Luigi Guissani: Quotations

The Holy Spirit  "...the Spirit of Pentecost is the gift par excellence, because it is through the Spirit that we are drawn into the mystery of Christ and understand the experience of that person who fully explains and resolves our reality."                                                                                                         

For the Fun of It: Politics as Entertainment

     The following is an interview with Machiavelli on the topic of  same sex marriage.  His responses to my questions are reported precisely as they were channeled to me for this blog.

Salvatore Rosa: As a historian, writer, diplomat and philosopher of Politics, Signore Machiavelli, what do you think of President Obama?

Machiavelli: I love him! He is the perfect political animal. He is more fun than my fellow Italian, Berlusconi, even though Berlusconi is a better clown.

 SR: Why do you say that?

M: Because deep down, Berlusconi  knew he was a clown, but Obama takes himself very seriously. So he provides us with more amusement.

SR:  Us?  Signore Machiavelli, before we continue the interview, may I ask where you are at present? Where are you speaking to me from?

 M: Certainly you may ask, and it is also certain I do not answer the question.

SR: I beg your pardon?

M: It was given me to speak to you about your president. That, I will do. Any more than that, I am not obliged to do. 

SR: But where you are speaking from is important. It affects your credibility.

M: Perhaps in your eyes, it does. I believe my words will speak for themselves. Do not waste my time further. Begin!

SR: Ah, why do you call President Obama a “perfect political animal?”?

M: The man is skilled at playing off one group against another. He knows when to take risks and when not. He is able to build coalitions, manipulate the liberal media, exercise power, and yet appear to be above the fray. He motivates others to go for his agenda while making it seem to be theirs, raise money, and in short, does whatever it takes to get what he wants.

SR: And you find all that admirable?

 M: Absolutely! “The end justifies the means” is the gold standard of Politics. Principles are a luxury, for princes, presidents, prime ministers, and politicians.  Remember, History is written by the winners. It doesn’t matter if the losers are right, since they have no say. What matters is what works to get you what you want.

SR: Do you think his endorsement of same-sex “marriages” was an act of courage?

 M: It was nervy, yes. But courageous, I think not. It was only one more baby step, the smart move to make at the time, that’s all.

SR: What’s the difference between “courage” and “nerve”?

 M: Aha! That is the difference between what you call a statesman and a politician. Courage is an act from the heart, a giant step, an act of bravery and heroism, a standing for a great good that can only be achieved by sacrifice and struggle. Courage is the noble dedication of oneself to a Cause that is greater than oneself. Gandhi was a man of courage. Your Martin Luther King was a man of courage. So was your Malcolm X.

SR: And “nerve”? How do you define “nerve”?

M:  Nerve is the energy of the petty, it is small-mindedness in action. Nerve is cunning, calculation and careful posturing. A good example to explain nerve I take from your own day and age, the example of the surfer.  What does a skilled surfer do? He rides on top of a powerful wave. To keep his balance, sometimes he has to shift his position to the left, and sometimes to the right. Sometimes he has to freeze himself and stay absolutely still, lest the slightest shift throw him under the wave. His only aim is to ride the wave as long and as far as he can, and if the wave runs out, try to catch onto another wave and keep going. As long as he stays on top of the waves and rides, he wins.

 SR: How does this apply to Obama?

 M: Look at how wonderfully he uses language. He should be an Italian poet. Look at what Obama calls his “evolving”. It was no evolution, merely his balancing act. He had been in favor of same sex “marriage” many years ago, but knew it would kill him in the polls back then if he said so. The wave of public opinion wasn’t where he was yet.  So he goes through this evolving. The public gets the impression he was trying to make up his mind.  Wonderful! Really, he was only biding his time, balancing on top of the wave, leaning to the Left by endorsing same sex unions, leaning to the Right by not endorsing same sex marriage, saying yes and then no, no and then yes, and  then maybe.  Even now when he has taken a stand for same sex marriages, he also tries to mollify and placate his opponents by also saying the issue should be decided by the states.  

SR: If you think he is nervy instead of courageous, a politician instead of a statesman, why do you admire him? 

M: Statesmen win by losing, by sacrificing themselves for an ideal, by dying for a cause. Obama is no Don Quixote tilting at windmills, or serving a queenly Dulcinea. He wants to win by destroying his opponents, not by foolishly sacrificing himself. He is promoting his ideology, not any Cause.

SR: I don’t follow you. What is the difference between an ideology and a Cause?

M: You are going off topic. It is a related subject you mention, but perhaps for another time, no? Continue with your questions directly on your president.  

SR: Let’s go back to the endorsement of same sex marriages. Do you think Obama means it when he says  the states should make their own decisions on this subject? Does he really hold that this question belongs in the arena of the states to decide and not the Federal Government?

 M: Of course not. It is part of his balancing act, this strategy of his. He is not naïve. He knows that just as you could not have Slave states and also have Free states, so you cannot have states where gay marriage is legal and other states where it is illegal. He knows if he gets elected again, and makes another appointee to the Supreme Court, he can make gay marriage legal for the whole country no matter what the states say.

 SR: Why do you think he came out for same sex marriage now? What good does it do him?

