Over 22 years ago as I was finishing seminary and about to be ordained my spiritual director gave me some advice on seeking a new spiritual director in my diocese. “Look for some one who has suffered,” He said. At the time I wondered about this but have come to find that it was true.
Suffering brings a profound wisdom if it is endured with faith. I have also discovered this in my own life. As much as I have hated any suffering I have endured I have to admit it has brought gifts in strange packages. Through it I discovered gifts and strengths I did not know I had. Through it I experienced things I would have avoided. Through I learned to seek help and not depend so much on myself. Through it I became better equipped to help others in their struggles. Through suffering my faith grew and so did my compassion and generosity for others who have struggled.
The scriptures say that “A broken humbled heart the Lord will not scorn” (Ps 51). A few years ago my current spiritual director shared a strange saying with me: Everything needs a crack in it, that’s how the light gets in.” Yes indeed, the light gets in through a broken heart, a heart with fissures or openings. Rarely does the light get in through a perfect wall, a perfect and strong barrier.
This is a painful truth to be sure and it makes me want to run. But in the end I have learned that it is true. God has done more with my brokenness than my strength. And, in a paradoxical way, my brokenness has become more and more my strength. I wonder if you have experienced the same? Where would we be without our crosses and sufferings? What do we have of true value that has not come at the price of suffering?
Let me get out the way and let a Saint explain it. This is from St. Rose of Lima whose feast we celebrated yesterday. This is an excerpt of what was in the breviary:
Our Lord and Saviour lifted up his voice and said with incomparable majesty: “Let all men know that grace comes after tribulation. Let them know that without the burden of afflictions it is impossible to reach the height of grace. Let them know that the gifts of grace increase as the struggles increase. Let men take care not to stray and be deceived. This is the only true stairway to paradise, and without the cross they can find no road to climb to heaven.”
When I heard these words, a strong force came upon me and seemed to place me in the middle of a street, so that I might say in a loud voice to people of every age, sex and status: “Hear, O people; hear, O nations. I am warning you about the commandment of Christ by using words that came from his own lips: We cannot obtain grace unless we suffer afflictions. We must heap trouble upon trouble to attain a deep participation in the divine nature, the glory of the sons of God and perfect happiness of soul.”
Suffer well fellow Christians. Beg deliverance to be sure but realize that even in the delay of relief, God is up to something good.
If this post seems familiar, it is. I am away on vacation this week and some (not all) of my posts will be repeats.
Back in Seminary days we would often study the question of authorship when it came to books of the Bible. Especially in modern times there are extensive debates about such things. I remember being annoyed at the question in most cases since I didn’t really care who the Holy Spirit gave the text to, in the end, God was the author.
I was also annoyed at some of the premises used to reject authorship. For example, it was widely held by modern scholars that St. Paul couldn’t possibly be the author of the the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus) since the description of the Church was “far too developed” to have been written prior to 65 AD. Never mind that the Acts of the Apostles describes many of the “dubious” hierarchal elements (presbyters (e.5. Acts 14:23), deacons (e.g. acts 6:3), and apostles (bishops). Never mind any of that, for us moderns there is the tendency to consider as “primitive” early eras. So Paul’s authorship was questioned by many in those days.
John’s gospel too was considered far too lofty by modern scholars to have been written by a “simple fisherman.” Where could this “unlettered man” have gotten such profound and mystical insights? Again, never mind that he may have been as old as 90 when he authored the gospel, and may have pondered it for some 60 years. Never mind that he lived for at least part of that time with the sinless Virgin Mary, who knew her son as no one knew him and saw him with sinless eyes. No, never mind the power of grace and infused vision. No, it was too much for many modern and rationalistic scholars to accept that a simple fisherman could pull it off. It must have been by some other more lettered man like “John the Elder,” or it must have been other smarter types in the Johanine community, or school that authored this.
Here too I was just a simple 25 year old seminarian but it seemed to me that far too many modern interpreters stressed only the human dimension of Revelation. Something more mystical was missing from their view. That God could somehow give a profound vision to the early Apostles, and an infused mysticism was almost wholly absent in their analysis. Even as a 25 year old I knew better than to exclude that. I was young, but had already experienced aspects of the charismatic movement where inspiration and gifts were to be sought and expected.
And had not Jesus himself said to the Apostles, But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you (Jn 14:26).
I recently came across a quote from Origen, the early 3rd Century Father, whose insight into John struck me as profound and telling, deeply faithful and challenging for every Christian. Pondering himself, where John “got all this” Origen says,
We may therefore make bold to say that the Gospels are the first fruits of all the Scriptures, but that of the Gospels that of John is the first fruits. No one can apprehend the meaning of it except he that has lain on Jesus’ breast and received from Jesus Mary to be his mother also. (Origen, Commentary on John, 6)
There is was, the lynchpin, the truest answer. John had mystical vision and saw the Lord in the loftiest way because he knew and experienced the heart of the Lord, and had Mary for his Mother. John was a brilliant theologian and possessed of deep insight, less because he knew books, and more because he knew the Lord, heart to heart.
