Incarnation & Pentecost

Another brilliant insight from Monsignor Cirrincione: Mary acted as Mother, in birthing the Church on Pentecost. Just as Jesus' physical body was formed in her virginal womb through the power of the Holy Spirit, so too we find her joined in prayer with the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came in power to form Jesus' Mystical Body, the Church.

Semi-Pro

I just spent the past 105 minutes watching this so that you wouldn't have to - although it's hard to call it vicarious suffering when you have a sweet fro like that to look at.

"Our Father Who art in Heaven - Stay There!"

I came across that line yesterday in Monsignor Joseph Cirrincione's little book, St. Joseph, Fatima, and Fatherhood. He felt that it was the way many of us pray the Our Father in the depths of our hearts. We are Christian in name but secular in lifestyle. God has His place in our lives, but He isn't our Life. And when we live in this way we rob ourselves of experiencing God as Father, as the one who loves us and raises us up to understand how the world really works and helps train us to make a contribution to it.

It Is What It Is

Sadness, frustration, thankfulness, awe - quite the jumble as I begin to write. My subject? Truth (reality, objective truth, morality). The impetus? People I love. First, there was the email exchange between myself and a Catholic friend struggling with Confession. In the course of things she shared how, at least at this point in her life, Catholicism was not the "end all be all," and that she believed religion was a solution to many people's problems, but that it could be any religion. (I'm really honored that she shared this with me, given my "militant" reputation.) The second thing that inspired this blog was a Catholic friend on Facebook posting her "yes" vote in a poll on gay adoption. Why should these things, these "stances," bother me? Why can't I just roll with the punches and be like, "Hey, what's right for me might not be right for you." You know, if we were talking about what we like on a pizza or which Lethal Weapon movie kicked more ass, I could - honestly, I really could. But when it comes to Faith these things hit me hard. It's personal.

And doesn't faith have to be? For Christians faith isn't the adherence to a list of propositions; it's union with a Person. I can't think of any other world religion whose founder claimed, "I am the Truth." The identity of Jesus, that is the ground of Christianity, its reason d'etre: God, the ground of all reality, our Creator, became a man - a human being who spoke to us and taught us what life is to be. When we adhere to any moral truth, we are in some sense grabbing hold of the Truth, of God's Revelation in Person, Jesus! But isn't the converse also true then - that when we deny the Truth, we are in some sense denying Jesus? And that's serious: "Whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 10:33). I don't want to see anyone I love - no, I don't want to see anyone period - doing that! Yet, there is this mistaken idea permeating our culture, and the Christians who live in it, that to voice disagreement with another's moral choices - or worse yet, to speak of "sin" - is, quite ironically, the most heinous of sins, intolerance!

But can we honestly think that we are more loving, more tolerant, than Jesus? More than the Apostle Paul? The same person who wrote

Love is patient. Love is kind...it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrong but rejoices in the right...Love endures all things. Love never ends. (1 Corinthians 13:4-6)

also wrote, and in the very same letter no less,

Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [practicing] homosexuals, nor thieves, nor drunkards, nor revilers will inherit the kingdom of heaven. (1 Cor.6:9-10).

I like the way Fr. John Corapi puts it, "Truth isn't conservative or liberal, left or right. It is what it is, and you're either in it or you're out of it." Tolerance is no "gag order." Tolerance IS NOT holding all views as equally valid - it is the ability to tolerate, to peacefully coexist with, those whose beliefs differ or conflict with yours!

Now Christians, if you hold a view that directly contradicts God's; then can't you see where, logically, you are in the wrong? Christianity is a "revealed" religion - God is coming from the "outside," and speaking His Truth quite clearly. You're free to deny it - God gives you that right and will be tolerant of your choice; but, to a greater or lesser degree, you won't be in union with Him. And as we saw Paul say above, "Do not be deceived..." We didn't create this universe, and we don't get to decide what is right and wrong - those things were established by the same One Who instituted gravity and decreed that two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen combine to make water. Denying this reality doesn't make one enlightened or original - it was humanity's first sin (Genesis 3:4-5), older than recorded history and at the root of every evil perpetrated.

Catholicism, as a list of tenets and "religious" practices, may not feel like your "end all, be all," the most important facet of your life - but I would suggest that is because you're not taking it personally. (Ah, see how I'm weaving that back in?) Is there an institutional side? Yes. Will you find creeps mixed in with the "institution"? Yes - and right from the start Jesus told us we would (the Church is like a net containing both good and bad fish [Matt.13:47-48], a field containing both wheat and cockle [Matt.13:24-30] - and will be so until the Final Judgment). And yet, Jesus is at work within the Church. Because not only is it institution, it is His BRIDE, He has made it His very BODY. Despite its sinful members, Jesus has preserved it as the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim.3:15). Despite its sinful members, it is the only place where Jesus comes to give us His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Eucharist! And if that isn't our "end all, be all;" then I have no idea what else could be.

This Sunday's second reading seems like the perfect way to end:

You must no longer live as the Gentiles (pagans) do, in the futility of their minds; they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart; they have become callous and have given themselves up to licentiousness, greedy to practice every kind of uncleanness. You did not so learn Christ! - assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus"
(Paul's Letter to the Ephesians, 4:17-21)

And it isn't hard. Open up your Catechism, or go to it online, where you can search any topic you want. Read that Bible. And remember, it IS personal - because Truth is a Person; and we Christians either love and accept Him, on His terms, or we are rejecting Him.

Positivity and Manure

Heard a great homily by Fr. Jack Shuler about our orientation as disciples - whether our eyes are full of hope and fixed on Jesus or on the negative things all around us. There were two brothers, one the epitome of positivity and the other of negativity. Their father, hoping to help each of them look at the world a bit more realistically, thought long and hard about what he would give each of them for Christmas. When Christmas morning finally arrived, the father watched expectantly as his pessimistic son opened his gift - a brand new, top-of-the-line, Rolex Watch. The father expected joy, but the pessimistic son was downcast. He immediately handed it back to his father, "I can't accept this. It's too much; knowing my luck I'll break it by this evening." The father turned to watch his starry-eyed, positive son unwrap his gift...a piece of manure. The father was taken aback when the boy started hopping up and down in excitement, "Dad, I can't believe it! Where's the pony?"

