The Feast of the Assumption Is Our Feast Too

This year we are privileged to celebrate the Feast of the Assumption of Mary into heaven on a Sunday. Let’s ponder this feast in three stages:

1. Explained – To be “assumed” means to be taken up by God bodily into heaven. As far back as the Church can remember we have celebrated the fact that Mary was taken up into heaven. We do not just acknowledge that her soul was taken to heaven,  as is the case with all the rest of the faithful who are taken there (likely after purgation). Rather Mary was taken up, soul AND body into heaven after her sojourn on this earth was complete. There is no earthly tomb containing her body, neither are there relics of her body to be found among the Christian faithful. This is our ancient memory and what we celebrate today, Mary was taken up, body and soul into heaven.

2. Exemplified – The actual event of the Assumption is not described in Scripture. However, there are assumptions recorded in the Scriptures and the concept is thus biblical.

  1. It happened to Enoch in the Old Testament The Book of Genesis records: Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away (Gen. 5:24). Hebrews 11: 5 elaborates: By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was attested as having pleased God.
  2.  It also happened to Elijah as he walked with Elisha: And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven….And he was seen no more. (2 Kings 2:11 ).
  3. Some say Moses too was taken up since his grave is not known: He was buried  in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is (Dt. 34:6). The text of course does not say his body was taken up and if it was, it occurred after death and burial. Jude 1:9 hints at the fact when is says, But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses….. (Jude 1:9) Some further credibility is lent to the view of him being   assumed  by the fact that he appears alongside Elijah in the Transfiguration account. Some of the Church Fathers held this view and there is also a Jewish work from the 6th Century AD entitled The Assumption of Moses that represents the tradition of his assumption. But in the end the Assumption of Moses only a view held by some and it not officially held by the Church.
  4. And While it is true that the historical event of the assumption  is not recorded in Scripture nor are there historical accounts of the event, there may be one other scriptural account that evidences Mary’s whereabouts, body and soul.  The Church presents for our consideration in today’s second reading a passage from the Book of Revelation wherein John records his sighting of the Ark of God:

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm. A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads… The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. (Rev 11:19 – 12:5)

The Woman is clearly Mary since the child is clearly Jesus. And where is Mary seen? In heaven. Now some may argue the text does not necessarily indicate her body is in heaven but may only be referring to her soul. However the physicality of the description of her is rather strong.  Some also argue that Mary is linked to John’s sighting of the Ark of the Convent which is seen by John in Heaven. He mentions the Ark and goes on to describe the woman clothed with the sun (Mary) and there is a possibility that he is still describing the Ark he sees in Heaven. (I have written on this elsewhere. See here: Mary: The Ark of the New Covenant)  If she is the Ark described  that Ark is clearly described as being in heaven.

So, the Biblical record, while not recording the event of the Assumption, does set forth other assumptions and thus shows that assumption is a biblical concept. Further, Mary’s physical presence in heaven seems hinted at by John and some would argue that the passage actually attests to her physical presence there.

But remember, the Church does not rely solely on Scripture. In this case what we celebrate is most fundamentally taught to us by Sacred Tradition in that the memory of Mary’s assumption goes back as long as we can remember.

3. Extended –  The Feast of the Assumption may be of theological interest to some and may provide for interesting biblical reflection but eventually the question is bound to come: “So What?” How does what happened to Mary have impact on my life and what does it mean for me? The answer to this question is bound up in nearly every Marian Doctrine. Simply put, what happened to Mary in an profound and preliminary way will also happen for us in the end. As Mary bore Christ into he world, we too bear him there in the Holy Communion we receive and in the witness of his indwelling presence in our life. As Mary is (and always was) sinless, so too will we one day be sinless (immaculate) with God in heaven. As Mary cared for Christ in his need, so do we care for him in the poor, the suffering, needy and afflicted. And as Mary was assumed, body and soul into heaven so too will we be there one day, body and soul.

For now our souls go to heaven once purified but our body lie in a tomb. But one day when the trumpet shall sound, on that “great gettin’ up morning” our bodies will rise and be joined to our soul:

For we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?”…….Thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Cor 15:51-57)

So our bodies shall rise shall be assumed and joined to our soul.

Improved model!  Now a older woman once said to me upon hearing  that her body would rise: “Father if this old body has to rise, I’m hoping for an improved model!”  Yes indeed! Me too! I want my hair back, my slender figure and knees that work! I  want to upgrade from a general issue late model version,  to a luxury model. And God will in fact do that.  Scripture says:

  1. He will take these lowly bodies of ours and transform them to be like his own glorified body. (Phil 3:21)
  2. But someone may ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body…..So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; …..And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. (1 Cor 15:35-49)
  3. Yes we shall also be taken up, assumed, and then shall be fulfilled for us the saying of Job: I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; I myself will see him with my own eyes—I, and not another ‘s (Job 19:25-27).

The assumption of our bodies, prefigured by Christ in his own power and also in Mary by the gift of God, will one day be our gift too. For now, it waits till that “great gettin’ up morning.” Until that day, and on that day,  fare you well, fare you well!