And how surely and truly Mary’s role in this cannot be overlooked. Think of the conversations she and John must have had, the mystical prayer she must have enjoyed, and shared with John, the memories and the things that only the heart of a sinless mother could see and know. How John must have marveled at the gift of her. And how he too, who had known the heart of the Lord, and rested at his heart, at the Last Supper must have been able to pray and converse with her.
Speculation you say? Perhaps. But a vision I share with the great theologian Origen. It was love that gave John insight, it was relationship with Jesus, and with Mother Mary, by Jesus own gift, that his mystical gospel took flight.
And what of you and me? How will we gain insight into the Lord, and the truth of his Gospel? Books and learning? Studying Greek? Reading commentaries? Sure, all well and good. But these things are best at telling you what the text is saying. But it takes a deep relationship with the Lord to see Scripture’s mystical meaning.
Study? Sure. But don’t forget to pray! Scripture comes from the heart of the Lord and it is only there, by entering the heart of the Lord, and living there through prayer that Scripture’s truest meaning will ever be grasped.
Having trouble getting there? No one loves and understands Jesus like his Mother Mary. Ask her intercession and help, she will show you the heart of her Son.
Jesus gave John two gifts: the gift of his heart, and the gift of his mother. And John soared to such places that people could ask, “How did he get all this?” But you know how.
He offers you and me the same. Do you want vision, do you want to appreciate the depths of scripture and all God’s truth? Do you want the eyes of your heart opened to new mysteries and mystical experience? Accept the gifts Jesus offers: the gift of his heart, the gift of his mother.
Consider well the admonition of one of the most learned men who ever lived:No one can apprehend the meaning of it except he that has lain on Jesus’ breast and received from Jesus Mary to be his mother also.
Here is Fr. Thomas Luis de Victoria at his most mystical: O Magnum Mysterium (O Great mystery and wondrous sacrament, that animals would witness the birth of Christ. O Blessed Virgin whose womb merited to carry the Lord Jesus Christ, Alleluia!)
I know! I apologize for using one of those rather haughty theological words: Hermeneutic! I also know that many DO in fact know what the word means. But just in case you don’t let’s define. Fundamentally a “hermeneutic” is an interpretive key, a way of seeing and understanding the world.
So what do I mean when I speak of a “hermeneutic of suspicion?” Well, consider the times in which we live. Most people are suspicious of just about everything and everyone! It is a common and usual worldview that politicians lie, the Government is lying, big business is lying, advertisers are lying, the Church is lying. It is presumed that cover-ups are common and, even if there is not outright lying most people and organizations are just acting out of selfish motives and self-serving agendas. If their motives are not selfish they are otherwise bad motives: Liberal! Conservative! Bigoted! Homophobe! Hater! Infidel! Socialist! Selfish Capitalist! Reactionary! Well, you get the point. Everyone is simply dismissed because they have an ”agenda” and this agenda is somehow less than pure, fair or neutral.
You may well think that some or much of what is said abouve is true. But in pondering this all-pervasive “hermeneutic of suspicion” I wonder if there do not have to be some limits to its application and conclusions. Is “everyone” really lying or just acting out of a less than pure agenda? Is it always wrong to have an agenda? Is self interest always a bad thing? Is it always wrong for groups to seek to influence the national discussion even if that influence serves their interest and worldview? Clearly lying is wrong and there is such a thing as lying but is everything I call lying really lying?
I don’t have simple answers to these questions and PLEASE understand I am not some moral relativist who is simply asking for everything to be murky and gray. But our culture is really overheated at the moment with suspicion. There is a pervasive presumption of the worst in terms of motives, sincerity and the like. It is getting harder and harder to have any kind of a conversation at all about issues without the names and the labels sallying forth and the impugning of motives. I don’t have a simple formula to come up with the right balance between a healthy skepticism and pathological suspicion but I would like to propose a few benchmarks toward a better balance.
1. Everyone DOES have an agenda and that is OK. It’s not wrong to have a worldview and to seek to influence others to that way of thinking. The very word “agenda” is intended as pejorative but it need not be. The problem seems to come up when everyone is defensive about having and “agenda.” Since that is somehow supposed to be “wrong” we start to do unhealthy things. We often try to hide our truest agenda and paper it over with less than sincere descriptions of what we think and what we want. We start to talk in code and engage in political correctness, jargon and other circumlocutions that are not always true or at least frank. We become less transparent and this fuels suspicion. If we can just accept that we all have agendas and that’s fine, then we become more frank and honest, and suspicion recedes. In terms of full disclosure let me share my agenda: I am a Roman Catholic Christian and I believe everything that the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals. I believe Jesus Christ Founded the Catholic Church, that it is the one true Church. It is my desire that everyone on this planet become Roman Catholic and thus embrace the fullness of the faith given by Jesus Christ and revealed through the Apostles. Clear enough? That’s my agenda.