Man, I like that. What an awesome way to see the difficulties and sufferings we deal with - precursors to something awesome.

Unscientific Thoughts on Confession

I'm telling you up front, this isn't a scientifically verifiable observation or even anything remotely like it - just something that struck me:
The Sacrament of Reconciliation, or Confession, is a sacrament that has fallen into general disuse over the past 40 years - almost simultaneously with the loss of stigma surrounding seeking help from a counselor/therapist. Why is it that we American Catholics will "bear our souls" in therapy but not in the confessional? It's interesting to me. The other thing that strikes me is that when I watch the news, it seems like our society is struggling with more and more dysfunction, like we're "upping the ante" every year. Granted, there are obviously a myriad of other factors that went into making today's society. But one of are most frequent solutions to human behavior today is to recommend therapy. Well, we've got more therapy...but simultaneously more dysfunction. Less Confession, more dysfunction.

What is it that Confession brings to the table that therapy doesn't? (And I'm not knocking counseling/therapy - valid discipline, good tools - I highly recommend it.) But Faith tells me that at root, humanity's problem is spiritual. And while therapy can be good, it's not a sacrament - it can't cut through feelings and thought patterns to make a change directly in the soul. Applying only natural means, in the hopes of curing a supernatural problem, has to end in futility. Confession requires that we recognize that there is such a thing as sin...does the world know what that is anymore?

Sunday Snippets -- a Catholic Carnival

Offering for Sunday, August 9, 2009: It Is What It Is

Suffering = Hope

Romans 5:3-4 has been brought to my attention in two different books this week, and if that doesn't make it bloggable, I don't know what does. Fr. Charles Arminjon was the first to bring it up, footnoting it as a reference, to his attention getting statement that if we suffer, then we have great reason to hope in God. Lets read those verses in their entirety:

We rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope.

Yep, Arminjon got it right: God allows us suffering, to call forth the image of His Son in us, and that gives us reason to hope that we will be confirmed in His Life eternally. We find this same idea in the Epistle to the Hebrews too:

It is for discipline that you have to endure...For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it...God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children, and not sons (12:7,11,8)

Discipline in which all have participated? That's right, ALL:

Although he was a Son, Jesus learned obedience through what he suffered; and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him...About this we have much to say which is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing (Hebrews 5:8-11).

Touche, oh writer of Hebrews! Suffering, not perfectly understood yet endured, while living our lives with faithfulness to God's will is redemptive! What does that mean for the person going through an unwanted divorce? For the person laid up in the hospital? For the child whose father yells too much? Whatever the difficulty, our lives have to be lived in union with Jesus - we have to try as hard as we can to manifest Jesus' words and behavior in the midst of the suffering. I started this reflection with Romans 5:3-4. Let me recap it, but carry on through verse 5, because it is the key:

Suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us!

It's not about our endurance, our strength - it's about God's! We Catholics know we're not saved by faith alone, but we do rely on God's grace alone to carry us through to Heaven. ("Christ in you, the hope of glory." Colossians 1:27) Our hope isn't in ourselves, but in Jesus. Like Paul, we accept our share in "Jesus' sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that if possible [we] may attain the resurrection from the dead" (Philippians 3:11).

So "word up" to Fr. Charles Arminjon for his pithy little, "suffering = reason to hope." There's a whole lot of Scripture and theology squeezed into that little equation. You know, another gal you might have heard of was pretty fond of this same book by Arminjon, Therese Martin... St. Therese of Lisieux. She read it at 15 and referred to it as "one of the greatest graces of my life." Not a bad endorsement.

B.A. Baracus Award

And the B.A. Baracus Award for 2009 goes to Benedict XVI, for his presentation of the Church's most recent document on bioethics, Dignitas Personae, to Barack Obama! You da man Benedict,
you DA MAN!

(Note: Referring to Benedict as "da man" is in no way a slight to Josh Huddleston, whose "da man"-ness is firmly in place and apparent to all.)

John Paul and the Sacred Heart

For the past couple of weeks I've been reading from a book put out in 1992 by Our Sunday Visitor, Pope John Paul II Prays the Litany of the Sacred Heart. It's a powerful little book, the reflections of the Pope upon the 33 invocations of this profound, but often neglected (in my own case), prayer. Allow me to share just a few lines from over 80 pages of the Pope's insights:

Heart of Jesus, sacred temple of God, have mercy on us.
"The Heart of the Man Jesus Christ is therefore, in the trinitarian sense, the "temple of God": it is the interior temple of the Son who is united with the Father in the Holy Spirit by means of the unity of the divinity. How inscrutable is the mystery of this Heart which is the "temple of God" and the "tabernacle of the Most High." (p.33)
Heart of Jesus, burning furnace of charity, have mercy on us.
"The burning furnace gradually expends itself. The Heart of Jesus, on the other hand, is an inextinguishable furnace. In this it resembles the "burning bush" in the Book of Exodus...In fact, the love which burns in the Heart of Jesus is above all the Holy Spirit, in which the God-Son is united eternally with the Father."

Sacred Heart of Jesus, make our hearts like unto Yours. Amen.

Creed & Mysteries

Just noticed something this morning: the correlation between the words of the Creed and the Rosary's Glorious Mysteries.

"I believe in the Holy Spirit" - Descent of the Spirit at Pentecost
"...the resurrection of the dead" - Mary's assumption into Heaven
"...and the life of the world to come" - Mary's coronation

I Got Schooled

Sure did - by an elderly gentelman walking into Mass. He was ahead of me, but I caught up to him quickly; he had stopped to rest on his cane for a moment. I didn't want to insult him in any way, but I felt I should stop and ask if he needed a hand getting inside. He pulled an electrolarynx from his pocket and used it to tell me, with a smile, "No, I'm fine. I just need to take a moment." The image of him struggling to make it to a weekday Mass impressed me a great deal though. Most mornings, I can't make it because of work or activities with the kids...but on the mornings that I am free, why don't I always get there? Jesus is there, anxious to be with me - me! And I have something more important to do? I've got to get my head on straight.