This song is an African American Spiritual and speaks of that Great Gettin’ up morning when our bodies will rise. And if we have been faithful they will rise to glory!

I’m gonna tell you about the coming of the judgement (Fare you well) There’s a better day a coming….In that great gettin’ up morning fare you well! Oh preacher fold your Bible, For the last soul’s converted….Blow your trumpet Gabriel…..Lord, how loud shall I blow it? Blow it right calm and easy Do not alarm all my people….Tell them to come to the judgement…….In that great gettin’ up morning fare you well. Do you see them coffins bursting? Do you see them folks is rising? Do you see the world on fire? Do you see the stars a falling? Do you see that smoke and lightning? Do you hear the rumbling thunder? Oh Fare you well poor sinner. In that great gettin’ up morning fare you well.

Some Are Incapable of Marriage Because They Were Born So

In today’s Gospel  reading for Mass the Lord says the following: Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. In speaking this way the Lord was leading up to say that there is a noble place for celibacy, freely chosen in the Church, in the Kingdom of God. These are those who have freely renounced marriage for the sake of the Kingdom.

Looking at the Translation: However, the Lord also speaks of those incapable of marriage either by being born so, or by having been made so by others. The translation we are using in the lectionary is somewhat more interpretive than literal. What the Lectionary text (NAB translation) renders as “incapable of marriage” is in Greek more literally: εὐνοῦχοi (eunouchoi) – a eunuch, a castrated male. In the ancient world monarchs would often keep castrated males around to watch over their harem and sometimes over children since they were thought to be less of a threat for obvious reasons. There were other reasons that men were castrated as well, sometimes due to crime, torture, etc. Jesus also refers to those who are eunuchs because they were born that way.

Now one might expect Jesus to rail against the practice of castration here but, strangely he does not. His main purpose is to teach that some are incapable of marriage and that others, though capable,  live like eunuchs in order to witness to the Kingdom and serve it exclusively (cf also 1 Cor 7).

Who are “those incapable of marriage?”  The first and most obvious interpretation is that some sort of birth defect or later physical mutilation has rendered them anatomically incapable of the marriage act (sexual intercourse). One need not conclude they are wholly lacking in every anatomical detail but just enough that somehow they are incapable of the marriage act. To be incapable of the marriage act is to be incapable of marriage since, the marital act is integral to marriage. This is still in marriage law today in the Church and part of the pre-nuptial inquiry that takes place is to ask the engaged person if they are capable of sexual intercourse. Such a question must be answered affirmatively for the marriage to proceed.

There are wider causes of being incapable marraige – Now thus far we have  considered “eunuch” as referring only a physical matter. But Jesus uses the term not only to refer to physical defect but also in a wider way as referring to being a kind of “spiritual eunuch.” The primary form of this is those who freely renounce marriage to witness to a serve the Kingdom. They have the physical capacity for intercourse,  to be sure, but they freely renounce its use. Hence we are invited to broaden our view of being a eunuch beyond mere physical defect.

It is a true fact that some are incapable of marriage due not to physical deformity of the sexual organs but due to other factors. Some may be mentally ill, or developmentally disabled or have significant physical illnesses. Some are very shy and lack self-esteem, or struggle to form close relationships.  Others have financial limits that may be temporary but for now make marriage unreasonable. Some simply have never met the right person. This may just be bad luck or it may be due to having unreasonable standards.  And so on. But it is a true fact that some, an increasing number in our culture it would seem, are temporarily or permanently incapable of marriage. In all these cases one who is truly or temporarily incapable of marriage is called to live chastely, as a kind of spiritual eunuch witnessing to the Kingdom

The Question of Homosexuality  As we have already seen, it is possible to see that the wider context  the Lord uses here of the word eunuch seems also to permit a wider interpretation. Namely that the incapacity is about more than physical defect and may also be seen to refer to a wider notion of incapacity such as a lack of affection for the opposite sex.

Many today claim they were born with a homosexual orientation. While this may be a debatable point (is it nature or nurture), it is the teaching of the Church that such individuals are “incapable” of marriage in that they are not permitted to enter into unions with members of the same sex as many demand today. Rather they are called to live heroically by embracing a celibate life. If their orientation renders them averse to the traditional marriage act, they are thus incapable of marriage either because they “were born so” or because they were “made that way by others.” But either way they are incapable of marriage. They are called to be eunuchs for the Kingdom.

Now notice that the Lord did not express disdain or aversions for those born or made eunuchs but he does state that they are incapable of marriage. As such they are invited to  freely accept that they are incapable of marriage and to live like the eunuchs who freely embrace the chaste and celibate state. If they do this freely they too have a high calling in the Kingdom, a calling which the Lord commends. The same can be said for homosexuals who, by that fact are incapable of marriage. They too can imitate those who have freely renounced marriage for the sake of the Kingdom by freely and wholeheartedly accepting the Church teaching that they remain chaste and embrace a celibate state. In so doing they too advance the Kingdom and witness to it.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

The Homosexual inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most [homosexuals] a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. (CCC 2358-2359).