2. Self interest is not always bad– I do a lot of organizing work in the neighborhood working with the Washington Interfaith Network, a local chapter of the Industrial Areas Foundation. One of our key principles is to help people identify their interests and then act upon them. If they want more affordable housing, great! Then let’s work to find others who have a similar interest and build power around that shared interest. Self interest can be a powerful motivator toward great ends. Instead of being suspicious and cynical that people have self interest in mind, what if we just accepted that this is the universal human condition and used it to engage people for good ends? It’s not wrong to care about myself. I really ought to get my needs met and that also helps others because I am less of a burden on them. If ALL we care about is our self that is a problem. But most people instinctively understand that their self interest is linked to the good of others too. My life is more secure and stable if there is a healthy, strong and vibrant neighborhood. So I can be engaged around my own interests to work for a just and healthy world. The fact that I get something out it does make my motives somehow impure. But the hermeneutic of suspicion demands “pure” motives and unrealistically defines pure as completely selfless. What if we just stopped all that and accepted that people act on what interests them and that it isn’t necessarily bad. Accepting this makes us less suspicious and cynical.
3. Faith and Trust in the Church are an essential balance to the hermeneutic of suspicion– While it is true that we have to be sober that live in a world where lies are told and where motives are not always pure, it is also true that we have to refuse radical suspicion and cynicism. There IS truth, and there are those who do speak and teach the truth. We must find and seek those harbors of the truth and build and lower our anchor there. For Catholics, the harbor of the truth is the Church. Scripture describes the Church as the Pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). One of the great tragedies of the hermeneutic of suspicion is that many Catholics have adopted this attitude toward the Church. Yes, there is sin and even corruption in the Church, but despite that the Church has never failed to hand on the authentic truth of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ does speak through his Church. I emphatically trust that fact. I believe and profess all that the Catholic Church believes, teaches and proclaims to have been revealed by God. I can do no other. This is my faith. I trust God and believe that he speaks through the Catholic Church despite whatever human weakness is evident in the Church. God can write straight with crooked lines and he can teach infallibly even despite human weakness in the Church. Without a harbor of truth the hermeneutic of suspicion can and will overwhelm us. We will mistrust everyone and everything and have no real way to sort out all the conflicting claims and counterclaims. Without faith and trust both in God and in the Church I am lost, adrift on a sea of suspicion and cynicism and the hermeneutic of suspicion overwhelms me. This is sadly true today of so many who are cut off from the truth thinking they can trust no one. In them the hermeneutic of suspicion has its most devastating effect. The lack of trust locks them into a tiny world, dominated by suspicion and doubt. Only the gift of faith and trust can diminish such deep suspicion. With faith we can measure all things by God’s truth and know what is true from what is false. We have a measuring rod to judge what is true and thus we need not flee to suspicion.
The Gospel today sets forth the biblical basis for the Office of Peter, the Office of the Papacy, for Peter’s successors are the Popes. The word “Pope” is simply an English version (via Anglo-Saxon and Germanic tongues) of the word “papa.” The Pope is affectionately called “Papa” in Italian and Spanish as an affectionate indication that he is the father of the family, the Church.
That Peter receives an office, and not simply a charismatic designation we will discuss later. As to certain objections regarding the office of the Papacy, we will also deal later. But for now lets look at the basic establishment of the Office of Peter in three steps.
I. The Inquiry that Illustrates – The text says, Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi and he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?“
It should be noted that, in asking these questions, Jesus is not merely curious about what people think of him. He seems, rather, to be using these questions as a vehicle by which to teach the apostles, and us, about how the truth is adequately revealed and guaranteed.
Jesus’ first two questions reveal the inadequacy of two common methods:
1. The Poll – Jesus asks who the crowds say he is. In modern times we love to take polls, and many moderns put a lot of weight in what polls say. More than just politics, many people, Catholics among them, like to point out that X% of Catholics think this, or that, about moral teachings, or doctrines and disciplines. It is as if the fact that more than 50% of Catholics think something, it must be true, and that the Church should change her teaching based on this.
But, as this gospel makes clear, taking a poll doesn’t necessarily yield the truth. In fact ALL the assertions of the crowd were wrong, no matter what percentage thought them. Jesus is not John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets redivivus. So, running the Church by poll taking or democracy seems not to be the model that works.