Doubting Thomas, or Grieving Thomas?

In the Catholic Church, today is the Feast of Thomas the Apostle. Thomas, of course, has come down to us in history as "Doubting Thomas," the skeptic among the Apostles, because of his statement "I will never believe [He has been raised] without probing the nailprints in His hands" (John 20:25). When I heard the account read again at this morning's Mass though, skepticism wasn't what I heard in Thomas' voice - it was grief.

Two days before, from afar, Thomas had witnessed Jesus' crucifixion. The man on whom he had pinned all of his hopes for the future was brutally murdered in front of him! Instead of God's kingdom breaking in and setting the world aright, Thomas saw it all destroyed. So when the other Apostles started telling stories about Jesus being raised from the dead, Thomas couldn't just grab onto it. Thomas was in shambles at that point - no, the only thing that could restore his hope was to lay his hands on the Body that had been tortured and killed. The Lord left Thomas in that darkness for another week, but at the time God perceived to be best, Jesus did come to him, "Take your finger and examine my hands. Put your hand into my side. Do not persist in your unbelief but believe!" (John 20:27).

"We're Not Worthy!"

That line was going through my head last night. I haven't posted a blog in quite awhile - getting that book out to the public has taken a lot of time, on top of just being a dad. This past weekend was a good one for the book though. A positive review on Catholic Exchange sold some paperback copies as well as generated emails requesting PDFs in places as far away as Perth, Australia, and Lisbon, Portugal! I was happy, but much to my surprise, a bit scared too. It hit me: "Who am I to speak about Jesus? I have so far to go in being a worthy representative. What if someone who reads the book meets me down the line and thinks, 'Him - he wrote this?'"
All I can really say is: Lord, I really want this book to be a tool in Your Hands, a help in opening others' eyes to all that You have for them. Just please don't let me be a stumbling block on anyone's road to You.

Science & Faith - No Conflict

Although I have always enjoyed it, these past few years, I've been reading even more on the "relationship" between science and faith. I guess I've been spurred on by the new wave of atheism that has made its way to bookstore shelves (think Richard Dawkins' God Delusion for starters). Just recently I read a great anecdote by the Brit, G.K. Chesterton:

I remember once arguing with an honest young atheist, who was very much shocked at my disputing some of the assumptions which were absolute sanctities to him...and he at length fell back upon this question, which he delivered with an honourable heat of defiance and indignation: "Well, can you tell me any man of intellect, great in science or philosophy, who accepted the miraculous?" I said, "With pleasure. Descartes, Dr. Johnson, Newton, Faraday, Newman, Gladstone, Pasteur, Browning, Brunetiere - as many more as you please." To which that admirable young man made this astonishing reply - "Oh, but of course they had to say that; they were Christians." First he challenged me to find a black swan, and then he ruled out all my swans because they were black. The fact that all these great intellects had come to the Christian view was somehow or other a proof either that they were not great intellectuals or that they had not really come to that view.

I took that quotation from Dale Ahlquist's Common Sense 101: Lessons From G.K. Chesterton. As my pal Kevin says, there was "plenty of grist there for my mill." (Readers, do yourselves a favor and visit Dr. Kevin Vost's website.) And while I'm at it, let me throw out a few more excellent reads on faith and science:

Partners

When I was praying the Rosary this evening I was really struck by the final mystery, the Coronation of Mary. Raised up to Heaven, as we all hope to be some day, she received her crown - "Well done good and faithful servant."

In a strict sense though, what had Mary done to warrant a crown? She did exactly what God had asked of her. But didn't she owe Him that, as a creature to her Creator? Yes, in strict justice she did. But this is where we see the abundant, and utterly gratuitous Love of God. He freely chose to raise up that humble creature, and to count her as his partner in redemption! And as a loving, cooperative partner and daughter, He lavishes honors upon her!

And that is what is awaiting us too! As Paul said, "Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day--and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing" (2 Timothy 4:8).

Freaking Me Out

So I came home today and flipped on the television. I start flipping channels and, hey - that's Jon Bon Jovi sitting next to Oprah. That I had to see. They were talking about the inauguration. Hey, there's Forest Whittaker too. I left the show on in the background as I started the computer and logged on to check my e-mail.

I heard them as they spoke about how our new president's attitude of hope and public displays of affection for his wife had already begun our country's "healing process." PDA and national healing? Jon, don't you go giving love a bad name! My next thought was, "People, you've got to put the brakes on. Your expectations are just too high; no man can live up to them." Just then I spotted an e-mail from my buddy Pete, directing me to the White House's site, where President Obama's team had laid out his social agenda:

Gay Rights

• Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples...
• Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
• Expand Adoption Rights: President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.
• Promote AIDS Prevention: ...The President will support common sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system. The President also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. President Obama has also been willing to confront the stigma -- too often tied to homophobia -- that continues to surround HIV/AIDS.

Embryonic Stem Cells and Abortion

• Supporting Stem Cell Research: President Obama and Vice President Biden believe that we owe it to the American public to explore the potential of stem cells to treat the millions of people suffering from debilitating and life-threatening diseases. Obama is a co-sponsor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which will allow research of human embryonic stem cells derived from embryos donated (with consent) from in vitro fertilization clinics. These embryos must be deemed in excess and created based solely for the purpose of fertility treatment.

• Supports a Woman's Right to Choose: President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Adminstration. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.
• Preventing Unintended Pregnancy: President Obama was an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

What good things are we expecting President Obama to accomplish, that they can outweigh this social agenda coming to fruition?

And when Jesus drew near and saw Jerusalem he wept over it, saying, "Would that even today you knew the things that make for peace! But now they are hid from your eyes" (Luke 19:41-42).

Chuck It

I don't know, we've been talking about Jesus baptism...water...it made sense to me.

Jesus' Baptism

Alright, I'm recycling material here; but as I said, I love thinking about the mysteries surrounding Jesus' baptism. Here's a link to an excerpt from Chapter 3 of The God Who is Love: Explaining Christianity From Its Center; just jump ahead to pages three and four.

