Tag: Faith & Current Events

Posted on

Don’t Be Liar at Christmas! A Meditation on Incarnational Faith

At Christmas we celebrate the fact of the Word becoming Flesh. But what does this mean for us today? Fundamentally what it means is that our faith is about things which are very real and tangible. As human beings we are persons with bodies. We have a soul that is spiritual but it is joined with a body that is physical and material. Hence it is never enough for our faith to be only about thoughts or philosophies, concepts or historical facts. While all these things our true, their truth in us ultimately must touch the physical part of who we are. Our Faith has to become flesh, it has to reach and influence our very behavior. If this is not the case the Holy Spirit speaking through John has something to call us: Liar!

 God’s love for us in not just a theory or idea. It is a flesh and blood reality that can actually be seen, heard and touched. But the challenge of the Christmas season is for us to allow the same thing to happen to our faith. The Word of God and our faith cannot simply remain on the pages of a book or the recesses of our intellect. They have to become flesh in our life. Our faith has to leap off the pages of the Bible and Catechism and become flesh in the very way we live our lives, the decisions we make, the very way we use our body, mind, intellect and will.

Consider a passage from the liturgy of the Christmas Octave from the First Letter of John. I would like to produce an excerpt and then make a few comments.

The way we may be sure that we know Jesus is to keep his commandments. Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps his word, the love of God is truly perfected in him. This is the way we may know that we are in union with him: whoever claims to abide in him ought to walk just as he walked. (1 John 2:3ff)

1. Faith is incarnational – Note first of all what a practical man John is. Faith is not an abstraction, it is not merely about theories and words on a page. I tcannotbe reduced to slogans or even to merely pious sayings. It is about a transformed life, it is about the actual love of God and his Commandments manifest in the way we live. It is about the actual love of of my neighbor. True faith is incarnational, that is to say, it takes on flesh in my very “body.”

As stated already, we human beings are not pure spirit, we are not intellect and will only, we are also flesh and blood. And what we are cannot remain merely immaterial. What we most are must be reflected in our bodies, what we actually, physically do as well.

Too many people often repeat the phrase, “I’ll be with you in spirit.” Perhaps an occasional absence is understandable but after a while the phrase rings hollow. Actually showing up physically and actually doing what we say is an essential demonstration of our sincerity. We are body persons and our faith must include a physical, flesh and blood dimension.

2. A sure sign – John says that The way we may be sure that we know Jesus is to keep his commandments. Now be careful of the logic here. The keeping of the commandments is not the cause of faith, it is the fruit of it. It is not the cause of love, it is the fruit of it.

Note this too, in the Scriptures, to “know” is always more than a mere intellectual knowing. To “know” in the Scriptures means, “deep intimate personal experience of the thing or person known.” It is one thing to know about God, it is another thing to “know the Lord.”

So, what John is saying here is that to be sure we authentically have deep intimate personal experience of God is to observe the fact that this changes the way we live. An authentic faith, an authentic knowing of the Lord will change our actual behavior in such a way that we keep the commandments as a fruit of that authentic faith and relationship with the Lord. It means that our faith becomes flesh in us. theory becomes practice and experience. It changes the way we live and move and have our being.

For a human being faith cannot be a mere abstraction, it has to become flesh and blood if it is authentic. John later uses the image of walking in this passage: This is the way we may know that we are in union with him: whoever claims to abide in him ought to walk just as he walked. (1 John 2:6) Now walking is a very physical thing. It is also a very symbolic thing. The very place we take our body is both physical and indicative of what we value, what we think.

3. Liar? – John goes on to say Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not keep his commandments is a liar. John uses strong language here. Either we believe and keep the commandments or we fail to keep the commandments and thus lie about really knowing the Lord.

But don’t all of us struggle to keep the commandments fully! John seems so “all or nothing.” But his math is clear. To know the Lord fully, is never to sin (cf 1 John 3:9). To know him imperfectly is still to experience sin. Hence, the more we know him (remember the definition of know above!) the less we sin. If we still sin it is a sign that we do not know him enough.

It is not really John who speaks too absolutely. It is really we who do so. We say, “I have faith, I am a believer, I love the Lord, I know the the Lord!” We speak so absolutely. Perhaps we could better say, I am growing in faith, I am striving to be a better believer, I’m learning to love and know the Lord better and better. Otherwise we risk lying. Faith is something we grow in.

Many Protestants have a bad habit of reducing faith to an event such as answering an altar call, or accepting the Lord as “personal Lord and savior.” But we Catholics do it too. Many think all they have to do is be baptized but they never attend Mass faithfully later. Others claim to be “loyal” even “devout” Catholics but they dissent from important Church teachings. Faithis about more than membership. It is about the way we walk, the decisions we actually make. Without this harmony between faith and our actual walk we live a lie. We lie to ourselves and to others. Bottom line: Come to know the Lord more an more perfectly and, if this knowing is real knowing, we will grow in holiness, keep the commandments be of the mind of Christ. We will walk just as Jesus walked and our calimto have faithwill be said in truth, not as a lie.

4. Uh Oh! Is this salvation by works? Of course not. The keeping of the commandments is not the cause of saving and real faith it is the result of it. The keeping of the commandments is the necessary evidence of saving faith but it does not cause us to be saved, it only indicates that the Lord is saving us from sin and its effects.

