (sacrificial offerings by Levite priests), and using it as a reference to instruct them on the new covenant made perfect by Jesus (cf. I Cor 11:25, Heb 7:22).  Jesus, as the eternal priest, is the guarantor (ἔγγυος) of the new and better covenant.  What makes Jesus’ priesthood superior to the Levitical priesthood in the old covenant is two fold: first, Jesus obedience to the father is perfect (ref. Lk 22:42).  The Sinai Covenant (ref. Ex 19-20) also demanded obedience; however, the Jewish people often struggled in that department.  Secondly, Jesus priesthood is forever (ἀπαράβατος) as compared with the priests of old who died.  The limited efficacy provided by the Levitical priesthood has now been replaced by the Great High Priest, Jesus.  He provides all that is necessary for salvation.

This is not to say that we do not need [Catholic] priests now as some from the Calvinist traditions might suggest.  Their interpretation of scripture (e.g. I Tim 2:5) would say no additional mediators are required.  While it is true Jesus is the one, true, high priest, there can be and are others who also share in Jesus’ priesthood.  Here are three examples: when Jesus instructed his disciples to “do this in memory of me” (Lk 22:19 (Eucharist)), and “Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them” (Jn 20:23, (Reconciliation)), and,”He who hears you hears me” (Lk 10:16 (preaching)), he was granting them a share in his priesthood; he was giving the disciples things to do!  This sharing can also be found in the Old Testament in the many times Moses served as mediator between God and the Israelites and in the book of Job when God instructed Job to serve as a mediator between him and Job’s friends (cf. Ex 32:11-14, Job 42:8).

Just as the the merits of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, though finite, could be appealed to even though they acquired them only once, so also the death of Jesus, once for all (ἐφάπαξ), abundantly provides for us.  However, it still remains up to us to accept it.

 

Jesus our high priest

Reflection on St Leo’s Sermon on the Nativity

By

Major celebrations in the Christian calendar are a great time to pull out texts from antiquity that relate to a current event.  It really helps to connect you with the traditions we will celebrate in the coming days.  With that in mind, I began conducting searches on Logos for texts and sermons on Christmas.

I enjoyed reading quite a few selections, but there was one that stood out to me above the rest.  It is a sermon by Pope Leo the Great (r. 440-461).  In it, he asks listeners to meditate on what would be a worthy gift to give the Lord on the day of his birth.  In Leo’s thinking, the only gift worthy of the Lord’s majesty is the peace we receive from God himself.  He writes:

But in the treasures of the Lord’s bounty what can we find so suitable to the honour of the present feast as the peace, which at the Lord’s nativity was first proclaimed by the angel-choir?

As Leo’s sermon continues, he quotes the Apostle Paul from the Book of Romans using an alternate, more infrequently used, meaning to the Greek word πρός (transliteration: pros).  I think that is significant because the translation of one word can change the meaning of the text.  Here is the more common translation: 

Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with (πρός) God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1, RSV)

Here is the way Pope Leo quotes the same verse:

Being justified therefore by faith let us have peace towards (πρός) God through our Lord Jesus Christ

I don’t think the alternate meaning for the Greek word πρός is insignificant.  I mean it’s not as if one is simply changing happy to glad.  Having peace with God is, in my mind, an initiative undertaken by God.  He is the one offering peace to us and we are free to accept or decline it.  But to have peace towards God is something we must do.  I suppose it is the choice of translation Leo employed, and the subsequent direction it took the rest of his sermon, that brought it to the forefront among all the other readings I looked at today.

Pope Leo instructs his listeners (and us) that where there is peace towards God, “there is no lack of virtue” and by living virtuous lives we will “wish what He bids, and not wish what He forbids.”  Making use of analogies, Leo likens our relationship with God to our earthly friendships, where we struggle to reach a “similarity of desires” so that we may attain peace among our friends. The pope cuts to the quick by asking his listeners:

[H]ow will he be partaker of divine peace, who is pleased with what displeases God and desires to get delight from what he knows to be offensive to God?

Simply put, we cannot have peace towards God if we are intent on doing the things that are displeasing to him.  Similarly, we will not experience peace with God either if we insist upon taking a path that leads us away from him.