Jesus' Prayer

My Protestant brothers and sisters refer to the Our Father as The Lord's Prayer, Jesus' prayer. Reflecting upon Jesus' Baptism, it strikes me as a wonderful insight.

How natural for those words to have been on Jesus' lips as went down into the water:

Our Father, Who art in heaven, holy be Your name. Your kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread.

The prayer of the Messiah, as he takes up His office before the world. And then the second half of the prayer - offered by One Who was perfectly sinless, but the representative of a sinful race:

Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

The Love of Jesus for us - Our Father...give us our daily bread...forgive us. Thank You God! What else can we feel at this moment besides gratitude and awe?

Lookin' Up

I love this Feast Day, the celebration of Jesus' Baptism (brace yourself, I feel multiple posts coming on). Listen to how Mark tells it:

Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John. Immediately on coming up out of the water he saw the sky rent in two and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. Then a voice came from the heavens, "You are my beloved Son. On you my favor rests." (Mark 1:9-11)

Why is it that it feels so natural to look up when we pray? Even Jesus did it on occasion (John 11:41), and He was in a position to know that Heaven isn't physically above "the heavens"! So what's the deal? Highly visual moments like Jesus' baptism and ascension remind us that Heaven is a "higher level" of being, but again; why the physicality of looking toward the sky?

My own theory? I'll warn you; it's not very complex...I think it has to do with little children looking and reaching up toward their parents. It's such a natural, and universal, gesture, a child's reaching out and up to his/her loving provider and protector. I think that this is tranferred to our interactions with God, quite naturally, and quite appropriately. He is our Father!

Can't Say It Any Better!

Last year I signed up at Daily Gospel to receive an e-mail with the day's gospel reading and commentary. And this morning, this is what I found, a reflection on Jesus' Incarnation:

Saint Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo (North Africa) and Doctor of the Church
Sermon 194, 11th sermon on the Nativity of the Lord

"This joy of mine has been made complete" Listen, children of light: you who have been adopted for the Kingdom of God; listen, my dearest brethren; listen and exult for joy in the Lord, you just, for «praise from the upright is fitting» (Ps 33,1). Listen to what you already know; reflect on what you have heard; love what you believe; proclaim what you love!...

Christ is born, God from his Father, man through his mother. He was born from his Father's immortality and his mother's virginity. From the Father without the aid of a mother; from the mother without that of a father. From his Father without time; from his mother without seed. According to his Father he is the principle of life; according to his mother, the ending of death. According to his Father he was born to determine the order of days; according to his mother, to consecrate the day that is here.

He sent John the Baptist before him, causing him to be born when the days were beginning to decrease, while he himself was born when the days began to grow in length, thus prefiguring John's own words: «He must increase, I must decrease». For indeed, human life must grow weaker in itself but stronger in Jesus Christ «so that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised» (2Cor 5,15), and so that each one of us might repeat those words of the apostle Paul: «Yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me» (Gal 2,20).

Shackin' Up

Recently, a couple of friends at work were very excited by this book, The Shack, and were curious what I would think of it. It took about as month for me to get to it, but I finally did. Sad to say, I didn't enjoy it as much as they had. The premise was promising enough: a man grieving the murder of his young daugher spends a weekend in a shack, conversing with the three Persons of the Trinity. And I must say, the book does some things very well, probably the most important being its presentation of God as a Being of infinite tenderness, Who continually pours Himself out to His human creatures. Because of that, one of my friends described the book as "life changing." Now that's fantastic - God using this book to increase her understanding of how perfect His love for her is and that Christianity is a RELATIONSHIP, not a list of arbitrary rules or rituals to be performed. (Not to say that "rules" and "rituals" aren't a part of every relationship though. You've been to a birthday party, right? Cake, singing, make wish, blow out candles, can't tell wish, cut cake, etc.)

I did feel like there was a distortion, however, in the image The Shack gives of God and the definitive image we find in the Jesus of the Gospels. I felt I was looking at a caricature. God IS all Love, but that Love is perfectly one with His justice and holiness (aka, "total otherness"). In an infinite Being these qualities aren't contradictions. I couldn't see the God of The Shack ever recommending excommunication as an act of Love, but that is what the Jesus of the Gospels advised the Apostles:

If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault...If he will not listen, take one or two others along...If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven. (Matthew 18:15-17)

And the Apostles took Jesus at His word, as can be seen from the Apostle Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians:

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you...A man has his father's wife...Shouldn't you have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?...When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that his sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. (1 Cor.5:1-12)

That's right, put him outside the assembly - treat him as if dead, because spiritually he is. Does it look intolerant on the part of Jesus, of Paul? It's TOUGH LOVE, and it's meant to be medicinal. It is a last-ditch effort to wake the offender to how destructive his behavior is, and that if it isn't changed, it can cost him his soul. The Church would be supremely unloving if it failed to intervene. (It strikes me as funny that a psychologist can use this technique, call it an "intervention," and receive accolades; but when a bishop does the same, calling it "excommunication," he's despised.)

This leads into what I consider The Shack's largest deficiency - its conception of the Church. The author, William P. Young, clearly recognizes the spiritual reality of the Church; I liked the visionary image he used of Jesus standing at the center of the Communion of Saints - that heaven and earth are bound together in Christ. What Young doesn't grasp though, is how the Church can be both spiritual and material, simultaneously. (It's a both/and thing, not an either/or - as are the Sacraments and the Incarnation itself!) It leads Mr. Young to break with the four gospels, creating this exchange between the characters of Mack and Jesus:

"You're not too fond of religion and institutions?" Mack said, not sure if he was asking a question or making an observation.
"I don't create institutions - never have, never will."
"What about the institution of marriage?"
"Marriage is not an institution. It's a relationship." Jesus paused, his voice steady and patient. "Like I said, I don't create institutions; that's an occupation for those who want to play God. So no, I'm not too big on religion." Jesus said a little sarcastically, "and not very fond of politics or economics either." Jesus' visage darkened noticeably. "And why should I be? They are the man-created trinity of terrors that ravages the earth and deceives those I care about. What mental turmoil and anxiety does any human face that is not related to one of those three?"