But here too certain Protestants have a nasty habit of dividing faith and works. The cry went up in the 16th Century by the Protestants that we are saved by faith “alone.” Careful. Faith is never alone. It always brings effects with it.

Our big brains can get in the way here and we think that just because we can distinguish or divide something in our mind we can divide it in reality. This is arrogant and silly. Consider for a moment a candle flame. Now the flame has two qualities: heat and light. In our mind we can separate the two but not in reality. I could never take a knife and divide the heat of the flame and the light of the flame. They are so together as to be one reality. Yes, heat and light in a candleflame are distinguishable theoretically but they are always together in reality. This is how it is with faith and works. Faith and works are distinguishable theoretically but the works of true faith and faith are always together in reality. We are not saved by works but as John here teaches to know the Lord is always accompanied by the evidence of keeping the commandments and walking as Jesus did.

Faith is incarnational. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, really and physically. So too our own faith must become flesh in us, really, physically in our actual behavior in our very body-person.

Here is a largely unknown Christmas Carol to Americans, unless you are familiar with Renaissance music. It is by an anonymous composer of the 16th Century and is an early Spanish Carol. The gist of the Carol is that the Word (Jesus) has shown his love for us by becoming flesh. Mary who has real faith would do anything for Jesus but has nowhere even to lay him down. The song then rebukes this rich world for its lack of faith manifested in love and cries out in effect, “Will you not at least offer some swaddling clothes to the one you have forced to be born in a smelly stable!” And thus the world’s true faith must be manifest by its acts of love. Here is an incarnational Christmas Carol. I provide the text and translation. Enjoy.

Verbum caro factum est          (The Word was made flesh)
Porque todos hos salveis.       (for the salvation of you all
 
Y la Virgen le dezia:                 (And the Virgin said unto him)
‘Vida de la vida mia,                (‘Life of my life,)
Hijo mio, ¿que os haria,         (what would I [not] do for you, my Son?)
Que no tengo en que os echeis?’ (Yet I have nothing on which to lay you  down.)’
 
O riquezas terrenales,             (O wordly riches)!
¿No dareis unos pañales        (will you not give some swaddling clothes)
A Jesu que entre animales    (to Jesus, who is born among the animals),
Es nasçido segun veis?           (as you can see?) 
 

Posted on

The Problem of Privatized Faith As Illustrated in a Washington Post Article

Frankly I don’t even like to discuss condoms. It just seems impolite in mixed company. But the world’s obsession with condoms (as George Weigel quips, “salvation through latex!”) has surely been on display these past weeks. The Pope’s admittedly poorly reported remarks, (even by L’Osservatore Romano) have set forth a tsunami of celebration in some sectors who insist the Church has changed her position. Any presentations of the facts or later clarifications issued by the Vatican seem to have no effect on the spin in secular circles that a “sea-change” has happened in Church teaching. It has not, but myths often take on a life of their own.

In today’s Washington Post yet another article has appeared that I would like to excerpt and then comment on. The Article is by Michael E. Ruane who interviews a number of Catholics outside of St. Matthews Cathedral after Mass on the condom question. The sorts of things said by Catholics in this article are not unexpected. In fact they are emblematic of the fact that most Catholics get their ideas about their faith more form the world than from the Church. This of course is not wholly the fault of the laity since we in the clergy and Church leadership have not been famous for our savvy ability to communicate the faith effectively.

Let’s take a look at this article and see what we can learn of the nature of the problem. As is the case with previous articles, I would like to present the excerpts in bold and italic letters and then my own running commentary in plain RED text.  (The Full Post Article can be read here: Faithful Have Mixed Views).

The gray-haired chief usher for the Latin Mass was headed with his metal cane for the steps of Washington’s Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle when he paused to consider the latest church teaching on condom use. “As a Catholic,” said Lucius Robertson, 91, he opposed the use of condoms. “As a John Doe,” he said he approved. “It’s strictly personal,” he added, “a singular decision.”  In this opening paragraph we quickly see into the heart of the problem: faith has been privatized. We live in the age of the designer religion wherein anyone gets to invent their own dogma, or selectively determine what dogmas they will accept. Everyone gets to be their own pope. Catholics are often no exception to this trend and many seem perfectly willing and able to dispense with whatever doctrines displease them and still declare themselves to be a “good Catholic.” For such as these faith has no apparent communal dimension, nothing outside them self which should require adherence in order that to qualify for membership. No, such a notion that some one other than me gets to say what is the true faith is obnoxious to many. They insist that faith be a purely private declaration of what seems true “to me.” To suggest that certain criteria ought be met in order to “be Catholic” offends against their God-given right to design their own faith and, I would argue, their own God.