In building up his audience at the end of his sermon, Pope Leo refers to them as “the noble family of the adopted” and as the “chosen and royal race.”  We too, in 2012, are part of the “noble family of the adopted,” who should sing out Gloria in excelsis Deo in our loudest voices as our Advent journey draws to a close and the holy season of Christmas begins (cf. Romans 8:15, Gal 3:25-26, 1 Pt 2:9). Meanwhile, in the quiet depths of our hearts, let us offer peace towards God by offering him the words his beloved Son taught us to pray: “Thy will be done” (Mt 6:10).  In doing so, we will be acknowledging the peace we have received from the Lord and return it to him by willingly placing our lives in his hands.

Merry Christmas!

The Importance of Letting Christ Reign as King

By

The Feast of Christ the King is a fairly new when one considers the whole 2000 year history of the Church.  It was instituted on December 11, 1925 by Pope Pius XI with his encyclical letter, Quas primas.  The Universal Church will celebrate the Feast on November 25, 2012.

Since the annual feast is upon us again, I wanted to take this opportunity to look at a few parts of Pope Pius’ letter in light of where we are today as a society and as a Church.  What always fascinates me when reading the teaching texts of the Successors of Peter is how timeless they are.  Quas primas was written 87 years ago, but much of what a person reads in it seems to be addressing concerns in our present day.  Documents like Quas primas are only historical documents in the sense they were written a long time ago; however, they are also living documents because the Spirit who guided their authorship still guides the Church today.

So let’s take a look at Quas primas:

When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony (QP, 19).

Yesterday shoppers charged out into the pre-dawn darkness to participate in the annual shopping ritual known as “Black Friday.”  This mayhem brings out the worst in people as shoppers literally shoot each other over parking spots, the last sale item, or this year’s “must have” toy.  As Pius wrote, it is only when people acknowledge Christ as King in “private and public life” that society will have “well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony.”  Until then, we can expect the descent into madness to only quicken.

If princes and magistrates duly elected are filled with the persuasion that they rule, not by their own right, but by the mandate and in the place of the Divine King, they will exercise their authority piously and wisely, and they will make laws and administer them, having in view the common good and also the human dignity of their subjects (QP, 19).

Earlier this month, Americans went to the polls to elect their governmental officials.  And regardless of which party you affiliate with, the overwhelming amount of Americans agree on one thing – their distrust of the government.  A 2010 Pew Poll found 80% of those asked did not trust the government.  A NY Times poll in October 2011, only 13 months ago, found that 89% of those polled said they “distrust government to do the right thing.”  It is unlikely America will have elected leaders that will “will exercise their authority piously and wisely” any time soon, at least not until the men and women elected recognize their role as leaders is a “mandate” from the Divine King.

Oh, what happiness would be Ours if all men, individuals, families, and nations, would but let themselves be governed by Christ!  …then at length will many evils be cured; then will the law regain its former authority; peace with all its blessings be restored (QP, 20).

That is an incredible vision, isn’t it?  A time of peace inside our raging hearts, in our families, and between nations.  What Christ brings that nothing else can is limitless, unconditional love.  If mankind accepted that love and put it in action then many evils would be cured as “love covers a multitude of sins” (I Pet 4:8).

If We ordain that the whole Catholic world shall revere Christ as King, We shall minister to the need of the present day, and at the same time provide an excellent remedy for the plague which now infects society. We refer to the plague of anti-clericalism, its errors and impious activities…. The rebellion of individuals and states against the authority of Christ has produced deplorable consequences…. that insatiable greed which is so often hidden under a pretense of public spirit and patriotism, and gives rise to so many private quarrels; a blind and immoderate selfishness, making men seek nothing but their own comfort and advantage, and measure everything by these; no peace in the home, because men have forgotten or neglect their duty; the unity and stability of the family undermined; society in a word, shaken to its foundations and on the way to ruin (QP, 24)

The hope Pope Pius had was that by establishing this annual Feast, Catholics would be able to witness to the world what it means to fall under the banner of Christ the King.  Anti-clericalism is often referred to as a “historical movement;” however, the term simply means people fighting against the real, or perceived,  power of clergy acting in the public square.  Once again, we need only to look back to the months leading up to the election when Catholic clergy spoke openly against key planks in the Democratic platform (e.g. abortion, artificial contraception).  Those bishops became the brunt of countless jokes and the Church’s teachings mocked as antiquated and irrelevant.  There is as much a need today for Catholics, ordained and lay, to stand up and proclaim loud and clear that the path the country has been walking, and continues to go down, will only further weaken the foundation of the country.