2. The Panel – Jesus, having taught this implicitly, now turns to a panel of experts, a “blue ribbon committee,” if you will. He asks the twelve, “Who do you (apostles) say that I am?” Here we simply get silence. Perhaps they were looking around like nervous students in a classroom not wanting to answer, lest they look like a fool. The politics on the panel leads not to truth, but to a kind of self-serving, politically correct silence.
That Peter finally speaks up is true. But, as Jesus will say, he does not do this because he is a member of the panel, but for another reason altogether.
Hence the blue ribbon panel, the committee of experts, is not adequate in setting forth the religious truth of who Jesus is.
And through this line of questioning, Jesus instructs through inquiry. Polls and panels are not adequate in yielding the firm truth as to his identity. All we have are opinions, or politically correct silence. Having set forth this inadequacy, the Gospel now presses forth to describe the plan of God in adequately setting forth the truths of faith.
II. The Individual that is Inspired – – The text says, Simon Peter said in reply,”You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
We are taught here not merely that Peter spoke, but also how he came to know the truth. Jesus is very clear to teach us that Peter spoke rightly, not merely because he was the smartest, (he probably wasn’t), or because some one else told him, (Jesus is clear that flesh and blood did not reveal this to him), and not merely because because he guessed, and just happen to get the right answer. Jesus teaches that Peter came to know the truth and speak it because God the Father revealed it to him. God the Father inspires Peter. There is a kind of anointing at work here.
So here is God’s methodology when it comes to adequately revealing and guaranteeing the truths of the faith: he anoints Peter.
It’s not polls, or panels that God uses, it’s Peter.
And while truths may emerge in the wider Church, reflecting what is revealed, it is only with Peter and his successors that such views can be definitively set forth, and their truth adequately guaranteed. Thus, the other apostles are not merely bypassed by God, but He anoints Peter to unite them and give solemn declaration to what they have seen and heard.
The Catechism says of Peter and his successors, the popes:
When Christ instituted the Twelve, he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them….The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head. This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”
The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head. As such, this college has supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff. The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council. But there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #s 880-884 selected)
All these truths point back to this moment when we see how God himself chooses to operate.
And note too, the dimension of faith we are called to have. We are to assent to the Pope’s teaching and leadership not merely because we think he is smarter, or because it might happen that he had power, riches other worldly means that might impress us or compel us to assent. Rather, no, we assent to the Pope because, by faith, we believe he is inspired by God. It is not flesh and blood in which we put our trust, it is God himself, whom we believe has acted on our behalf by anointing someone to affirm the truth, and adequately guarantee that truth to be revealed by God.
And this then leads to the final stage wherein Jesus sets forth a lasting office for Peter.
III. The Installation that is Initiated – The text says, And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Jesus does not merely praise Simon for a moment of charismatic insight. He goes further, and declares that he will build his very Church upon Simon, and thus he calls him, Peter (Rock). And here too, he does not merely mean this is a personal gift or recognition that will die with Peter. In giving him the keys, he is establishing an office, not merely indicating a personal promotion for Peter. This will be God’s way of strengthening and uniting the Church. In Luke’s Gospel Jesus says more of this:
Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, all that he might sift you all like wheat, but I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith may not fail; and when thou hast turned again, strengthen thy brethren. (Luke 22:31)
Hence, it is clear once again that God’s plan for the Church is to strengthen one man, Peter and his successors, that in turn the whole Church may be strengthened and united.Thus the Lord Jesus establishes not only Peter, but also his office. This is God’s vision and plan for his Church.
It is true many have objected to this teaching. There is no time here to do a full apologetical reply to every objection. But frankly most of the objections amount to a kind of wishful thinking by some, who want this text to mean something other than what it plainly means. Nothing could be clearer that the fact that Jesus is establishing Peter and an office which will serve as a foundation for the unity and strength of his Church.
Some object that within verses Peter will be called “satan” and will later deny Christ. But Jesus knew all this, and still said and did what he does here.
Others object that Jesus is head and foundation, that he is the Rock. True enough, but apparently Jesus never got the objectors’ memo, for it is he himself who calls Peter rock, and establishes him with the authority to bind and loose. It is also true that both Jesus and Peter can be head and rock, in terms of primary and secondary causality (more on that HERE). And yet again, that Peter and his successors are head and rock by making visible and being the means through which Christ exercises his headship and foundational aspect.
Finally, to return to the title of this post, “If no one is Pope, EVERYONE is pope!” For the fact is, without a visible head, there is no principle on earth for unity in the Church. The Protestant experiment tried to replace the Pope with scripture and gave it sole authority. But Protestants cannot agree on what Scripture says, and have no earthly way to resolve their conflicts. While they say that authority resides in Scripture alone, the fact is, in claiming the anointing of the Holy Spirit and thus the ability to properly interpret Scripture, they really place the locus of authority within themselves, and become the very pope they denounce. Having denied that there is a Pope they become one themselves. If no one is pope, everyone is pope.