Our 91 year old usher here might not accept all these notions I have stated but his understanding of the faith is surely tainted by them. He insists that an important matter of Church moral teaching is “strictly personal” and “a singular decision.”  Never mind that the Church, founded by Jesus Christ,  has set forth a clear forbiddance of the use of condoms. Never mind that we as Catholics are expected to give assent and religious submission to what the Church formally  teaches and proposes for belief in matters of faith and morals.  I am frankly not sure I understand what our usher means when he says he opposes condoms “as a Catholic” and approves them “as a John Doe.”  But one thing seems certain, our usher (possibly in an unintentional way) articulates a notion of faith that is personal rather than communal. Many problems come from this widespread current notion which illustrates very well the ego-centric tendency of our modern age. The Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us that faith is not a merely personal or private matter:

“Believing” is an ecclesial act. The Church’s faith precedes, engenders, supports and nourishes our faith. The Church is the mother of all believers. “No one can have God as Father who does not have the Church as Mother” (CCC # 181)…..Faith is a personal act – the free response of the human person to the initiative of God who reveals himself. But faith is not an isolated act. No one can believe alone, just as no one can live alone. You have not given yourself faith as you have not given yourself life. The believer has received faith from others and should hand it on to others…..It is the Church that believes first, and so bears, nourishes and sustains my faith…..The Church, “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”, faithfully guards “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”. She guards the memory of Christ’s words; it is she who from generation to generation hands on the apostles’ confession of faith. As a mother who teaches her children to speak and so to understand and communicate, the Church our Mother teaches us the language of faith in order to introduce us to the understanding and the life of faith. (CCC 168-171 selected)

Thus the Catholic faith cannot be privatized as so many insist on doing. You and I are not free to decide what it means to be a Catholic. That has been given to the Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit. Just about every other error demonstrated in this article flows from this one misunderstanding of “privatized faith.”

Mixed feelings were common Sunday among Catholics attending Mass at St. Matthew’s at they tried to understand statements last week by Pope Benedict XVI that appeared to ease the church’s long-standing ban on using condoms. (“Appeared,” is the key word. The Pope introduced no change and eased nothing).

In a new book, the pope indicated that condoms could be used to prevent the spread of life-threatening diseases, like HIV. In the past, official church teaching has forbidden condom use under all circumstances, as part of its opposition to birth control.  The Pope did nothing of the sort. Here are the actual words of the Pope from the interview that many claim amount to an endorsement of condom use: Peter Seewald:  Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms? Pope Benedict:  She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution…. Now notice the words “NOT,” “REAL,” and “MORAL.” The Pope notes further in the interview: ….the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of condoms. What the Pope did note was that some people have fallen so far in their understanding that the even the use of a condom may show at least some progress. At least they have some notion of protecting others. But again this only illustrates how far they fallen not that condoms are good. Again for the record the Pope says of condoms that they are not (again, NOT) a moral solution.

Experts have been debating whether the pope’s comments, which the Vatican has sought to clarify, opened the door to discussion of the broader ban, even as many American Catholics have already indicated they disagree with it. Experts are not debating this. Some dissenters may see it in their interest to perpetuate a misunderstanding of the Pope’s remarks. But official Vatican sources have clarified and asserted that there is no change in Church teaching here.

A 2003 Washington Post poll found that 88 percent of Catholics believed that using a “birth control pill or condoms” was morally acceptable. Much of that sentiment was in evidence at St. Matthew’s Sunday. The Poll is probably accurate. However I’d be interested in looking inside the numbers. Are there differences between practing Catholics and non? What are the age differences? 

“I don’t think there should be a ban on condoms,” said Kay Gautsch, 68, who was visiting from Racine, Wis. “The pope says use them for AIDS prevention, but I think birth control is very important. The Pope did not say “use them for AIDS prevention.” Ms. Gautsch is simply mistaken. She has likely received all her information on this from the secular media. This is not simply her fault. We who are clergy and, indeed,  all Church leaders share in this problem. We have to find more effective ways of reaching our people directly and giving them the true story. Cardinal Wuerl makes this point is the video below.  

“On the alternative, you have abortion, you have children [whose] parents can’t afford their kids,” she said. “I think that’s responsible parenthood, to use condoms and limit the size of your family.” “I would hope the ban would change,” she said. “People are using their common sense and . . . responsible health concerns when they use condoms. It’s a good thing.”  More privatized religion on display here. She also has a pejorative tone:  “People are using their common sense….” when they oppose Church teaching, according to Ms. Gautsch. Of course this thereby means that official and ancient Church teaching against contraceptive methods and emphasizing chastity lacks  “common sense.“

Marie Claire Odell, 50, of Silver Spring, who was just leaving church, said the apparent easing of the ban was due. “The Catholic church is not that swift to recognize” the need for change, she said. “They just recognized Galileo. Quite honestly, it takes them a while, but hopefully they’re getting there.  “I think it’s about time,” she said. “Let’s be serious. Let’s jump into the 21st century. I think you’ll find a lot of people saying the same thing.” Yes, of course that is the main thing isn’t it? You see, according to Ms Odell and others whom she represents, we have to update, be with the times, this is our main role apparently. Things like Scripture and Tradition have to give way to the “21st Century” which has apparently found  a better, more enlightened way.

This position (“the Church must update”) is really a plural version of the problem of privatized religion. This version applies the “right” to redefine the faith to an age more than a person. This privatizes the faith by making it subservient to the whims of a particular time and place. A given generation ought to be free to remove or adapt whatever seems “unacceptable” to that given time or place. In this thinking, being hidebound to ancient Tradition, Conciliar decrees, and Scriptures from ancient times that were far less “enlightened” than ours is really obnoxious. This widespread notion seeks to privatize the faith by eliminating the testimony and presence of previous generations. They have no place at our modern table. This is a private, 21st Century party, don’t you see? And the Ancient Fathers and Evangelists are not invited unless they adapt and update. The main task of the Church for Ms Odell and others like her seems to be that we “jump into the 21st Century.”   Again, the faith is privatized, compartmentalized and subjected to the whims of individuals and times and places. It is the problem of privatized religion in another, larger package.  