When we pay honor to the princely dignity of Christ, men will doubtless be reminded that the Church, founded by Christ as a perfect society, has a natural and inalienable right to perfect freedom and immunity from the power of the state; and that in fulfilling the task committed to her by God of teaching, ruling, and guiding to eternal bliss those who belong to the kingdom of Christ, she cannot be subject to any external power (QP, 31)

I would be willing to wager that if I read the previous quote to someone even semi-cognizant of the ongoing fight between the Catholic Bishops in the US and the Obama Administration, they would have likely assume it came from a statement written in the past six months, not 87 years ago.

The faithful, moreover, by meditating upon these truths, will gain much strength and courage, enabling them to form their lives after the true Christian ideal…. If all these truths are presented to the faithful for their consideration, they will prove a powerful incentive to perfection (QP, 33).

Pope Pius directed the final paragraphs of his encyclical to individual believers, writing that when they meditate on the truth of Christ as King in their lives they “will gain much strength and courage.”  Many believers today need a shot of “strength and courage.”  Their faith has weakened.  Their witness has grown cold. Men and women who may have looked upon them as an example sink deeper in their own despair.  Who can endure, they ask, if this person who claims to be a Catholic acts as if Christ never existed?  Our individual witness is so important; it can not be over stressed!

So take advantage of tomorrow’s Feast to acknowledge Christ in all areas of your life and he will not only make your path straight but also use you as a witness to help others on their path as well; together, with Christ leading the way, we can change the world (cf. Prov 3:6, Mt 28:19-20, and  Acts 1:8).

Mary’s Perpetual Virginity and the new normal

By

Today’s Gospel reading is a short one.  In fact, I can copy it in its entirety right here:

The mother of Jesus and his brothers came to him but were unable to join him because of the crowd.  He was told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside and they wish to see you.” He said to them in reply, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and act on it” (Luke 8:19-21)

When discussions or debates are held about Mary’s perpetual virginity – the teaching that she remained chaste even after giving birth to Jesus – inevitably two scripture references are brought up.  The first one is the one I quoted above which refers to the Jesus’ “brothers.” The second is from the first chapter of Matthew’s Gospel:

When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus (Mt 1:24-25, my emphasis added)

The implication when these two verses are combined is Joseph didn’t have sexual relations with Mary while she was pregnant with Jesus, but afterwards they adopted a “normal” marital relationship which produced additional offspring (i.e. Jesus’ brothers).

That line of argumentation is one of those “zingers” Protestant fundamentalists like to throw at Catholics.  For Catholics who are not grounded in the bible, which sadly is many of them, and who do not know the development of the doctrine on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, this argument comes across as rather convincing.  I remember a well-intentioned Baptist deacon rattling off these two quotes in quick succession at me when I was 19 years old and I had no idea how to respond (until I got this book, published two years earlier).

The debate on this topic is not a new one.  A man named Helvidius published a tract in Rome (c. 383), arguing against Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.  The great linguistics expert and biblical scholar, St. Jerome, who was also in Rome when Helvidius put forth his ideas, wrote a rebuttal, defending the Church’s teaching.

There is one part of Jerome’s response to Helvidius every Catholic should be able to grasp with the use of reason alone.  It doesn’t require an in-depth knowledge of scripture nor does it require one to know the 2000 history which comprises the Church’s teaching on Mary’s virginity.  No, all a person needs to ponder for a moment is the idea that nothing about Mary and Joseph’s life was going to be “normal” after their respective angelic visitations (cf. Lk 1:26-38 and Mt 1:18-25).

Think about it.  How was anything in the lives of these two people going to be “normal” after angels come to inform them of the miraculous conception of Jesus and tell them they will be the earthly parents of the Son of God?  I’m sure their lives were many, many things, but normal probably wasn’t one of them.

I feel comfortable making that kind of assumption (<– Marian pun) because it puts me in company with St. Jerome (not bad company to be in).  He wrote in his treatise, Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary:

In short, what I want to know is why Joseph refrained until the day of her delivery? Helvidius will of course reply, because he heard the angel say, “that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost” (Mt 1:20) And in turn we rejoin that he had certainly heard him say, “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife” (ibid) The reason why he was forbidden to forsake his wife was that he might not think her an adulteress. Is it true then, that he was ordered not to have intercourse with his wife? Is it not plain that the warning was given him that he might not be separated from her? And could the just man dare, he says, to think of approaching her, when he heard that the Son of God was in her womb? Excellent!