What the Church must do – The demands that the Church accept and bless Homosexual Unions is increasingly common today. But the Church cannot depart from Scripture and cannot give everyone what they want. In the end the best we can say is that some are incapable of marriage because they were born so, others because they were made so by others. We cannot do more than what Scripture teaches and must commend chastity and celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom. It is a high calling if freely embraced.

Don’t Think…..Look! A Brief Meditation on the Sacred Liturgy

I want to give two thumbs up for good old fashioned experience, just experiencing life to its top…..just having an experience!  Too often in today’s hurried age, and also in this time of frantic 24 hour news cycles, we rush past experience to analysis. Too often we insist on knowing immediately what something “means”  and what to think about it. This rush to think and analyze often happens before the experience is even over. And, of course,  analyzing something before all the data is in leads to limited and poor analysis. Two old sayings come to mind:

  1. Don’t Think…Look! – We miss so much of life when we retreat into our brains for immediate analysis. I recently went to an art exhibit called the “Sacred Made Real” and as you walk in they hand you a thick pamphlet describing each work. This is fine I thought but before I read a word I wandered through and gazed upon each marvelous work first. Some of the works were mysterious to me, “Who was this?,” I thought. But the mystery was part of the experience. Later I went back and read on each work.  I also noticed many people buried in their little pamphlet barely looking at the actual artwork, beyond an occasional glance. Most of their time was spent reading. There were others who had headphones on which provide a better look but still fills your head with information too soon. Another variant on this saying is “Don’t Think….Listen!” So often when listening to others. They may get a few words or a sentence out and zap, our mind lights up as we think how to answer them and we miss most of the experience of what they are saying to us. 
  2. Do just do something, stand there. – In all of our activism we seldom savor life. Few people take a Sabbath rest anymore. Few eat dinner with their family. Few even know how to chill and just relax. Even many vacations are packed with activities and destinations which allow little real to actually experience what one is doing. I live near the U.S. Capitol and observe how some people are so busy taking pictures of the Capitol, I wonder if they ever really “see” or experience the Capitol.

I’d like to focus this insight of the importance of real experience on the Liturgy. And rather than give lots of discursive commentary I’d like to give some random “snapshots” and ponder our need to get back to experience more purely and simply.

  1. It’s First Communion, or perhaps a wedding. As children come down the aisle, or perhaps the bride, hundreds of cameras and cell phones are held aloft, annoying flashes go off creating a strobe effect. People scramble to get into better positions for a picture. In recent years I have had to forbid the use of cameras. The Bride and Groom  are permitted to hire a professional photographer, and we also permit one professional photographer to take pictures at First Holy Communion and Confirmation. But otherwise I instruct the assembled people that the point of the Liturgy is to worship God, to pray and to experience the Lord’s ministry to us. I insist that they put away their camera and and actually experience the Sacrament being celebrated and the mysteries unfolding before them.
  2. Some months ago I was privileged to be among the chief clergy for a Solemn High Pontifical Mass in the Old Latin Form at the Basilica here in DC. The liturgy was quite complicated to be sure. We rehearsed the day before and as the rehearsal drew to a close I said to whole crew of clergy and servers, “OK, Tomorrow during the Mass, Don’t forget to worship God!” We all laughed because it is possible to get so wrapped up in thinking what is next and what  I have to do, that we forget to pray! The next day I told God that no matter what, I was here to worship him. I am grateful that he gave me a true spirit of recollection in that Mass. I did mix up a minor detail, but in the end, I experienced God and did not forget to worship him. Success. Thank you Lord!
  3. The Mass is underway in a typical Catholic Parish. Something remarkable is about to happen, the Lord Jesus is going to speak through the Deacon who ascends the pulpit to proclaim the Gospel. Yes, that’s right, Jesus himself will announce the Gospel to us. As the Deacon introduces the Gospel all are standing out of respect. And 500 hundred pairs of eyes are riveted……on the Deacon? No! For many their eyes are riveted on a missalette. Half way through the  Gospel the Church swims with the sound of hundreds of people turning the page of their missalettes, one or two of them drop them in the process. Sadly, most lose the experience of the proclamation of God’s  Word with their heads buried in a missalette. They may as well have read it on their own. Some will argue that this helps them understand the reading better. But the Liturgy is meant to be experienced as a communal hearing of the Word proclaimed. And as for understanding, “Don’t think…..Listen!” Understanding and reflection comes later. In the homily the Lord will speak to us of something and give us what we need to hear and He will grant understanding. It’s all part of the “experience.”
  4. I celebrate a good number of Wedding Masses in the Old Latin Form. Some years ago a couple prepared a very elaborate booklet so that people could follow along and understand every detail of the Old Latin Mass. Of itself,  it was a valuable resource. They asked me, prior to the Mass to briefly describe the booklet and how to use it. I went ahead and did so but concluded my brief tour of the book by saying, “This is a very nice book and will surely make a great memento of today’s wedding. But if you want my advice, put it aside now and just experience a very beautiful Mass with all its mystery. If you have your head in a book you may miss it and forget to pray. Later on you can read it and study what you have experienced.”     In other words, “Don’t think….Look!”
  5. In the ancient Church the Catechumens were initiated into the “Mysteries,” (the Sacraments of Initiation) with very little prior instruction as to what would happen. They had surely been catechized in the fundamental teachings of the faith but the actual details of the celebration of the Sacraments were not disclosed. They were Sacred Mysteries and the disciplina arcanis (the discipline of the secret) was observed. Hence they simply experienced these things and where instructed as to their deeper meaning in the weeks that followed in a process known as mystagogia. Hence, experience preceded analysis, understanding and learning. And the very grace of the experience and the Sacraments provided the foundation for that understanding.