One thing Ms. Odell is right about, “you’ll find a lot of people saying the same thing.” We do indeed have a lot of work to do in making the teaching against artificial contraception sensible to modern westerners. She also speaks for a lot of moderns who see reinventing the Apostolic Faith as their God-given right. A lot of work to do here. Perhaps some more blog posts here can be my contribution, both on contraception and also the problem of privatized religion. (Here’s one I wrote a while back: Wisdom of Humane Vitae)

Well the Post Article goes on with pretty much the same sort of stuff. You can read the rest of it here: Faithful Have Mixed Views. It seems they had trouble finding anyone who supports the Church’s teaching unambiguously. I suspect that is a problem with Post but will also admit it is a problem with us. There are deep problems in the Church today with selective and privatized faith.

Much will be required to get Catholics back to a proper notion that the Faith is revealed by God to the Church and she hands on the faith intact. The faith cannot be of our own making, neither can we pick and choose its content.

But these are egocentric and arrogant times and many people see it as their God-given right to be their own pope, their own Bible, their own magisterium. And, even if they don’t explicitly claim this as a personal right, they assign it to the age or the locale, the “common sense” of the times. It is surely puzzling that an age such as ours, so afflicted by increasing disorder, promiscuity, addiction, crime, violence, abortion, war, injustice to the poor and the breakdown of basic elements like family, can presume to claim for itself some sort of special wisdom and enlightenment. We live in strange times, privatized times, closed off from the wisdom of our elders and forebearers. A faithful remnant remains in the Church, to be sure. It is just disappointing that the Post could not find one to speak unambiguously to the beauty of truth.

The problems illustrated in this Post Article are not entirely a problem of the laity. It is clear that we in the Church have got to do a better job of effectively and efficiently proclaiming the faith and getting that message directly to our people, unfiltered by a secular media. In this three minute video, Cardinal Wuerl, speaking last month at the Order of Malta Conference, describes the challenges and the necessity of telling our people the rest of the story:

Posted on

Getting Personal With the Word of God – A powerful reflection by Pope Benedict on the true Reality of the Word of God

Many people think of the Word of God as an “it” when in fact, the Word of God is a person, Jesus Christ. Jesus did not come merely to give us information and exhortation. He came to give us his very self. He is the “Word made Flesh.”

Pope Benedict makes this point in his most recent document, the Post Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Verbum Domini. I want to give an excerpt and then reflect briefly upon it.

[There is a] statement made by the author of the Letter to the Hebrews: “In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world ” (1:1-2)….. Here the Word finds expression not primarily in discourse, concepts or rules. Here we are set before the very person of Jesus. His unique and singular history is the definitive word which God speaks to humanity. We can see, then, why “being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a definitive direction ”.…. “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us ”(Jn 1:14a). These words are no figure of speech; they point to a lived experience! Saint John, an eyewitness, tells us so: “ We have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth ” ( Jn 1:14b). ….. Now the word is not simply audible; not only does it have a voice, now the word has a face….(Verbum Domini 11-12)

 The Word of God is not merely on the pages of a book. The Word of God is not just an idea or ethical system. The Word of God is not just a set of teachings or doctrines. The Word of God is Jesus Christ. And to really grasp this Word can only take place when we meet Him, experience Him and His power active in our lives.

It is a danger to turn Scripture into an abstraction or just a text. St Thomas Aquinas says,  The Son is the Word, not any sort of word, but one Who breathes forth Love. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. ix 10): “The Word we speak of is knowledge with love.” Thus the Son is sent not in accordance with [just] any kind of intellectual perfection, but according to the intellectual illumination, which breaks forth into the affection of love, as is said (John 6:45): “Everyone that hath heard from the Father and hath learned, cometh to Me. (Summa Prima Pars, 43.5 ad 2).

 Hence we cannot really grasp Scripture unless we have met Jesus Christ. Further, to authentically read Sacred Scripture is to more and more encounter Jesus Christ there. Before we analyze a text of Scripture we are summoned to encounter the one who is speaking to us.

It is surely possible for some, even secular scholar  to analyze a Greek text of Holy Writ and parse its verbs. Perhaps another scholar can analyze idioms, or the historical context. Such research can help us understand what the text is saying at a mechanistic level. But only a deepening and personal knowledge of Jesus Christ can help us to know what the text really means. It is this personal, historical, and on-going encounter with Jesus Christ that distinguishes true theology from mere religious study or literary criticism.

 Indeed, theologians and Scripture scholars are dangerous if they do not personally know Jesus Christ. To “know” Jesus  is not the same as to “know about” Jesus. I might know about Jesus Christ from a book or from some other person. But it is not enough to know “about” him. I must know him. To be a true “authority” in Scripture requires that we have met and know the “author.” Do you see the word “author” in “authority?”

Note how the Pope quotes the Prologue of John’s Gospel ”.…. “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us ”(Jn 1:14a). and then says, These words are no figure of speech; they point to a lived experience!  The Pope also says above in reference to the Hebrews 1 text: Here we are set before the very person of Jesus.