We are to believe then that the same man who gave so much credit to a dream that he did not dare to touch his wife, yet afterwards, when he had learnt from the shepherds that the angel of the Lord had come from heaven and said to them, “Be not afraid: for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people, for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord;” (Lk 2:10)and when the heavenly host had joined with him in the chorus, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of good will;” (Lk 2:14) and when he had seen just Simeon embrace the infant and exclaim, “Now lettest thou thy servant depart, O Lord, according to thy word in peace: for mine eyes have seen thy salvation;” (Lk 2:25-34) and when he had seen Anna the prophetess (Lk 2:36-38), the Magi, the Star, Herod, the angels; Helvidius, I say, would have us believe that Joseph, though well acquainted with such surprising wonders, dared to touch the temple of God, the abode of the Holy Ghost, the mother of his Lord?

Jerome uses a lot of words (an admirable trait) to basically say, “Whatta stupid?”

I think there are two things that we, as modern 21st century people, struggle to get our heads around.  First is the radicalness of Mary and Joseph’s experience.  Ideas such as angelic visitations, voices from the heavens, pregnancy without intercourse, parenting the “Son of God,” etc. lay just out of our reach to comprehend.  We struggle with them (understandable) because we likely have nothing comparable in our own lives.  Our children didn’t come to us through divine intervention and they seem a little less than divine when they are throwing a fit about not getting their way.

The second concept is the idea of forsaking sexual intercourse for life.  That certainly doesn’t seem “normal” by today’s standards, perhaps not even by 1st century Palestinian standards either.  It would seem much more likely that Helvidius’ position, the one maintained by most Evangelicals, is right: Joseph and Mary refrained from intercourse “until [Mary] had borne a son” but afterwards they adopted a “normal” sexual relationship.  But what we must seriously consider is that Joseph’s and Mary’s standard for “normal” had been radically changed because of God’s intervention in their lives.

Just reflect on the magnitude of the responsibility this couple was being given.  Think about the mind-blowing, life-altering experiences they had before Jesus’ birth and after. What would you be willing to give up to be part of the plan to being salvation to the entire world?

You are part of that plan to bring salvation to the world you know, or at least to your corner of it.  God has intervened in your life in many different ways (e.g. sacraments, prayer life, through family/friends), your definition of “normal” is now different from the world’s definition (cf. 1 Pt 2:11, Rm 12:2 and Jn 17:16) .  Because your version of normal is different than the world’s, ask yourself: “What sacrifice am I willing to make in order to bring Christ to others?”

Jesus on “the exception to the rule”

By

In today’s Gospel reading, Jesus and his disciples were “going through a field of grain on the sabbath” when the hungry disciples “began to pick the heads of grain and eat them.”  The Pharisees saw this and challenged Jesus saying that what his disciples were doing was “unlawful to do on the sabbath.”  The Pharisees’ charge was a sabbath violation, not a case of theft, because eating from a neighbor’s standing grain was, in general, an acceptable practice (see Deut 23:25).

In this post, I want to examine Jesus’ response, where he explained his disciples were not violating the law, looking at it from four different aspects: historical, lawful, prophetical, reasonableness.

Historical

First, Jesus appeals to the behavior of David (1 Sam 21:1-6) as an example from history.  Surely the Pharisees would admit that David’s behavior and that of the high priest Ahim’elech were above reproach.  In the story from 1 Samuel, David arrives at Nob and asks the priest Ahim’elech for something to eat.  The only food on hand was the “bread of the Presence,” which is “holy bread,” fit only for the high priests to consume (for more on the bread see Lev 24:5-9).  However, Ahim’elech shares this bread with David and in turn David shares it with those accompanying him.  Jesus is making this historical connection because the Pharisees will not likely admit that David or Ahim’elech, key figures from Israel’s history, made a mistake, and to recall to the Pharisees’ mind how David shared the bread with his followers.

There is a difference between the two stories that some may believe significant when making the comparison (i.e. David and his followers / Jesus and the disciples).  David actually deceives Ahim’elech into giving him the bread.  He told the priest he was on a secret mission from the king when, in fact, he was fleeing from Saul who had vowed to kill him.  In his hasty preparations to flee, David had not packed sufficient supplies.  While the lie does not come into play in the New Testament story, most commentators don’t view the difference between the two accounts as significant as the common theme of necessity.  Both David’s followers and Jesus’ disciples, in serving their masters, had grown sufficiently hungry in the course of their duties that their masters broke with the norm to feed them.