Whoa, whoa, whoa. There's Young's either/or slant; and it's unwarranted. Lets take economics. Now honestly, can't there be both good and bad economics? And marriage, of course it's a relationship. But there are legally-binding vows taken before witnesses, joint property, responsibilities, custody of children...I don't know, sounds like there's a formal/institutional side to me.

In the same vein, it has become quite fashionable to pit "religion" against "having a personal relationship with God." I did it myself for several years, and in public talks no less! "I'm a spiritual person, not religious. Religion is about binding us to certain practices, but spirituality is the living out of a relationship." What God finally opened my eyes to, however, was that these things aren't mutually exclusive; they're meant to fit like hand-in-glove. Jesus Himself, bound us to certain practices: "This is My Body; this is My Blood. Do this in remembrance of Me." He bound us to the practice of confessing our sins when He told the Apostles, "If you forgive anyone their sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven" (John 20:23). The Sacraments are Exhibit-A that practices/rituals can be filled with all the spiritual power we can imagine (and then some)! Granted, a man can come forward to receive Communion without the least thought that he is about to receive the God-man (His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity) into himself - just as another man can take a stranger back to his bed for the night, without the least appreciation for the magnitude of the sexual act. The second man's failure to engage in sex the way God intended, and to reap the intimacy it was created to enhance, doesn't lead us to label sex "meaningless." The same goes for religion: just because we are surrounded by Catholics and other Christians who have never grasped the power inherent in the Sacraments, Scripture, or life within the Church, it doesn't mean these are lacking in power. Spiritual blindness has kept us living in poverty, unable to see the million dollars lying on the kitchen table!

When we turn from religious ritual to religious leadership, the same is true. There are good and bad shepherds out there; it doesn't negate the need for shepherding though. It doesn't negate the fact that Jesus established a Church, with visible leaders, for that very purpose. We could look at Scriptural citations and historical studies illustrating it until we went cross-eyed; glancing up above at the quotations of Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5 above should suffice though. And what we see when we reflect on those passages is how "institution" can be the very vehicle of relationship! God works, God speaks to us, through the leaders of His Church. The Incarnation is continued as Jesus makes use of the pope and bishops, members along with all of us in His Mystical Body, to speak His Word. Our religion isn't just citing passages from a holy book, trying to shoe-horn all of the modern world's questions so that they match "old" answers. No, it is bringing our confusion and questions to God, and allowing the Holy Spirit to breathe through Scripture and Tradition, illuminating the minds of the Apostles' successors as they formulate responses that are ever-faithful to the past, but capable of speaking to new situations. (You might want to glance at my last post where I touched on the Church's opposition to in vitro fertilization.)

The sinfulness of Christian ministers doesn't negate this either, anymore than Judas' betrayal negated the role of the Twelve. After Judas' defection and suicide, another was appointed to his office (Acts of the Apostles 1:20). The Truth and Power within our Faith isn't undone by human failings; our God, dwelling within His Church, is way too powerful. I've got to go with St. Irenaeus on this one. As a disciple of Bishop Polycarp (himself, a disciple of the Apostle John) Irenaeus was in a much better position than we in the 20th century, on the other side of the world, to know what Jesus had communicated to the Apostles. In 180 A.D., Irenaeus wrote, "Where the Church is there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God, there the Church and every grace."

So, can I recommend The Shack? In my own life God has made use of materials that were less than perfect to help me along; the book Joshua, with a message similar to The Shack's, is an example. That said, there are other books that can be of a lot more benefit, C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity for starters. A good rule of thumb: (With the exception of the Bible itself) If it's palatable enough that it has made it onto a shelf at Wal-Mart, then whatever good points it has, it probably isn't the Gospel as preached by Jesus and the Apostles.

Twelve

12 Days of Christmas, 12 months of the year, 12 signs of the zodiac, 12 Tribes of Israel, 12 sons of Jacob the patriarch, 12 Apostles...

I was thinking about Pentecost last night (a.k.a. "meditating on the mystery of Pentecost"), trying to come at it from a different angle. I always envision Mary and the Apostles, but there were over a hundred other people gathered in that upper room (Acts 1:15)! So I imagined the reaction of that crowded room, experiencing the release of the Holy Spirit in charisms like tongues and prophecy. They were excited, prayer pouring out their hearts to God in charismatic prayer. Inevitably though, their eyes turned toward the Apostles, "the Twelve" as they were known in the early Church.

It was only natural that they should look to them for guidance in that moment. Let me explain: The nation of Israel, its 12 tribes, were descended from the 12 sons of Jacob (grandson of Abraham). Those 12 were the fathers of the nation. So for Jesus to single out 12 of His disciples to form an inner circle, to be "Apostles"or those "sent," it would have been recognized as monumental. Jesus, the Messiah, was appointing them as the foundation of His renewed Israel. They would be the fathers of the nation! Of course all of the disciples gathered on Pentecost would have turned their eyes to them.

Fathers of the nation. This truth is transmitted by us every time we refer to a priest, bishop, or pope as father. At ordination they were entrusted with the task of making present the fatherly care of the The Twelve. Putting it like that, I need to pray for them more - that's gotta be one tough job. Come Holy Spirit!

Post #50 - With Many Thanks to Kathi

50 posts - I never knew I had it in me. Once again I have to say "thank you" to my friend Kathi Strunk, who encouraged me to start not only a blog but a website. Her advice was nothing short of prophetic. That's right, I used the "p" word.

I'm not talking the Nostradamus-looking-in-a-bowl-of-oil type prophet (I'd be very weary of them), but the baptized-Christian-type. All of us have been called to share in the prophetic ministry of Jesus Christ. We exercise it in very intentional ways - taking hard stands, calling people back to their senses, reminding loved ones of God's Truth when they've gotten things all jumbled up. But I'm convinced that we often exercise it in very unintentional ways as well - when we speak and act from love.

And that's my friend Kathi; she comes from love. I see her going out of her way to develop relationships with the kids at our school and to give them little nudges in new and exciting directions. Wow, as I wrote that, it struck me as an apt description of her influence on me. Here's to Kathi!