 In the Liturgical context of Scripture this fact is enshrined in our ritual. As the Priest or Deacon proclaims the Gospel, all the people stand out of respect. For, it is Christ himself who speaks to them and whom they encounter in this proclamation of the Word. At the conclusion of the proclamation of the Gospel, they acknowledge that they are encountering Jesus as they say to him personally: “Laus tibi Christe!” (Praise to you Lord Jesus Christ).

 Hence, Scripture, and the wider concept of the Word of God, authentically  interpreted by the Church, is not merely a book or a set of ideas. It is an encounter with a living God, the Lord Jesus Christ. The Word of God is a person, Jesus Christ.

 Perhaps a couple of quick stories to illustrate the difference between seeing Scripture merely as a text, and seeing it as an encounter with the Word made flesh, Jesus.

1. A rural Appalachian community was visited by a Shakespearean actor. They were amazed at his elegant but strange way of speaking. At one moment in his public recital he recited the 23rd Psalm. The words were elegant, pronounced in finest King James English with great drama and flair. At the end of his recitation a strange silence filled the room. Where applause would usually follow, an awkward silence ensued. Finally a poor farmer in the back of the room stood and apologized that no one knew to applaud and that they meant no offense but they just weren’t sure he was done. “See, out in these parts we say it a little different.” The poor farmer then began, “The Loerd is mah shayperd….” When he completed the psalm the room was filled with amens and “praise the Lord”s. The Shakespearean actor then told the poor farmer, “I was elegant, but your words had greater power. That is because I know only the technique, but you know the author.”

2. Some years ago I heard a Black AME Preacher address an ecumenical gathering at a revival. And he said to the gathered, “You know I heard some strange stuff in seminary! The professors said Jesus never really walked on water, that he didn’t really multiply loaves and fishes, he just got folks to be generous. They said, he didn’t really know he was God, or rise from the dead. He just lives on in our thoughts or something…..Can you believe they taught me that in a Christian seminary?!” Through his description of these wretched “teachings” the moans and disapproval in the congregation of Protestants and Catholics were audible. He built his litany of faulty scholarship and you could hear folks saying, “Lord have mercy!” and “mah, mah, mah.” And then he stopped and mopped his brow, and looked at them and said, “I tell you what! The problem with them wasn’t that they read the wrong books, y’all. The problem with them was that they ain’t never met my Jesus!”  Well the house came down and folks were on their feet for ten minutes praising God. The Choir too leapt to their feet and began the familiar chorus: “Can’t nobody do me like Jesus, he’s my Lord!”

 Well, you get the point, when you’ve met Jesus Christ you just don’t doubt that he walked on the water, multiplied loaves, raised Lazarus, knew perfectly well that he was God and stepped out of the tomb on Easter morning.

The Word of God is not merely a text. It is a person, Jesus Christ, the Logos, the Word made flesh. And once you’ve met him his spoken (and later written word) begins to make greater and greater sense and there is just no doubt that this Word is true and powerful.

Let me let Pope Benedict conclude as we recall his words above: the Word finds expression not primarily in discourse, concepts or rules. Here we are set before the very person of Jesus….These words are no figure of speech; they point to a lived experience! Saint John, an eyewitness, tells us so: “ We have beheld his glory, the glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

 Here’s an OLD recording of the old classic “Can’t nobody do me like Jesus.”

Posted on

On Being the Adult in the Room

In the letter to the Ephesians, which we have been reading in daily Mass, Paul has this to say:

And [Christ] gave some as Apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers, to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, for building up the Body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood to the extent of the full stature of Christ, so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming. Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ(Eph 4:11-15)

Coming to maturity is a basic task in the Christian walk. We are expected grow and come to an adult faith. The Letter to the Hebrews has something very similar to say:

You are slow to learn. In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!  Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil. (Heb 5:11-14)

However, we live in times and in a culture where maturity is often significantly delayed. In fact there are many in our culture who never grow up. I have argued elsewhere that one paradigm of our culture is to that it is fixated on teenage years. Fixation is a psychological description of a person who has not successfully navigated one of the stages of infancy and youth and thus remains stuck in the thinking and patterns of that stage, to one degree or another. Out culture’s fixation on teenage issues and attitudes is manifest in some of the following:

  1. Irrational aversion to authority
  2. Refusal to use legitimately use the authority one has
  3. Titillation and irresponsibility regarding sexuality
  4. General irresponsibility and a lack of personal accountability
  5. Demanding all of one’s rights but avoiding most of one’s responsibilities
  6. Blaming others for one’s own personal failings
  7. Being dominated by one’s emotions and carried away easily by the passions
  8. Obsession with fairness evidenced by the frequent cry, “It’s not fair!”
  9. Expecting others and government agencies to do for me what I should do for myself
  10. Aversion to instruction
  11. Irrational rejection of the wisdom of elders and tradition
  12. Obsession with being and looking young, aversion to becoming or appearing old
  13. Lack of respect for elders
  14. Obsession with having thin and young looking bodies
  15. Glorification of irresponsible teenage idols
  16. Inordinate delay of marriage, widespread preference for the single life

Now it is true that some of the things above have proper adult version. For example, the “obsession with fairness” matures and becomes a commitment to work for justice. Aversion to authority can be matured to a healthy and respectful insistence that those in authority be accountable to those they serve. And so forth. You may choose to take issue with one of more of the above and you may wish to add some distinctions. It is also a fact that not every teenager has all the issues listed above. All that is fine, but the point here is that the culture in which we live seems stuck on a lot of teenage attitudes and maturity is significantly delayed on account of it.