Well, I realize that this post will not be without some controversy. Let me be clear about one point, Catechesis is important but so is experience. And if we rush to analyze and decode everything we miss a lot. I have taught on the liturgy extensively in this blog (here: http://blog.adw.org/tag/mass-in-slow-motion/ ) and will continue to do so. There is a time to do so, but there is also a  time just to be still and experience what God is actually doing in every liturgy, indeed, in every moment of our life.

Two thumbs up and three cheers for experience.

I realize that some further distinctions out to be made but I want to leave that for you who comment. Have at it.

Why Didn’t the Father Come to Save Us?

Many years ago, when I was just a teenager I remember being puzzled by the oft quoted John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son….” Now everyone used this verse to demonstrate how much God loved us. But I got stuck thinking, “What kind of a Father is this that he sends his Son to suffer horribly and die!?”  My own Father wouldn’t send me in harm’s way, he’d go and face the threat and protect me. But God the Father sent his Son to do the hard and dirty work, to get slaughtered and die. Why? Why didn’t the Father come to save us himself?

As I asked this question no one had a real answer. Even the priests looked at me like they didn’t understand my question. As the years went by I eventually connected the dots and found the answer. But recently I was reminded of my question as some one asked me, “Why didn’t the Father come to save us himself?”

The answer really comes down to one word, a word we’re not so good at understanding in these modern times. The word is “obedience.”  The simple answer is that the Father cannot obey the Father, only the Son can do that. For it is not just the suffering of Christ per se that saves us, it is his obedience that saves us. Consider that it was Adam’s disobedience that destroyed our relationship with God. Hence it is Christ’s obedience that saves us. Scripture says, For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous (Rom 5:19). So plainly put, since obedience was the necessary remedy for our disobedience Jesus the Son had to come for he is able to obey the Father. It does not pertain,  nor is it really sensible,  to say that the Father could obey the Father. Hence God the Father sent his only Son. Scripture says of Jesus He became obedient” to the Father “unto death (Phil 2:8)

While we tend to speak today primarily of the suffering and death of Jesus as the cause of our salvation. But more specifically, his suffering and death are really the manifestation of the deeper cause of our salvation, which is the obedience of Christ. Isaiah 53:7  says of the Christ, He was offered because he willed it. St. Thomas Aquinas says, Now obedience is preferred to all sacrifices. according to 1 Samuel 15:22: “Obedience is better than sacrifices.” Therefore it was fitting that the sacrifice of Christ’s Passion and death should proceed from obedience….And so the Man-Christ secured the victory through being obedient to God, according to Proverbs 21:28: “An obedient man shall speak of victory.” (Summa, Tertia Pars, 47.2)

Over and over again Jesus spoke of his looming death as an act of love and obedience for the Father.  Christ received a command from the Father to suffer. For it is written (John 10:18): “I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it up again: this commandment have I received of My Father”–namely, of laying down His life and of resuming it again….He suffered [also] out of love of the Father, according to John 14:31: “That the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father hath given Me this  commandment,  so I do. Arise, let us go hence”–namely, to the place of His Passion:….. He “paid….suffering Himself to be fastened to a tree on account of the apple which man had plucked from the tree against God’s command (Aquinas, Summa Tertia Pars 47. Reply Obj 1).

And why such terrible suffering? Here too some get stuck on thinking that God is blood thristy. We need not conclude this any more that we would conclude such a thing of a surgeon. The surgeon clearly makes use of radical proceedures, slicing open the body, sawing through bones, cutting out flesh and the like. But strong medicine is needed when the situation is grave. Rather than looking at the crucifixion and saying, God has a problem (i.e. he is blood-thirsty) we ought to see how desperate our problem is. Sin is a very serious condition and we should not make light of it. In order to resolve our problem, God had to resort to this.

But Jesus freely obeys his Father out of love for Him and for us. In his human will he obeyed the Father and so we are saved through the suffering that it entailed. St. Maximus the Confessor has a beautiful line: We are saved by the human decision of a divine person. Where Adam disobeyed, Christ obeyed, and hence we are saved. Thank you Jesus. Thank you Father for sending your only Son.

The Feminie Genius: "Living after the manner of the Holy Gospel"

Today we celebrate the feast of St. Clare (1194-1253), perhaps best known as friend and follower of Francis of Assisi. Like Francis, she was raised near Assisi in a noble family, unlike Francis, who was not so much interested in the things of  God as a young man, Clare was known to be prayerful and pious as a young girl. It then doesn’t come as a surprise that she would be attracted to Francis and inspired by his preaching. In fact, it is said, that when she first met Francis her request of him was to help her” live after the manner of the Holy Gospel.”