Bottom Line

I was praying while driving back to the house this afternoon - feeling down about events this past year. "God, this can't be Your will...Well, it's obviously Your will to allow it...so I guess passing through this IS Your will...But when are You going to set things right?" And suddenly the "ground" under me was a bit more solid. Because if it is within His will, then there isn't failure; it's not the end of the story. He didn't give me any indication how or when He would bring something of value out of this; but the realization that this was within His permissive will made a difference.

The second movement in my prayer had to do with the thoughts that have come to me repeatedly these past weeks: "Give up. Stop struggling like this. Why do you 'stay'?" And the answer that came from within, very matter-of-factly, was "Because He wants me to." No emotion to it, no passion in it. At the deepest part of me though, there He is. He is my reason for being...I love Him. And its not flowery; there's no sweetness right now. But there is commitment - there is Love. I feel frazzled and so self-centered with all my concerns, but somehow the Holy Spirit has managed to plant this seed deep down, to lay this foundation. Isn't this exactly what St. Paul wrote about though? "The love of God has been poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Romans 5:5). What MERCY - God enabling us to Love Him! If He hadn't, a weak heart like mine would have given out long ago.

My prayer for us in this new year - "God, let this foundation You laid in us through Baptism endure. Clear away whatever we've built on it that isn't of You. Let us have the peace of trusting in You, trusting in this good future You have planned."

"Suit Up!"

While I've been on Christmas break, I've spent some time catching up on How I Met Your Mother. Barney would drive that Escalade I wrote about in my last post!

"SIN ROX"

I was actually behind an Escalade with that license plate the other day! About 10% of my brain was offended, but the other 90% gave way to laughter. It was just so cartoonish - it raised "piss on" decals to the level of a quip from Mark Twain! Who but a cartoon villain actually goes around praising sin?

A second's reflection told me that he wasn't praising "sin" like the Nazi's extermination of six million Jews though. No, he was celebrating the "naughty," fun things we do - like getting blitzed and hooking up with a hot stranger for the night. 'Cause dude, that ROCKS! Ooh, but what if another dude got blitzed and hooked up with your little sister for the night? Would that rock? If you're human at all, I hope you'll say "no." But then...it'd be a total bummer if you had to rethink a vanity plate that rox as hard as yours.

New Website

Just wanted to put it out there that I'm in the process of creating a new website, Explaining Christianity.com. In a few months time my first book, The God Who is Love: Explaining Christianity From Its Center, will be published; and this is the site that will allow people to look at excerpts, read endorsements, and even download a free copy. The book will be offered in paperback through Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Borders, Books-A-Million, etc.; but I don't want price to stand in anyone's way. The site isn't ready to allow downloads yet, but please check out its layout and let me know what you think. And hey - MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Hot N Cold

"Someone call the doctor
Got a case of a love bipolar...
'Cause you're hot then you're cold
You're yes then you're no
You're in and you're out
You're up and you're down
You're wrong when it's right ..."

Katy Perry's lyrics always give me something to think about. (My first post was a reflection on her "I Kissed a Girl.") This evening I find them to be a perfect segue for discussing those words from Jesus two posts back, ""I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth" (Revelation 3:15-16). Everyone holds up signs reading "John 3:16;" but why not Revelation 3:16? I ask that rhetorically. It's easy to see why not - most Christians prefer a caricature of Jesus to the actual Person recorded for us in Scripture. We prefer an imaginary Jesus, who forgives our failings but makes no demands. The imaginary Jesus never gets upset - unless it's at religious bullies, and they've got it coming, don't they? He came to relieve suffering (because pain, not separation from God, is the ultimate evil) and to teach us that if we'll just be "tolerant" enough of everyone else's opinion (translation = truth does not exist in fact, but is what we individually believe it to be), peace will finally come.

That is NOT the Person we find in the New Testament - or in any kind of historical research on Jesus of Nazareth. "Caricature Jesus" isn't the type of guy that gets nailed to a Cross! (And calls his followers to join him.) The real Jesus is a passionate lover, who forces us to make a decision, "He who is not with Me, is against me" (Matthew 12:30); "Do not think I have come to bring peace to the earth, but the sword" (Matthew 10:34). No, not a sword of physical violence, but of Truth/Reality:

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account. (Hebrews 12:12-13)

Jesus is like the doctor who has to tell the patient he has cancer; hiding the gravity of the situation, denying the need for aggressive treatment, wouldn't be doing the patient justice.

Recently, a friend of mine (also Catholic) got very excited when she found out I had a blog. I don't think that excitement lasted very long though; when we next spoke she diplomatically told me, "I don't agree with you on many things." She didn't elaborate; and my sense was that it wasn't the right moment to ask her to either. From little things she's shared in the past though, I fear her disagreement has to do with Jesus' s teachings regarding sexuality; and that makes me terribly sad. We are supposed to be in a real, life-giving relationship with Jesus of Nazareth, our brother and God. We can't pick and choose what parts of His message we are going to live by. That's like picking which part of the marriage vow you're going to honor. Oh, plenty of people try to do it...and thus our 50% divorce rate. Hot or cold - thinking that you can exist as "lukewarm" is self-deception. I'm not saying this as someone looking down from a summit; I think I've blogged enough about going to Confession to prove that that isn't the point. Christianity is Life-giving, it gives Divine Life; but only when we fully surrender ourselves to Jesus. We come, broken as we are, sinful as we are, and allow Him to embrace us - embracing Him in turn. We ask for, and receive, the help of His Holy Spirit. And then we have the ability to Love and Live the Reality, the Life that Jesus (the real Jesus) proclaimed!

If you're reading this, please pray for me. Please pray for my friend too - a beautiful, smart, young woman looking for her heart's passion.