Some may also allege a kind of arrogance in the description of our culture as teenage. I accept that it is a less than flattering portrait of our culture and welcome your discussion of it. But I ask, if you reject the image of “teenage,” how would you describe our culture? Do you think that we live in an overall healthy and mature culture?

The Call to Maturity and the role of the Church  – In the midst of all this is the expectation of the God through his Scriptures that we grow up, that we come to maturity, to the fullness of faith, to an adult faith. Further, the Church is expected, as an essential part of her ministry, to bring this about in us through God’s grace. Notice that the Ephesians text says that Christ has given Apostles, prophets,  evangelists, pastors and teachers, to equip the holy ones unto this. The Church is thus expected in a certain sense to be “the adult in the room.” She is to summon us to live responsible, mature lives. She summons us to be accountable before others, to be sober, serious, and deeply respectful of God’s authority over us by living lives that are obedient to the faith. She teaches us, by God’s grace, to master our emotions and gain authority over our passions. She holds forth for us the wisdom of tradition and teachings of the Scriptures and insists on reverence for these. She insists on correct doctrine and (as the text from Ephesians says) that we no longer be infants, tossed by the waves of the latest fads and stinking thinking, and that we not be swept along by every wind of false teaching arising from human illusions. We are to be stable and mature in our faith and judge the world by it.

Yes, the Church has the rather unpleasant but necessary task of being the adult in the room when the world is mired in things teenage and will often exhibit aversion to authority, rules, and cry out that orthodox teaching is “unfair”  or “old fashioned.”

But here we encounter something of an internal problem. For the Church has faced the grave temptation to “put on jeans” and adopt the teenage fixations. Sadly, not all leaders in the Church have taken seriously their obligation to “equip the holy ones for the work of ministry….until we all attain to the unity of faith and….to mature manhood and the…..full stature of Christ.” Preferring popularity to the negative cries of how one or more Biblical teaching is “unfair!,” many teachers and pastors of the faith have succumbed to the temptation to water down the faith and to tolerate grave immaturity on the part of fellow Catholics. It would seem that things are improving but we have a long way to go in terms of vigorously reasserting the call to maturity within the Church. Corruptio optimi pessima– the corruption of the best, is the worst. Clergy and other Church leaders, catechists and teachers, must insist on their own personal maturity and hold each other accountable in attaining to it. We must fulfill our role of equipping the faithful unto mature faith by first journeying to an adult faith ourselves.

The Church does not simply include clergy and religious. Lay people must also take up their proper role as mature, adult Christians active in renewing the temporal order. Many already have done this magnificently. More must follow and be formed in this regard. Our culture is in need of well-formed Christians to restore a greater maturity, sobriety and responsibility to our culture.

By God’s grace we are called to be the adult in the room.

I realize this post may cause controversy. But remember, this is a discussion. I am not pontificating (even though my name is Pope). I am expressing an opinion and initiating a discussion based on a text from Scripture. What do you think?

This video is a subtle description of the problem of immature faith. As the video begins, the young lady seems articulate. But as it goes along it becomes increasingly clear that life is really all about her and what she thinks. That of course is a rather teenage mindset:  rebellious with an “I know a few things”  attitude mixed in. In the end she discloses her modus vivendi. She says, “The Catholic Church can help me but in the end, I make up my own truth.”

Posted on

Believe in God? You’re never alone!

In downtown Washington, I noticed this sign on the side of a bus stop. It seems that a group of atheists has purchased advertising space throughout the Washington Metro system with this depressing message.

“To spray paint or not to spray paint?”; That was my question.

I had immediate thoughts of how I could possibly blunt this foolish message.  Though I would never actually do such as thing, the use of spray paint came to mind. I was outraged to say the least. But, the most comforting part of my reaction was that I was not alone in my anger.

Don’t believe in Atheists? Join the Club!

I do not exactly have a poker face so my disgust was fairly obvious to others at the bus stop. Immediately, another of my fellow Washingtonians shared his disgust. Soon enough, several people at bus stop were praising God by talking about the ridiculousness of such an ad campaign.  It should be noted that not one atheist was in sight to defend the sign.

“No weapon formed against you shall prosper!” – Isaiah 54:17

Here is the irony. A sign designed to insult our faith in God and turn others further away from Christ prompted a bunch of strangers to share our testimony of the goodness of God. It was almost like we were having church while waiting for a Metro bus. Now, admittedly, most church services don’t start with a deacon exclaiming, “Can you believe this mess?!” but, it was church nonetheless.  This experience was proof to me that God’s prophecy to Isaiah was true – “No weapon formed again you can prosper.  Every tongue you shall prove false that launches an accusation against you. This is the lot of the servants of the LORD, their vindication from me, says the LORD.” – Is 54:17.

The weapon in this case was a sign at a bus stop insulting our faith.  The result was a group of Christians exclaiming their faith.  When something like this happens, how could you NOT believe in God?