A Living Charism

Clare chose the monastic life and founded the community known as the Poor Clares who to this day live in community, practice perpetual adoration and serve the needs of the poor. If you live near D.C. you can share a taste of the charism by visiting the Poor Clare chapel in Brookland at 3900 13th St., NE.

Clare leaves us a rich collection of prayer and reflection in the form of letters she wrote in a capacity of spiritual director. To a woman called Agnes of Prague, she writes “I see that you are embracing with humility, the virtue of faith…I consider you someone who is God’s own helper and who supports the drooping limbs of his ineffable body.”  What  a powerful image of what it means to be a disciple, to support the arms of our Lord as he gives himself for us on the cross.  To Agnes, Clare offers this advice to remain a steadfast and steady co-worker of the Lord:

“Place your mind in the mirror of eternity; Place your soul in the splendor of glory; Place your heart in the figure of the divine substance; And through contemplation, transform your entire being into the image of the Divine One himself, So that you, yourself may also experience what his friends experience when they taste the hidden sweetness that God alone has kept from the beginning for those who love him. “

Wisdom for the Ages

One way I like the keep the feasts is to read something written by the person being celebrated. Always, it seems that I find something that makes sense for me today. Sometimes, like this excerpt, the language is just enough different that I have to read carefully and ponder more seriously.

Standing the test of time

I’m sure you read Msgr. Pope’s blog about Anne Rice’s declaration of separating herself from organized Christianity . I found her reasons for leaving rather curious given that the church has not changed its teaching on the issues from the time when she belonged as a child nor when she returned as an adult, it seems that she wants not faith on God’s terms, the giver of the gift but rather faith on the terms she dictates. Let’s see how that works out for her.  I have one question to ask. 756 years later, the writings of Clare inspire and delighte me on this day, August 11, 2010. Will somone be picking up any of Anne Rice’s work in the year 2766 and be delighted and inspired?

Sizing Up a (Silly?) Christian Slogan and Listening to a Very Angry Man

The video at the bottom of this page is a rather angry discourse by a non-believer. Watch it with care and caution as he uses some profanity and a degree of uncharitable discourse, and unfair stereotyping  that is hard to take if you haven’t prayed prior to viewing it. He does disclaim at the beginning that “Not everyone who has religious faith is a complete idiot” but then goes on to so fundamentally attack the very notion of faith that he ends up saying we’re “complete idiots.”

I call the video to your attention however because it is valuable at times to hear and then address criticisms leveled at us. What sets this non-believer (I don’t know his name) off is the use of a common slogan among some Christians: “God said it. I believe it. And that settles it.” I’d like to assess the slogan that we have all heard and then address some of the criticisms leveled in the video about the act of believing.

God said it. I believe it. And that settles it.– Like all slogans, there is some element of truth here and yet, because it is a slogan, refinements and distinctions are necessary that are lost in the sound-bite quality of a slogan.

Let’s look at what is true about the statement.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith “man freely commits his entire self to God.”  (CCC 1814) The Book of Hebrews says, Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Heb 11:1). There is an old definition of faith I memorized years ago where faith is defined as: The theological virtue by which one, through grace, adheres in the intellect to a truth revealed by God because of the authority of God who reveals rather than the evidence given.

Now what seems to unite all these definitions is that the Theological Virtue of  Faith is rooted essentially in the grace given for us to believe something on the authority of God. That is the acceptance of a truth revealed to us rests not so much on extrinsic evidence but on the fact that God has revealed it. There may be,  and most often are,  motives of credibility in regard to the truth of faith. God has given us minds and proposes himself and his truths to us in a way that respects our mind. But many of the truths of faith surpass the capacity of the mind to fully comprehend and material evidence is often not present in regards to spiritual truth. Hence the grace of faith enables us to accept the truths of faith on the authority of God revealing.

So the slogan contains an element of the truth: God said it, I believe it. This is the gift of Faith, rather simply stated, to be sure but accurate in what it says. The gift of faith does not require that God supply vast amounts of evidence and explanations that appeal to us. The Gift of Faith as Hebrews states is its own evidence for God gifts the individual to accept what He reveals by his authority.

The problem with the slogan seems to come more with the final phrase: “and that settles it.” Now in itself the phrase is not problematic if by “settle” we mean that it is enough that God has revealed something for me to believe it. But the expression “that settles it” usually carries other connotations as well that are problematic. Consider for example:

  1. “That settles it” could be interpreted as a discussion-ender with some one as in: “God said it, I believe it and I am not going to discuss this with you any further.” Hence our opponents hear an arrogance and unwillingness to discuss something and this is problematic for a Christian who ought Always be prepared to render an account for the hope that is in you. (1 Peter 3:15)
  2. “That settles it” could be interpreted as meaning, “I don’t have to think about this any more.”  Here too our opponents may interpret the phrase to refer to a blind, unthinking, marching in thoughtless lock-step kind of faith. But of course God has given us a mind and wants us to come to a deeper understanding of our faith than mere creeds or scriptural phrases may contain. St. Anselm spoke of theology as fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding). St Augustine said, crede, ut intelligas (believe that you may understand).  While faith may gift us to accept the truth of what God reveals, this is not the end of thought, but it is the beginning of it as we connect the dots of our faith and grab a deeper hold of the full meaning and implication of what is revealed. Catholicism is a smart and thoughtful religion in that we have pondered and prayed over the meaning of what God reveals for centuries. Our rich theology and tradition is testimony to a deeply thoughtful intellectual discipline and treasure. That theological tradition began with Mother Mary who, treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart(Luke 2:19). It continued with the Fathers of the Church, the great philosophers, theologians  and doctors of the Church and stretches down to this very day. The deposit of faith may be said to be “settled” but its understanding and depths continue to be sounded.
  3. “That settles it” could be interpreted as a mere dismissal of one’s opponent in a conversation. In this sense it amounts to an ad hominem argumentum (an argument directed to the person rather than to the issue). Such arguments are disrespectful of the unbeliever or the one who struggles to understand. Again quoting the text from Peter: Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (1 Pet 3:15)

So the slogan, like any slogan needs to be properly understood. And, frankly most non-believers and those outside the Christian Tradition see the slogan as a mere rebuke and a conversation stopper. We may do well to use this slogan sparingly and carefully, if at all.

That leads to the rather angry video below where the author of it lets loose with a rather unkind description of faith. I’d like to isolate a few things he says and then carefully invite you to view it. I will list his quotes and then offer a brief response. The italics are his words, the red plain text is my response.

  1. Believing is easier than thinking. It takes time and effort to acquire knowledge whereas any fool can acquire faith instantly and effortlesslyWell, our interlocutor is wrong to divorce believing from thinking. Faith is a way of knowing, faith supplies knowledge. When God draws us to faith he imbues our mind substantial truth that summons forth a thoughtful response. Believing involves a great deal of thinking. I have spent years, decades, pondering my faith and striving to understand what God is teaching me. As regards his statement that any fool can acquire faith instantly and effortlessly, he has surely not discussed how faith is experienced with a believer. While it is true that God could just zap us with doctrine, it seldom works that way at all. Faith is something in which we must grow. Grace builds on nature and most people who have faith have it at great cost and experience it’s growth incrementally. There is nothing effortless about it at all. Most all of us who have faith have struggled to grasp it, accept it and submit to it. Often faith comes through suffering which causes us to reflect more deeply on the truer meaning of life and things. Understanding deepens in the crucible of real life with its joys and losses, it happiness and its hardship. There is nothing effortless or instant about true faith.
  2. Faith is all about lazy stuff: submission, surrender, don’t ask questions, let your moral values be handed to you on a plate like a babyWell again, there is nothing lazy about submission and surrender, it is hard work. It is much harder than just going off and doing what I please. Obedience is hard, disobedience is easy. As for not asking questions, again, I wonder where he gets this vision of faith? Christians struggle all the time to understand and often ask, “Why?” I suppose there is a stereotype out there of the unquestioning believer, but I have seldom met one. The scriptures are filled with believers who asked questions. Many of the Psalms begin with words and phrases like: why, how long O Lord, when. The disciples and apostles were asking Jesus questions all the time. Paul asked questions of God, once three times in a row (2 Cor 12:8). Most of the Scriptures are dealing with the questions of faith and the whys and wherefores of God’s ways. As for my moral values being handed to me on a plate – I wonder how he got his moral values handed to him? All of us receive what we know from others (on a plate or otherwise). Someone has influenced this man. With me it happens to be God and the Church. Not sure who it is with him but some one influenced him as to his thoughts and values. This does not make him a baby any more than it makes me one. So really his last point is moot.
  3. The expression “God said it, I believe it and that settles it” means to me “This mind is closed for business. We are not currently accepting any new ideas here” – Well as I said above, our interlocutors often interpret this slogan just as this man states and for that reason we do well to limit or end it’s use except in restricted places where fellow believers can interpret it as we intend. That said, his notion that belief closes the mind to new ideas is in need of distinctions. First it must be said that every discipline has some boundaries wherein it cannot admit certain premises. For example Science deals with the physically measurable and observable phenomena. For me to insist that science accept and include the God of the Bible in its discipline and attribute every unknown cause to the Trinity is to ask science to do what is beyond what it can do. Hence Science would rightly reject my insistence that the Trinity be accepted as a premise in a scientific conclusion. It is outside the discipline of science. Now the same is true for a believer who might, in certain circumstances indicate that a proposed idea is unacceptable. For example, the “new idea” that the only reality is the material and that the spiritual is thus unreal and non-existent is rejected by the Christian since it contains an a-priori assumption we cannot accept. So, it seems unreasonable to demand that anyone ought to be open , without stipulation, to any “new idea” by itself. That said, Christians and non-Christians generally ought to be open to discuss new ideas and I think we Christians usually are. The whole field of apologetics seeks to engage the modern world, a world full of new (or recycled) ideas (If you think you really have a new idea, go and see how the Greeks put it). It is the very purpose of evangelization to go forth into the world and engage it. The best evangelizers and missionaries make use of the culture, affirming what is good and critiquing what is problematic. There is an old Dominican saying, “Never deny, seldom affirm, always distinguish.” In a way I find his notion that we don’t accept new ideas funny since one of the critiques of the modern Church is that we have accepted far too many “new ideas” and lost our traditions.