I have read that some objectors think Catholics arrogant in asserting that we have a Pope whom we trust to be anointed by God to teach us without error on faith and morals. But what is more arrogant, to claim there is a Pope other than me, or to in fact act like one myself?
In the end, the Protestant experiment is a failed one. Many estimates place the number of Protestant denominations as high as 30,000. I personally think this is slightly exaggerated, but not much. They all claim the Scriptures as their source of truth but differ on many, very essential matters, such as the necessity of baptism, once saved always saved, sexual morality, authority etc. When they cannot resolve things they simply subdivide. There is an old joke, told even among protestants that goes:
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!” Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
A strange little joke, and not entirely fair since most Protestants of different denominations I know get along fine personally. But the truth is, the denominations disagree over many very essential things. The Protestant experiment is a failure that leads only to endless divisions. The Church needs a visible head. The Bible alone does not suffice, for there are endless disagreements on how to interpret it. Some one must exist to who all look and agree that he will resolve the differences after listening.
Jesus has installed an individual in this role to manifest his office of rock and head and that individual is Peter and his successors.
Here’s a light-hearted video I put together commemorating the Pope’s many visits to unite and strengthen us.
There is an old African American Spiritual that says,
Over my head, I hear music in the air!
There must be a God somewhere.
Yes, God has to exist. How else could we explain music?
Now, please understand, I speak here, not a theologian, but as a poet; not as a philosopher, but as lover of music. And in the mode of poet and lover, I want to say that, for me, music is the 6th proof for the existence of God. St. Thomas designated five proofs for the existence of God (motion, efficient cause, contingency, perfection and design). I am not in his league, I am just hitchhiking a ride on his idea in a poetic, not a theological way.
Yes, I know God exists for, among other reasons: I hear music in the air. There must be a God somewhere!
It was through music (and beauty) that God called me (for I joined the Church choir to meet the pretty girls who sang there). And God put a song in my heart and called me through the majesty and exquisite beauty of Church music: The metrical march of the hymn and the joy of playing its counterpoint with my feet at the organ; the sighing of Gregorian chant, almost as if singing in tongues; the mystical harmony of Renaissance polyphony; the joy and fun of singing Mozart, the dignity of Bach; the soaring majesty of a Viennese Classical Mass, the haunting beauty of the African American Spirituals in their pentatonic scale; the exuberance of Gospel music so centered on the greatness of God. Yes, these have been God’s gift to me whereby he has spoken to the depths of my soul.
There is an old saying:
Bach gave us God’s Word, Mozart gave us God’s laughter, Beethoven gave us God’s fire. God gave us music that we might pray without words. — quote from outside a German opera house
Scripture says the Lord puts music in our hearts and that many, by it will be summoned to faith: The Lord set my feet on a rock and gave me a firm place to stand. He put a new song in my mouth, a hymn of praise to our God. Many will see and fear and put their trust in the LORD. (Psalm 40:3-4) I can only say, Amen. This is exactly what happened for me.
And music seems to be a unique gift of God to the human person. Animals do not sing. Oh perhaps some say the birds do “sing” but it sounds more like a Morse code type of communication than true song. Only the human person, by the charism of God’s grace, has produced the majesty of music, and surely it emerges from the deep mysterious places of our soul. So singing is a special trait of human beings and part of our dignity.
And to some extent only humans grasp it. I have often marveled at how unaffected by a great song my pets have been. I can be tapping my toe, be moved to tears, filled with zeal by a song and the dogs and cats I have had just lie there bored. Proof again that music is distinctly human and requires an immortal, God breathed soul to grasp it.
Yes, music can stir, it can call forth tears, it makes us swell with healthy pride and exuberance, it can instill joy, provoke our deepest thoughts, and it make us want to dance. Music unites, it also divides, some love what others hate, it can make you mad, it can make you sad, it can make you glad but seldom are we merely neutral as to it’s quality or influence.
The genius and variety of music is astonishingly remarkable: from country to classical, modern to medieval, blues to ballads, solos to symphonies, jazz to jewsharp, renaissance to rap, and polyphony to parade music.
Music is the soul’s way to exhale, to express itself beyond words. It bespeaks the soul’s longing, its sighing, its joy and its sorrow, words are optional. Appreciate anew this miracle of human existence, this unique gift to the human person, this flash of beauty and dignity in the soul of every human person.
Of course God exists. One way I know he exists is that he put a song in my heart and gave me ears to hear his glory:
Over my head I hear music in the air!
There must be a God somewhere.