“The New Evangelization”

The Archbishop of Washington recently released a letter entitled “The New Evangelization.” As the title suggests, it concerns itself with the need to spread our faith as well as strengthen the faith of those who already call themselves Catholic. The need for evangelization takes on a new urgency when one realizes that the enemy is hard at work doing the exact opposite – just read the signs.  And remember, if you don’t believe in God, you are more alone than you think!

Check out Cardinal-designate Wuerl’s letter at http://www.adw.org/pastoral/pdf/ADW_PastoralNewE_Eng.pdf

Posted on

What Is Original Sin?

Sometimes Original Sin gets simplified into the eating of an apple. Actually an apple is not mentioned. It is fruit surely but what fruit we do not know. But what’s the big deal about eating an apple or piece of fruit? OK, maybe they shouldn’t have eaten it. But really, did an apple lead to all the pain and grief we experience today?

As you may have guessed, No, it was not an apple or fruit  per se that led to all this. What was the Original Sin, what did it consist of? Consider that Original Sin was actually of cluster of sins: pride, disobedience, ingratitude, lack of trust, and a complete disregard for the wisdom and love of God. I am struck by how the Catechism describes Original Sin:

Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.  All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness. In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God…Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God” (CCC #s 397-398)

Notice the cascading effect that begins with a lack of trust. How did Adam and Eve (and all of us) fail to trust God? Simply in this, God had warned them of a certain tree, the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Pure and simple he warned they stay away from it for it would bring death to their souls. Now to “know” in the Bible always means more than intellectual knowing. To “know” in the Bible means to have deep intimate and personal experience of the the thing or person known. Hence it is clear that God did not want Adam and Eve ever to have to experience the horrible reality of evil. He sought to protect them from its devastating effects. So God’s forbidding was made in protective love. We were called simply to trust God that evil is dreadful and we shouldn’t insist on knowing  that for ourselves, just trust God.

But the Devil tempted us in this sort of way:

“You can’t trust God! He is holding something back from you. Sure he gave this nice garden and all but that is just to placate you. He knows that if you eat that fruit you will become like gods and begin to rival him. No! God is trying to keep you from your true destiny, to rule and even to tell him what to do! Do not trust Him or what he is telling you. it is only to keep you down, he isn’t really good at all. Listen to me. I promise you will not die, you will become like gods!

So there it is Adam and Eve. Who are you going to trust? God who gave you everything or the Devil who has given you nothing but promises something on the other side of the sin? Who will it be?

Sadly, you know the rest of the story. And Adam and Eve’s temptation is repeated in every sin we are tempted to commit.

 “Come on” says the Devil, “God is trying to limit your freedom, keep you down and doesn’t want you to be happy! His demands are unreasonable, he is trying to take away your fun and fulfillment. Sin will make you happy. God’s way is restrictive. Do as you please. Don’t let anyone tell you what to do!”

And so often we buy into it. And are we happy? Maybe for a moment, but the misery of sin is too clear to be denied. The Devil is a liar. But what do we do when we sin? We trust him over God. In so doing the Catechism says we abuse our freedom. How? Because freedom for a Christian is “the capacity to obey God.” We are free when when are able to carry out what God says. Now the world and the Devil say that freedom is about doing whatever you please. No, not if it is sin because sin never leads to freedom, it leads to bondage. Jesus says, “Whoever sins is a slave to sin.” (Jn 8:34)  Look at the world today and try to tell me that sin leads to freedom. Look at the addiction to drugs, alcohol, sex, anger, revenge and greed and tell me that sin leads to freedom. No, sin is never freedom, it is bondage and many get so stuck in destructive behaviors that they don’t know how to stop. The video below powerfully illustrates the horror and bondage of sin, it shows its awful reality. It is not freedom at all, it is sorrow, bondage and humiliation.

In sin, we choose ourselves over God as the text from the Catechism says. We think we will become like gods, but in reality we sink lower than the animals and do things to each other and ourselves that even animals don’t do. God wants to raise us to share in his nature to be sure but we insist that we can do it ourselves. We cannot. Look at our grandiose attempts and tell me if you think we have been successful.

The following video does a pretty good job of depicting where Satan’s promises to Adam and Eve led. Watch it if you dare and remember that the Devil is a liar.

 

Posted on

On Humility in Prayer

I, perhaps like you, have to see folks I love and care about through some difficult periods in their life. One neighbor and parishioner just lost her eight year old daughter to cancer. A number of parishioners are seeking work and praying daily for it, but no work offers seem forth-coming. Still others cry out for the alleviation of any number of different crosses. I too have lots of things for which I pray, and sometimes I get discouraged or even angry when God seems to say, “no” or, “wait.”
One thing I have surely learned about true prayer, and that it is, I have to be humble, very humble. The Scriptures say, we do not know how to pray as we ought (Romans 8:26). Many other translations of this text say even more emphatically: We do not know what we ought to pray for. Yes, it is true, and yet we are often so sure of what is best for us, or best for others. But what we find the desirable outcome is not necessarily the best outcome. And this insight requires of us great humility. We see so little and understand even less. When we ask for some outcome, and it is not wrong to do so, we need to ask humbly. God alone knows the best answer and when to answer. This is humility.
There is an old teaching that basically goes: Many think of prayer as trying to get God to do your will. But true prayer is trying to understand what God’s will is and do it. I heard and African American preacher put it this way:
You got a lotta people that talk about naming and claiming, and calling and hauling…But there’s just something about saying, “THY will be done!” that we’ve forgot.
It’s not wrong to ask. The Book of James says, You have not because you ask not (James 4:2). But we do need to ask with great humility because, truth be told, we don’t really know what is best. James and John came to Jesus one day seeking high positions in the new administration (Kingdom). Jesus said to them, You don’t know what you are asking (Mk 10:38). And the truth is, we don’t.
So ask, but ask humbly.
St. Augustine writes beautifully on this matter in his letter to Proba:
Paul himself was not exempt from such ignorance….To prevent him from becoming puffed-up over the greatness of the revelations that had been given to him, he was given….a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet him, he asked the Lord three times to take it away from him…..even such a great saint’s prayer had to be refused: My grace is enough for you: my power is at its best in weakness. (2 Cor 12:9)
 