Well then here is the video. Pray before you watch it. I invite your comments as always. If you comment PLEASE do NOT do what this man does. Do not call names, ridicule, use profanity etc. As angry as this man may make you, remember he is known by God who sustains and loves him. Perhaps we can pray that his anger at us will abate and that he might be able to receive the gift of faith. So pray, watch and, if you wish, comment. Warning, there are some profanities toward the end.

Satan Has Many Disguises

It would be easy if Satan came as he is often portrayed, with horns and a pitchfork. We would naturally flee this ugliness.

Alas, he often comes cloaked in beauty, in sheep’s clothing. He claims to offer us freedom and autonomy from an unreasonable God and Church, liberation from rules and being “told what to do.”  He cloaks himself in the false righteousness of being “tolerant” and “not judging others.” He exalts us by telling us we have finally come of age and can disregard the “hang-ups” and “repression” our ancestors had of sex and pleasure. He flatters us by extolling our scientific knowledge and inflates us by equating it with wisdom and moral superiority over our “primitive” fore-bearers. He reassures us by insisting we are merely the victims here, victims of biological urges, bad parenting, economic injustice, that we are not depraved, just deprived. He humors us by making us laugh at sin, making light of it in comedian’s routines, sitcoms, music and otherwise turning sin into a form of entertainment. He anesthetizes the pain of guilt and sin by sending us teachers who tickle our ears and assure us that what we know deep down to be wrong is actually fine, even virtuous. He affirms us by insisting that whenever shortcomings in us have been called to our attention it is simply unfair since other people are surely worse, that self esteem is something owed to us and others who lessen it are unkind.   He  sings us the lullaby of presumption assuring us that consequences and judgment will not be our lot and with this lullaby we drift off into a moral sleep of indifference and  false confidence.

But in the end, there is a wolf under the sheepskin. Satan is ugly. He enslaves, condemns, ridicules and ensnares. His “reassurances” bring pain and grief as the awful effects of sin unwind: hatred, fear, resentments, revenge, suffering, disease, addiction, bondage, strife, divorce, estrangement, war, insurrection, disloyalty, scorn, bitterness, depression, anxiety, depletion, poverty, loss and deep, deep sorrow.

Beware, Satan has many disguises and he seldom presents as he really is. The movie The Passion of the Christ brilliantly presented Satan in the Garden. At first there was almost a strange beauty. But a closer look revealed increasingly hideous details: cold, fixed eyes, sharp and discolored nails, sickly pale skin, suddenly androgynous qualities, and a disgusting maggot crawling in and out of the nose. An audible moan came from the audience in the theatre where I first saw it. Would that, beyond the movie, we could sense this revulsion and clarity as to the evil of Satan and his truest reality.

Here is a very powerful video on the disguises of sin:

t

Should the Government Have Any Role at All in the Institution of Marriage?

David Harsanyi has written an interesting article over at Townhall.com wherein he argues that the Government should get out of the marriage business completely and have no involvement or interest whatsoever in any “personal relationship”  that individuals choose to enter. I would like to excerpt the article here and then raise a few points and ask for your thoughts. The full article by Mr. Harsanyi can be read here: Time for a Divorce. Here follow the excerpts in bold, italics and indented:

In the 1500s, a pestering theologian instituted something called the Marriage Ordinance in Geneva, which made “state registration and church consecration” a dual requirement of matrimony.

We have yet to get over this mistake. But isn’t it about time we freed marriage from the state? Imagine if government had no interest in the definition of marriage. Individuals could commit to each other, head to the local priest or rabbi or shaman — or no one at all — and enter into contractual agreements, call their blissful union whatever they felt it should be called and go about the business of their lives…..

I believe your private relationships are none of my business. And without any government role in the institution, it wouldn’t be the business of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, either.

As the debate stands now, we have two activist groups trying to force their own ethical construction of marriage on the rest of us. And to enforce it, they have been using the power of the state — one via majority rule and the other using the judiciary (subject to change with the vagaries of public opinion)……

Is there any other personal relationship that is defined by government? Other than in legal terms, of course, this one isn’t, either.

Yet we have decided that a majority on the Supreme Court or, perhaps, a majority of the voters in your state or, even worse, a majority of the legislators in your state have the power to define what is often the most intimate bond of your life.

In our Utopian vision, no group is empowered to dictate what marriage should mean to another. And one of the great perks would be the end of this debate.

I will admit, there are times where the Libertarian perspective seems refreshing. (I am not sure if Mr. Harsanyi is Libertarian but his argument is). The Libertarian approach appeals to an instinct many have to simply an de-clutter in a civic world where government regulations and involvement leads to bewildering complexity and a tax code only a computer could love. It can be appealing to show Government the door in our lives and ask that it do less, far less. But I want to object to Mr. Harsanyi’s perspective in the matter of marriage on several counts and then ask for your input.