–
Photo Credit: Screen shot from The Sound of Music
Here’s a little video I put together based on the spiritual: Over My Head
Continuing in the theme of marriage that we had earlier this week, there is a very humorous video at the bottom of this page, one I often use for couples I prepare for marriage.
It centers on the fact that a woman is very different from a man. The physical differences are obvious but these physical differences arise from important differences in the soul. It is the soul that is the form of the body and the qualities of the male and female soul give rise to physical differences. I know that this is politically incorrect today, but it is true. It is a common modern error to be dismissive of the profound differences between the sexes. No one can deny the physical differences, but too often they are dismissed as surface only, of no real significance. But the truth is that our bodies are expressions of the faculties of our soul and male and female differences are far more than skin deep.
It remains true that these differences often give rise to tensions in the marriage and the overall relationships between men and women. That men and women perceive differently, think differently, and have different emotional experiences is just a fact and it is always healthy to recognize and accept reality. Too often in the modern age there has been a tendency to dismiss these deep differences as just archetypes of bygone “sexist” era. But what ends up happening is that an expectation is created that these differences will just go away when we decide to ignore them or pretend they don’t exist. But guess what , they don’t. And thus resentments and anger follow. Too many marriages end in power struggles because neither spouse can accept that it was not good for them to be alone and that God gave them a spouse who, by design, is very different so that they could be challenged and completed.
Original sin has intensified our pain at the experience of these given differences. The Catechism links the tension surrounding these difference to the Fall of Adam and Eve:
[The] union [of husband and wife] has always been threatened by discord, a spirit of domination, infidelity, jealousy, and conflicts that can escalate into hatred and separation. This disorder can manifest itself more or less acutely, and can be more or less overcome according to the circumstances of cultures, eras, and individuals, but it does seem to have a universal character. According to faith the disorder we notice so painfully does not stem from the nature of man and woman, nor from the nature of their relations, but from sin. As a break with God, the first sin had for its first consequence the rupture of the original communion between man and woman. Their relations were distorted by mutual recriminations; their mutual attraction, the Creator’s own gift, changed into a relationship of domination and lust; and the beautiful vocation of man and woman to be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth was burdened by the pain of childbirth and the toil of work. Nevertheless, the order of creation persists, though seriously disturbed. To heal the wounds of sin, man and woman need the help of the grace that God in his infinite mercy never refuses them. Without his help man and woman cannot achieve the union of their lives for which God created them “in the beginning.” (CCC #s 1606-1608)
One important cure for the disorders of marriage is to return to an appreciation of the necessity of our differences. Though our differences can be be intensified by sin, it is a fact that God made us different for a reason. These differences help spouses to complete each other. A husband should say, “My wife has some things important to teach me. I am incomplete without her.” Likewise the wife should be able to say that her husband has important things to teach her and that he somehow completes her. In this way we move beyond power struggles and what is right and wrong in every case and learn to experience that some tension is good. No tension, no change. God intends many of these differences to change and complete spouses. God calls the very difference humans he has made “suitable” partners.
And humor never hurts. Here is a wonderful and funny comedy routine about the differences between a man’s brain and a woman’s brain. Humor is often the best of medicines to defuse some of the tensions that arise from our differences. Vive la difference!
(By the way, as with any humor, stereotypes are used a bit here. But things are usually funny because they ring true. It is also a fact that not every individual man or woman has every trait described here (for example, I don’t have a very big “nothing box”) but enjoy this video for the humorous descriptions of the general situation).
I am very happy about, and look forward to the new English translation of the Roman Missal that will begin use in November. However, I have had challenges in explaining to the faithful what the essential problem with the current translation is. When the distinction between “formal equivalence” and “dynamic equivalence” is mentioned, many eyes glaze over or puzzled looks appear. I have tried to take an example of a prayer and show the difference in three columns: Latin, new translation, and current translation (as I do below). But asking people to compare three different columns, one of them in a language unknown to most of them, presents problems too.
But, at the bottom of this post there is a great video that does a wonderful job explaining the difference between the method of “dynamic equivalence” (translating the gist of a prayer, and capturing its basic thoughts), versus “formal equivalence” (translating a prayer in a more literal, word for word way). The video shows the difference with a basic down to earth example and then explains why the difference is important. While it’s geared to teens, adults can benefit greatly from it as well. See what you think.
Example of difference – As Fr. Z. often does to great effect, the opening prayer (collect) for this coming Sunday shows the different approaches of the current translation and the new translation.
LATIN: Deus, qui fidelium mentes unius efficis voluntatis, da nobis id amare, quod praecipis, id desiderare, quod promittis, ut inter mundanas varietates, ibi nostra fixa sint corda, ubi vera sunt gaudia.