Lawful

Next Jesus weaves a lawful argument based on the requirements specified in the Book of Numbers (28:9-20).  In the Old Testament book, the prescription for the sabbath offering is described.  To me, it sounds a lot of like work:

…you shall offer a burnt offering to the LORD: two young bulls, one ram, seven male lambs a year old without blemish; also three tenths of an ephah of fine flour for a cereal offering, mixed with oil, for each bull; and two tenths of fine flour for a cereal offering, mixed with oil, for the one ram; and a tenth of fine flour mixed with oil as a cereal offering for every lamb; for a burnt offering of pleasing odor, an offering by fire to the LORD.

However, a few verses later in the text it says: “On the first day there shall be a holy convocation: you shall do no laborious work….”  The “first day” is the sabbath.  The Pharisees are chiding the disciples, not for stealing, but working (i.e. harvesting) on the sabbath.  The slaughtering of animals, a “laborious work,” is forbidden on the sabbath by everyone except the high priests.  Jesus calls the priests who worked on the sabbath, for the purpose of worship, “innocent.”  But how is that?  Isn’t there a disconnect here?  The implication is temple worship takes precedence over the sabbath.  Jesus makes the same connection; however, he takes it a step further when he says there is, “something greater than the temple here.”  If the Pharisees believe temple worship takes precedence over the sabbath, Jesus is saying there is even something greater than the temple.  It’s no wonder they believe Jesus to be a blasphemer.

Prophetical

The next way Jesus addresses the Pharisees objection is by referring to the prophet Hosea who spoke on behalf of the Lord, saying:

For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God, rather than burnt offerings. (Hosea 6:6)

Jesus rebukes the Pharisees’ lack of understanding of the scripture by saying, “If you knew what this meant, I desire mercy, not sacrifice, you would not have condemned these innocent men.”  The implication here is that if the Pharisees truly knew the scriptures they would act accordingly (i.e. know that God desires good will towards mankind and act similarly).  Jesus refers to his disciples as “innocent men,” just like the priests who work on the sabbath were “innocent,” because both are working for something that is more significant than the sabbath.  The Pharisees were only concerned with outward projections of piety rather than the true spiritual significance of the words contained in scripture.

Reasonableness

The last part of Jesus’ rebuttal is based on reason.  Since he is the Lord of the sabbath his disciples, who are acting in union with him, had a right to do what would normally be considered objectionable to do on the sabbath.  This is an expansion, a revelation, of the idea expressed above: “something greater than the temple is here.”  Yes, there is!  The God-man is here!  The one who originally commanded what is right, good, and holy, on the sabbath is now, once again, declaring what is right, good, and holy on the sabbath.  It is not a canceling of one in lieu of the other; instead, it is a deeper dive into what is already known.

Though not part of today’s reading, the narrative in Matthew’s Gospel continues with Jesus healing a man on the sabbath and Jesus challenging the Pharisees with a predicament:

Which one of you who has a sheep that falls into a pit on the sabbath will not take hold of it and lift it out? (Mt 12:11)

Knowing that a reasonable, common sense approach to life would lead one to conclude that relieving a man’s suffering and rescuing an animal are more significant than abstaining from work on a particular day of the week, Jesus concludes with, “So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath.”  This strikes me as much as a statement of fact as it does a question to be posed to those who doubt otherwise.

Conclusion

Jesus shows in Matthew’s eighth chapter, through word and deed, that there are times when the rule needs to give way to the exception.  Jesus’ purpose was not to provide “an out” from observance of the sabbath, not at all.  In fact, in order for there to be “an exception” there must first be a “rule” (exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis (“the exception confirms the rule in cases not excepted”).  Worship of the Lord on the sabbath is proper and right.  By regularly going to the synagogue to teach and by expressing his intense desire to celebrate the Passover with his disciples (cf. Luke 22:15), Jesus demonstrates a commitment to the rule (i.e. law).  However, these teachings in Matthew’s eighth chapter were designed by the Lord to give his disciples, and us, greater spiritual insight into the law’s meaning.

Book Review: Judie Brown’s The Broken Path

By

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

By

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

By

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

By

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

By

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.