  1. Marriage is not a purely “private relationship” as Mr. Harsanyi states. Marriage involves the most essential and serious task of any community, state or nation, that of the procreation of the human species. Because there are children involved the merely private yields to a third party if you will, that of the child or children usually conceived in traditional marriage. And since children are involved who will venture forth as they mature into the wider society, it is a fact that others have a concern for marriage in terms of its definition, its quality, its stability and so forth. The quality of marriage and family life effects children profoundly and children affect the wider civic order profoundly, for better or worse. While others may wish to call their essentially non-fertile unions marriage and one might argue that such unions are private, one cannot argue that about traditional marriage which involves children. Neither can one remain completely disinterested in non traditional unions which involve the adoption or other of inclusion of children in their midst.
  2. Hence, the State does have legitimate interests when it comes to marriage. “State” here should not be seen as a mere abstraction or merely in governmental terms. Take “State” here to mean, the wider community as well. It is right and makes sense that there should be policies which protect and encourage traditional marriage. Further it makes sense that the State should insist on some degree of stability for this essential union that so involves children and their well-being. Until 1969 it was a rather lengthy and difficult process to get a divorce in this country. After 1969 most states passed “no-fault” divorce laws that made marriage the easiest contract in America to break. Since then, realizing the terrible impact that divorce was having on children, many States have begun to require waiting periods prior to divorce and some insist on counseling prior to divorce proceedings. It also makes sense that the State has some more proactive policies meant to strengthen the family. This may involve tax policy, emergency assistance to families in crisis and so forth. It is true that reasonable people will differ on the degree of help that should be provided and that at some point too much help makes people dependant. Nevertheless, due to the fact of children, there is an interest in the wider community that traditional marriage, as an institution, be strong.  It is a true fact that the many states have recently become ambivalent to the traditional view of marriage and we may wish to dismiss any governmental role based on this. But in the end, due to the presence and interests of third parties, there is going to be some governmental involvement and it is up to the Church to continue advocating for the traditional view of marriage there due to that fact.
  3. Mr. Harsanyi’s argument opens the door to Government – He calls his vision of marriage a “contractual agreement.” Oops. Where there are contracts there are laws. Where there a contracts there are often breeches of contract, lawsuits and the like. And where there are legal actions there is need for a judiciary. And where there is a judiciary there is Government. So even in his “Utopian” and libertarian world the government is not far behind.

So I think the purely libertarian argument of Mr. Harsanyi has flaws in it that fail to recognize the legitimate third-party interests involved in the fundamental institution that traditional marriage has always been. The most significant “third-party” involved is children who have needs and rights that must be fostered and protected.

But I would like to recast Mr. Harsanyi’s argument in reference to the Church and ask what you think. This recasting of the argument does concern the intersection of Church and State in the matter of marriage. I wonder if we were to consider what might ultimately become necessary anyway and do what many other nations already do? That is, what if we were to detach the Church’s role from the Civil License altogether? Currently in most U.S.  jurisdictions, when the priest or deacon officiates at at a wedding he is wearing two hats: Sacred minister and Justice of the Peace, he is acting on behalf of the State as well as administering a Sacrament. In other nations the couple goes to the civil magistrate and gets civilly “married.” Then they go to the Church, sometimes on the same day, and receive the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. As the rift gets wider between the world and the Church as to what we mean by marriage I wonder if this sort of separate arrangement will not become necessary here in America?

One drawback of course is that many Catholic couples would get civilly “married” and delay the Sacrament. Hence they would be living in an invalid union. However, this often happens now even in the current dispensation through cohabitation and various forms of invalid marriage. Catechesis as always would be essential to avoid the drawback.

But I must say, here in Washington DC, which recently voted to recognize same-sex “marriage”,  I feel increasingly troubled to be signing civil licenses. What am I affirming as I sign the license? At one level I am merely saying that the couple in question stood before me and entered into what the State recognizes as the “civil contract” of marriage. But as a legal functionary (I have a civil license issued by DC to witness marriages and sign civil licenses) of the District of Columbia, am I not cooperating in something that I believe is wrong? Every time I sign a license, in effect am I not affirming the civil definition of Marriage that underlies that civil license? Should I be cooperating in this way and issuing licenses that lend credibility to a flawed notion of marriage?

I ask these as true questions. I am not being rhetorical here. I think it is important for us clergy in these circumstances to ponder with our bishops what is to be done and what are the moral implications of it. This is terra incognita (unknown territory) and in the years ahead the Bishops Conference may also wish to take this up. I have argued elsewhere that we may want to consider using more widely the term “Holy Matrimony” to describe the Sacrament and distinguish it from the world’s notion of marriage.

Hence, while I think Mr. Harsanyi’s argument is ultimately flawed,  there may be in the near future a need for the Church to more clearly distinguish herself from the State when it comes to the question of marriage. As the individual states of this land begin to define marriage in a radically different way than the Church, distinctions, even legal separation, may be necessary. What do you think?

This video depicts why strong marriages are important for the “third party” of marriage: children.