NEW TRANSLATION (formal (word for word) equivalence) O God, who cause the minds of the faith to unite in a single purpose, grant your people to love what you command and to desire what you promise., that amidst the uncertainties of this world, our hearts may be fixed, where true gladness is found.
CURRENT TRANSLATION (dynamic (gist) equivalence). Father, help us to seek the values that will bring us lasting joy in this changing world. In our desire for what you promise make us one in mind and heart.
As you can see the current translation (lame duck, as Fr. Z calls it), gets the gist of the Latin prayers. But there are important omissions.
First it proposes that lasting joys can be found in this world, rather than in heaven, which the Latin says.
The current translation rather weakly ask that we will be helped to “seek the values” whereas the Latin more vigorously asks that we may “love what you command.”
The Latin speaks of hearts as being “fixed,” whereas the current translation muddles this into our joys (not our hearts) being “lasting.”
Etc.
It will be seen that the current translation is in much need of help and that the new translation fixes the problems of the old by using a formal equivalence (word for word) translation as opposed to the “dynamic equivalence” (a general summation of the idea) translation currently in use (but not for long)!
Clearly we need more than the “gist of a prayer,” to pray with the universal Church. The new translation will be welcomed by this pastor.
Fr. Zuhlsdorf of course is the master of analyzing these collects and you can see his more expansive treat of this prayer here: 21st Sunday in Ordinary Time
Yesterday on the blog we discussed some of the media back and forth on some statements by candidate Michele Bachmann. On of the issues is of a wife being submitted to her husband. Mrs. Bachmann at first indicated support for this biblical principle but has since, in the face of questioning backed off from it more than a little. You can read more of that in yesterday’s post here: Michele Bachmann Interview A portion of the video interview on marriage is also at the bottom of this post.
In yesterday’s post I indicated I wanted to spend some time today setting for this biblical principle of the headship of the husband. It is a headship rooted in love and service, not in power, but it is a headship.
There are cultural and worldly notions that underlie the rejection by many Catholics and Christians of the biblical teaching on the Headship of the husband. Indeed, such a concept is unpopular in our culture which usually gets pretty worked up over questions of authority in general. But that is because the worldly notion of authority usually equates authority only with power, dignity, rights and being somehow “better,” rather than equating authority with love, and service. Consider what Jesus says about authority:
Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority and make their importance felt. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mk 10:41-45)
Jesus describes then sets aside the worldly notion of authority wherein those in authority wield their power by “lording it over” using fear, and the trappings of power. But in the Christian setting there is authority (there has to be) but it exists for service.
Consider a teacher in a classroom. She has authority. She has to in order to unify and keep order. But she has that authority in order to serve the children, not to berate them and revel in power over over them. The same is true for a police officer who has his authority not for his own sake, but for ours so he can protect us and preserve order.
Further, having authority in a Christian setting does not make one better, for authority is always exercised among equals. Our greatest dignity is to be a child of God, and none of us are more or less so because we hold any position of authority.
But, truth be told, worldly notions of authority affect Christians and many harbor resentments to authority because they think of it in worldly ways. Further, many who have authority (and most of us have some) can also fall prey to worldly notions of authority and abuse their leadership role.
The key to understanding the authority of a husband and father in the home is set aside worldly notions of authority and see the teaching in the light of the Christian understanding of authority as existing for love and service, to unite and preserve.
With that in mind let us turn to the “unpopular” and politically incorrect notion of wives being submissive to their husbands.The teaching is found in a number of places in the New Testament: Ephesians 5:22; Col 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1. In all places the wording is quite similar that wives are to be submissive, that is under the authority, of their husbands. In each case however, the teaching is balanced by an exhortation that the husband is to love and be considerate of his wife.
The most well known of the texts is from Ephesians 5, wherein the infamous line is: Wives should be subordinate to their Husbands as to the Lord. For the Husband is the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is the Head of the Church…so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything; (Eph 5:20-21, 23) Apparently the Holy Spirit didn’t get the memo that we don’t think and talk like that today! 🙂
Alright, so maybe it grates on modern ears today but don’t just dismiss what God teaches here. One of the great dangers of this passage is that it is so startling to modern ears that many people tune out after the first line into their own thoughts and reactions and thus miss the rest of what God has to say. It will be noticed that there is text that follows, and before a man gloats at the first line, or a women reacts with anger or sadness, we do well to pay attention to the rest of the text, which spells out the duties of a husband. You see if you’re going to be the head of a household there are certain requirements that have to be met. God’s not playing around here or choosing sides. He has a comprehensive plan for husbands that is demanding and requires him to curb any notions that authority is about power and to remember that, for a Christian, authority is always given so that the one who has it may serve. And before we look at submission we might do well to look at the duties of the husband.
So what are the requirements for a husband?