Very Sad, Very Timely

I woke up this morning, thought back over the past evening I had spent in front of the television, and felt sad. Many choices were made yesterday; we've made it clear what we as a people value most, and what – no, who – we are willing to sacrifice in a blind attempt to ensure a more comfortable future. Words from the Gospel of Luke came immediately to mind, and the thought that we can now substitute the names of many other cities for that of Jerusalem:

As Jesus approached Jerusalem and saw the city, He wept over it…“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace – but now it is hidden from your eyes…I tell you, you will not see Me again until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord’…because you did not recognize the time of your visitation, of God’s coming to you.” (Luke 13:34-35; 19:41-44)

We sow the wind and reap…
Last year, on the 35th anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision, Barack Obama, our newly elected president released the following statement:

Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it's never been more important to protect a woman's right to choose. Last year, the Supreme Court decided by a vote of 5-4 to uphold the Federal [Partial Birth] Abortion Ban, and in doing so undermined an important principle of Roe v. Wade: that we must always protect women's health. With one more vacancy on the Supreme Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a women's fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade. The next president may be asked to nominate that Supreme Court justice. That is what is at stake in this election.
Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.
When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.

He was simply reiterating a promise he made to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, six months before, when on July 17, 2007, he said, ”The first thing I'd do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."

And what is the Freedom of Choice Act? California Senator Barbara Boxer, co-sponser of the bill, had earlier released a statement explaining that:

The Freedom of Choice Act supercedes any law, regulation or local ordinance that impinges on a woman’s right to choose. That means a poor woman cannot be denied the use of Medicaid if she chooses to have an abortion…abortions cannot be prohibited at public hospitals, giving women more choices than private clinics...we respect a woman’s ability to make her own decisions, and don’t force women to attend anti-choice propaganda lectures, which submits women to misleading information, the purpose of which is to discourage abortion. This means that women serving in our country in the military overseas would be able to afford safe abortions that can be performed in a military hospital.

Tax money, state and federal, would be mandated to fund abortions. Ask God to have mercy on us - that this be a campaign promise that our new president fails to keep; we already have too much blood on our hands.

The Gag Reflex

Papal infallibility = God's Gag Reflex. Irreverent of me? Don't cry "blasphemy" just yet; all will be explained.

That picture is awesome though. Must...look...away...to begin writing. Alright, lets establish what the Church means by papal infallibility. Bottom line - the pope is protected from teaching something that is false, WHEN a very specific set of criteria is met:

1. He speaks as the Successor of Peter, Head of the Apostles
2. upon a matter of faith or morals,
3. with the intention of instructing the entire Church

So the Catholic Church is NOT claiming that the Pope:

• is infallible when he reflects on the readings during a Sunday homily
  
• speaks infallibly on matters of science, mathematics, economic policy, politics, etc.
• will speak out when he should (cowardice could keep him from speaking at all)
  
• will enunciate the truth as clearly as is possible
• doesn't sin (that would be impeccability, not infalliblity; and the Church has NEVER claimed impeccability for the Pope.)

The Church's ONLY claim regarding papal infallibility is that when three criteria are met, God will RESTRAIN the Pope from saying something FALSE. (Yeah, when I called it the "Divine Gag Reflex," I was talking about a different kind of "gag" - the kind you stuff in a mouth. I know, I'm horrible. Got you reading though, didn't I?) Infallibility is a completely negative gift; God will not allow the Pope to insert something false into the official body of Truth entrusted by Jesus to the Church. God would "reflexively" act to stop such an attempt.

Where do we Catholics come up with this belief? Like everything else, we trace it back to Jesus. He made some pretty startling promises to those Apostles:

“He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me” (Luke 10:16)
"[The Holy Spirit] will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. . .He will guide you into all the truth” (John 14:26; 16:13)

Paul the Apostle, knowing Jesus' teaching, and himself moved by the Holy Spirit, wrote of "the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). WOW - Jesus' intent was for the Church to be the place that the world could turn to hear the Truth, to get a reality check. And what measures did He, does He, take to guarantee this?

He called a fisherman named Simon, and after changing his name to Peter (Rock), Jesus told him, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19). The Jewish mind of the first century, hearing those words, would have immediately shot back to the Israelite monarchy. Jesus was adopting the terminology used to refer to the Master of the Palace, or vizier - what we today would call the "Prime Minister." He was second in command after the king (2 Kings 18:18; 15:5), and as such held "the keys of the kingdom." Flip to Isaiah 22:21-23 and examine how Jesus made use of the same vocabulary in speaking to Simon-Peter.

Jesus, in announcing the Kingdom of God, was announcing that all of the promises God had made to King David about an everlasting kingdom, were about to be fulfilled. Jesus, the descendant of David, was the long-awaited Messiah; and He was renewing Israel. Israel had begun with the 12 sons of Jacob - its renewal with the 12 Apostles of King (Christ) Jesus. And Peter was to be the Prime Minister, using the power of the keys to bind God's people to Truth and the way of Love. It would be meaningless to speak of the authority of other ministers to bind and loose apart from their unity with Peter. Jesus' purpose wasn't to make Peter some type of dictator in regard to the other Apostles; in Christ’s Kingdom the greatest is meant to serve the rest. Part of Peter's service, and that of the Popes who have succeeded him in office, is to speak the final word when matters are in dispute, thus maintaining the unity of the Church/Kingdom. This service is especially important when the ones arguing are fellow shepherds.

And so we have Jesus' words to Peter, "You are Rock, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt.16:17-19). What is the power of hell? Deception. The devil deceives; that's always been his M.O. And to combat this Jesus gave Peter the keys - authority to speak out, definitively binding the Church to Truth and loosing it from deception.

Now, Jesus can't mean that Peter gets to flip a coin, decide what is true, and God will magically rearrange spiritual and temporal realities to make it so. God isn't manipulated! No, Peter is simply a minister in Another's Kingdom. Peter speaks to the Church and world on behalf of the King (Who has ascended into Heaven). To use the power of the keys demands a reflexive action on God's part - "gagging" Peter, preventing him in some way, if he ever attempted to teach something that was false. At the same time, when God allows Peter to teach the Church, He expects it to be adhered to. Ignoring Peter? Well, remember what Jesus had said, "“He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me” (Luke 10:16). Whenever the pope speaks in his official capacity (remember those 3 criteria I started with?) as Successor to Peter, Prime Minister of the Kingdom, the same is true.

Oh hey, I do recall Jesus talking about having a gag reflex - yes, a true, biological gag reflex. After His resurrection He told the Apostle John to write a letter to the church in Laodicea, "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth" (Revelation 3:15-16).