So when we are suffering afflictions that might be doing us either good or harm, [we ought to remember that] we do not to know how to pray as we ought. [B]ecause they are hard to endure and painful, because they are contrary to our nature (which is weak) we, like all mankind, pray to have our afflictions taken from us.  [But], we owe this much respect to the Lord our God, that if he does not take our afflictions away, we should not consider ourselves ignored and neglected. But [rather, we] should hope to gain some greater good through the patient acceptance of suffering. For my power is at its best in weakness.
 
These words are written so that we should not be proud of ourselves…. when we ask for something it would be better for us not to get; and also that we should not become utterly dejected if we are not given what we ask for, despairing of God’s mercy towards us. [I]t might be that what we have been asking for could have brought us some still greater affliction, or it could completely ruin us through the corrupting influence of prosperity. In such cases, it is clear that we cannot know how to pray as we ought.
 
Hence if anything happens contrary to our prayer [request], we ought to bear the disappointment patiently, give thanks to God, and be sure that it was better for God’s will to be done than our own.
 
The Mediator himself has given us an example of this. When he had prayed, My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass me by, he transformed the human will that was in him because he had assumed human nature and added: Nevertheless, let it be as you, not I, would have it. Thus, truly, By the obedience of one man many have been made righteous.  (St Augustine Letter to Proba (Ep 130 14.25ff)
This song reminds us that the answer to our prayers is often caught up in the paradox of the cross:

Posted on

Will the Real First Amendment Please Stand Up

There is much ado about the Christine O’Donnell and Chris Coons debate in regard to the matter of church and state. Many have tried to portray Ms. O’Donnell as ignorant of Constitutional Law. I cannot vouch for her overall knowledge of Constitutional Law but Ms. O’Donnell is right on this matter, the phrase, “separation of church and state” occurs nowhere in the US Constitution. Here is what the First Amendment actually says,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (Amendment 1)

To establish a religion is to set forth an officially endorsed State religion and grant it special favor over and against other religious bodies and denominations. The amendment is clear that Congress shall do no such thing. And neither shall Congress act to prohibit the free exercise of religion. There is no call here for some radical separation, as though somehow religion, or religious expression can never interact with Government. Congress opens daily with prayer. The Founding Fathers prayed together and often referenced God.

It is said that Thomas Jefferson wrote in a private letter of a “wall of separation” but, for the record, a private Letter of Jefferson is not the US Constitution and if Jefferson really intended a wall of separation then he never got his own memo. He himself, as President, permitted the funding of Christian churches among the native Americans [1] and frequently, as a public official, mentioned God. One of my favorite series of Jefferson quotes are chiseled on the wall at the Jefferson Memorial:

God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free.

These are primarily quotes from several sources but are from his time as Governor of Virginia. Of the four panels of quotes in the Jefferson Memorial, three of them have Jefferson mentioning God.

The Establishment clause does not forbid a role for religion in the public square or in government. An extreme position is proposed today that seeks to eliminate all public display of religion and to scour the mere mention of religion from public schools and in public buildings and gatherings. This is extreme and novel. It has reached a peak in our time, but most of us who are a little older, remember a time when prayer and religious expression were not banished from public settings. There was a time not long ago when it was still possible to mention Jesus Christ in public schools and refer to Christian teaching as an essential component of American ethics, law and heritage. Today even Santa Claus (hardly a religious figure if you ask me) is shown the door. The word Christmas is banished from schools and replaced by the word holidays (don’t tell them it is just a mispronunciation of “Holy Days”). Go ahead and mention Mohamed and learn the tenants of Islam in the name of “diversity” but don’t even think of mentioning Jesus.

All of this is an extreme misinterpretation of the Establishment Clause and it marches under the banner of “Separation of Church and State” a phrase that  doesn’t occur in the Constitution at all.

A final thought. I have  heard some secularists say that, although God is referenced in the Declaration of Independence, He appears nowhere in the Constitution and that this should be the model, no mention of God. But they are wrong. God, in the person of Our Lord Jesus Christ IS mentioned in the US Constitution. He is saluted in the very closing words, just above the signatures of the Founding Fathers. Here is how the Constitution concludes:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names:

There  He is, “our Lord,” and there follows a year (1787) which is calculated based on the year of our Lord’s birth. If the founding Fathers intended the radical interpretation of Establishment Clause employed by secularists today, they would never have concluded their seminal document with a reference to “our Lord.”

The phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the US Constitution.