1. Husbands, love your wives– Pay attention men, don’t just tolerate your wife, don’t just bring home money, don’t just love in some intellectual sort of way. LOVE your wife with all your heart. Beg God for the grace to love your wife tenderly, powerfully and unconditionally. Did you hear what God says? LOVE your wife! Now he goes on to tell you to love her in three ways: passionately, purifyingly and providingly.
2. Passionate love – The text says a man is to love his wife: even as Christ loved the Church and handed himself over for her. The Greek word, παραδίδωμι (paradidomi), translated here as, “handed over,” always refers in the New Testament to Jesus’ crucifixion. Husbands, are you willing to give your life for your wife and children? Are you willing to die to yourself and give your life as a daily sacrifice for them? God instructs you to love your wife (and children) with the same kind of love he has for his Bride the Church. That kind of love is summed up in the cross. Love your wife passionately, be willing to suffer for her, be willing to make sacrifices for her and the children.
3. Purifying love – The text says of Christ, and the husband who is to imitate him, that Christ wills to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Now a husband cannot sanctify his wife in the same way God can. But what a husband is called to do is to help his wife and children grow in their relationship to Jesus Christ. He is first to be under God’s authority himself, and thus make it easier for his wife and children to live out their baptismal commitments. He ought to a spiritual leader in his home, praying with his wife and children, reading scripture and seeing to it that his home is a place where God is loved and obeyed, first of all by him. His wife should not have to drag him to Church, he should willingly help her to grow in holiness, and pray with her every day. And he should become more holy as well and thus make it easier for his wife to live the Christian life. He should be the first teacher of his children, along with his wife in the ways of faith.
Too many American homes do not feature a man being the spiritual leader of his house. If any one is raising up the kids in the Lord it is usually the wife. But Scripture has in mind that the husband and father should be a spiritual leader to his wife and children. Scripture says, Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord (Eph 6:4). Fathers and husbands need to step up here and not leave all the burden to his wife.
4. Providing love – So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it– Husbands, take care of your wife in her needs. She needs more than food money and shelter, these days she can get a lot of that for herself. What she needs even more is your love, understanding, and appreciation. She needs for you to be a good listener and wants an attentive husband who is present to her. Like any human being she needs reassurance and affirmation. Tell her of your love and appreciation, don’t just presume she knows. Show care for your wife, attend to her needs just like you instinctively do for your own self. Encourage her with the kids. Confirm her authority over the kids and teach them to respect their mother. Show her providing love also by taking up your role and duties as a father who is involved with his kids. That’s what God is teaching here.
OK, so scripture DOES teach that a wife should be submitted to her husband. But what kind of husband does scripture have in mind? A husband who really loves his wife, who is a servant leader, who is makes sacrifices for his wife, who is prayerful and spiritual, submitted to God’s authority and who cares deeply for his wife and her needs. The same God who teaches submission (and he does) also teaches these things clearly for the husband. The teaching must be taken as a whole. But all that said, there IS a teaching on wives being submitted to their husbands (properly understood).
And there is just no way around it, no matter how much the modern age wants to insist there doesn’t need to be headship, there does. Every organization needs a head. Consider your own body first. With two heads you’re a freak, with no head you are dead. The members of your body need a head to unify the parts, otherwise there is disunity, death and decay. Every organization needs headship, a final decider, to whom all look when consensus on significant issues cannot otherwise be reached. The Protestants have tried to have a “church” without a head, without a Pope, and behold the division. Even this Country, which we like to call a democracy, is not actually a pure democracy. There are legislators, judges, law enforcers and many other people and mechanisms who exercise local, federal and final headship and authority.
Thus in a family, where consensus and compromise may often win the day, nevertheless needs a head, a final decider, to whom all look and all submit, to resolve conflicts that cannot be resolved otherwise. Scripture assigns this task to the husband and father. Headship just has to be. But please remember to shed your worldly notions of headship when considering the teaching of Scripture and remember, headship, authority, is for love and service, it is for unity and preservation, not for power, prestige, trappings and superiority.
For more on this consider listening to my sermon Teaching on Marriage in mp3 format. But beware, It is 35 minutes! Consider downloading it if you can’t listen just now. You can download this and other sermons of mine by going here: http://frpope.com/audio/recordings.php and then right clicking on the title of any talk and selecting the “Save Target As” option. You can also get my sermons at iTunes. Just search on my name.
Here is the video clip where Michele Bachmann is attacked for saying a woman should be submitted and then backs down. Please note however, I am not sure a husband’s servant leadership means that he should force his wife to take a law course she does not want to take. Such an exercise of authority hardly seems necessary or proper.
–
–
This video clip is from the movie Fireproof and depicts a heartfelt apology from a husband who realizes he has not loved his wife as he should. A beautiful movie available at Amazon if you have never seen it.