Hey, three shout-outs before I wrap up. First, to Strunk - did you notice that I used your word "irreverent?" Second, to Pete for his encouragement and prayers. And third, to Duran Duran for their song The Reflex. I think we can all agree that that's a gift that keeps on giving.

"I Love It When a Plan Comes Together"

Powerful words, from one of our nation’s greatest (and least appreciated) heroes. I had a couple of moments this weekend when things seemed to click together, and I couldn’t help but feel like I’m getting a glimpse of Someone’s plan:

First, I'm sure you’ve noticed how Catholics often follow their praying of the Our Father, or Lord’s Prayer, with the Hail Mary. What caught my attention was how theologically profound that is. In the Our Father we petition God for everything that we will need during this day: that His way of doing things spreads through our lives and throughout the whole earth; that we be able to forgive those who have hurt us; and that we be protected from evil. And then in the Hail Mary we turn to the person who opened herself to receive these blessings like no other! With real excitement we can pray, “Hail Mary, Full of Grace, the Lord is with thee! Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus!” Excitement – because in Mary we see what happens when we pray the Our Father from the depths of our heart. As John Paul II pointed out, the Hail Mary is a Christ-centered prayer; it’s all about what God did, in her! And we want the miracle of the incarnation to continue, for us to give flesh and bone to God the Son. Really, isn’t that what we’re asking for each time we pray the Our Father, for us, for every human being, to be remade in Jesus’ image? And each time we finish the Hail Mary, we ask her to pray for this too, “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of death.”

The second thing that clicked with me had to do with incense. No, not that cutesy stuff from Bed, Bath & Beyond - I’m talkin’ ole-school, briquette in a censer, incense. You see, on special feast days, like this past Sunday’s All Souls Day, the priest incenses the gifts to be offered in the Eucharist. (It’s a very hip practice, going back to the Israelites’ wandering in the desert. The Book of Revelation shows the saints in Heaven offering incense to God – and then identifies that incense as our prayers [Rev.5:8]!) What finally caught my attention this past weekend though was how the priest didn’t just incense the bread and wine; he came around to the front of the altar and swung the incense out over the congregation as well. YES - we are part of the offering; we are to be transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. The transformation that takes place on the altar, occurs SO THAT we may be transformed. We (our thoughts, words, actions, our very beings) are to be made part of Jesus’ Love and response to the Father.

In writing this, I realize that both of the above realizations are actually only one - examples of the Gospel in miniature: “We live in Jesus and He in us; Heaven can begin right here and now.”

Can I Get a "What What"?

"Raisin' da roof" I always love All Saints Day - giving props to our awesome older brothers and sisters. Once upon a time I felt differently, worried that honoring the saints took something away from the honor I was supposed to be giving to God alone. I realize now, however, that nothing could be farther from the truth. Let me explain:

I could stare at my two kids all day; their mom and I see them as the two most beautiful creatures, both inside and out, on the face of the entire earth. And nothing makes us happier than when someone else notices that beauty and pays them a compliment. I think that every parent has the same experience - and we feel this way because we have been made in the "image and likeness" of our common parent, God (Genesis 1:26) ! God loves it when the beauty of His children is recognized and honored. First, because, as members of His Family, doing so means that we are loving our own brothers and sisters (what parent doesn't love that?); and second, because we recognize that everything we see in the saints has God for its source. (Just like when someone "oohs and ahs" over a famous painting; in truth, they're praising not the art, but the artist).

My own prayer last night focused on the second aspect, "Lord, I am amazed by the purity and strength you poured into the Blessed Mother; the love, humility, and responsibility you filled Joseph with; the humility and simplicity of your daughter Therese..."

Hey- as I was writing this I just received a call that my pregnant sister-in-law is in the hospital. Please stop and say a prayer for your sister Becky...AND why not go ahead and ask our older siblings in heaven to do the same? Word.

The "Fire" of Hell?

To fully appreciate this post, you really need to have read the one just prior (or "below it," in the world of blogs). That said, I'm jumping in.

Several years ago, I heard Dr. Scott Hahn speculate on the fire of hell; and while this isn't what you'd call de fide doctrine, I think many people might benefit from his thoughts. Hahn branched off from what we've already looked at concerning the "fire of purgatory," that it is a transformative encounter with God Himself (Hebrews 12:29, 1 Cor.3:12-15) - the touch of God burning away whatever sin and imperfection keeps us from full participation in His Divine Life. We ourselves are set aflame with this Divine Life; we dwell in the All Consuming Fire, and He dwells in us! Hahn asks if the Fire of Hell could be the same Fire, God - but as He is experienced by a person who refuses Him entry, refuses to be taken up into Divine Life? Keeping God only at the "surface" of their being, they experience Him as "Fire," but refuse the transformative nature of His embrace.

You see, each of us, at every moment, are held in existence by nothing but God's will. That's the corollary truth to having been called into existence from nothing; if we ever ceased to be part of God's will, we would simply unravel. (Wow - that makes sitting on the couch and watching the tube seem pretty spiritual - never mind something as glorious as Bridget cramming that whole White Castle into her mouth). Every being has to be held in existence by Him - there can't be a being who is completely free of His "touch," not even the devil himself. But for one who refuses to be in relationship with Him, this touch would be agonizing. It's like the child, absolutely starving, who stubbornly refuses every bite of food his mother puts before him. He screams and protests, "It's not the food I want," refusing his mother's attempts to explain that it's what his constitution needs. Unwilling to violate her child, she won't shove her fist down his throat and deposit the food in his gullet. Her love for him forces her to let him be, to writhe and protest - becoming ever more angered by her looks of concern.

No one "goes" to hell by accident. It's a choice; a stubborn refusal to accept our place in God's Family. Instead of living within the parameters our Father established for us - established because He created us, and knows what we need far better than we do - we dig in our heels and choose what is incompatible with Divine Life. St. Paul gives a list of such behaviors, 1 Corinthians 6:9. If we choose these over God, and refuse to reorient ourselves, God will not force us to receive Him. He respects our freedom so much that He allows us to keep Him at bay, to create our own experience of hell.