 M: Any number of reasons: one. It gets him a huge bundle of Hollywood money for his campaign war chest; two, it distracts people from all the other issues, like the global economy; three, it consolidates the gay and liberal bloc solidly behind him; four it makes him newsworthy, gets him spotlight attention, and gives his campaign a boost forward, providing momentum; five, it starts another battle on another front and divides the energy and forces of his opponents who are fighting him on several fronts already.

SR:  So, how should we fight him? You’re supposed to be the expert on this kind of conflict. What advice do you offer? 

M: Another time, my friend. Ask to speak with me again. In the meantime, why not enjoy the comic soap opera of politics as the campaigning continues?

Threesome: Talking about the mystery of Christ

Peter , James, and John continue their discussion after the miracle of the loaves and fishes, trying to understand  what has happened, and why, what they should do next, and how they can figure out the Master.

John 6:15 "Perceiving that they were about to come and take him by force to make Him king, Jesus again withdrew to the hills by Himself."

John: Why are the others going towards the water? Shouldn’t we all stay here and wait for Him? It looks like they are planning to go back.

James: I don’t think He wants us to act on our own, without Him. Whenever He left us in the past, He usually came back after a short while.

John: Normally we wait on Him to tell us what to do.

Peter: I know, I know. He is the one who makes the decisions, not me. I’m used Him giving the orders. He’s always been the boss, but I don’t think He is going to join us here. Not with the crowd still around. They are the reason why He left.

John: You’re right about that. He's not going to let them have their way with Him. His leaving us here may be his way of telling us what to do, his way to tell us to leave too.

Peter: I think the others have the same idea. That's why they’re headed toward the boat. The only way the crowd will leave is if they see us leaving. We should head back. He’ll know where we’re going and head around the lake when He’s ready.

James: John,  you were talking about understanding the Master. Go back and explain what you were saying about putting our heads on a cushion.

John: See if this example makes sense to you: first you crack a nut open, then you pick up all the little pieces and eat them, right? Well, that is usually what we do when we want to figure something out. We try to crack it open by thinking about it, talking, asking questions, discussing, and arguing, and so on. That’s how we break it down to smaller parts, to the little ideas that explain it, and then we put those pieces in our head. That’s how we eat the nut, so to speak.

 Peter: Sounds right. But with the Master, your point is that nut-cracking doesn’t work.

 John: Right! There is always more to everything He does and says. We can’t break Him down to little pieces we can take into us and digest. We can get some of it in us, but we never get it all. That’s why I said thinking about Him is more like laying your head on a pillow.  The pillow is the much more that we don’t understand.  I don’t know how to picture those much mores,  but they are dancing around my head all the time. By relaxing my mind, I let them in,  and the much mores  dance inside my head too.  Sometimes they give me an inkling, a flash of understanding, I can’t get to by thinking in bits and pieces.  The cushion is like a pillow of mystery we have to rest our heads on, so the mystery can sink into us. 

Peter: Give me an example of how this works.

John: Well, look at his going off. There is more to that than avoiding the crowd. Much more we don’t know.

James: Like what? 

John: He left because of the crowd, right?

Peter:  Yes. He didn’t want them making Him king.

John: But when He goes off, He always goes to be with His Father.  So I bet that is true in this case too.

 James. Well, that is two things we know. Is there still something more?

John: Sure. There is much more about those two little pieces of information we don’t know.  We don’t know what happens between Him and His Father, why He goes off other times, how He knows when to go off, why He tells us only so much about His Father. His relationship to His Father is way beyond our understanding. As far as the crowd and their desire to make Him king, we don’t know why He didn’t talk to them,  and explain Himself to them, we don’t know what kind of ruler or leader He sees himself to be, what kind of power He wants to have, or if He wants to have any. He obviously already has power, great power to do marvels, but He’s not at all stuck on that.

Peter: I can see that. Is there something more?

John: Yes, the feeding of everyone that we just saw. How is that connected to His Father?  He doesn’t always talk or pray to His Father when He works a mighty deed. Why this time?  Also, how does this event fit in with what He has done so far, and what will this event lead to?

James: That’s right! At Cana, He made all that wine without any prayers.

 Peter: Without any prayers we know about. 

James: Again,  more is that He made more wine than anyone could drink, just like today He made more food than we could all eat.

John: Yes and another thing to wonder about is that even though He was not planning to do anything at the wedding, He was ready.  When His mother told Him they had no wine, He said it wasn’t his problem, but because His mother wanted Him to take care of the situation, He did.

James: John, I don’t understand what you are getting at.

Peter: I do! You’re saying that even when something unexpected happens, something unforeseen that no one could anticipate, He  deals with it, and He has no problem at all, right? And it seems like He has a plan for everything and anything! With Him one event  somehow flows into another,  and what happens next is always built on what came before.  Nothing is disconnected with Him, we just don’t see the connections!

John: You said it better than I can. Nothing ever catches Him at a loss, surprises Him, or makes Him confused or afraid. He is full of surprises yet nothing surprises Him. In fact,  his surprises are full of surprises. He always knows what to do, and does it easily.  Sometimes He looks like He is just a piece of wood in the river and the current is carrying Him along. Other times He looks like He is in a boat on a river but steering a course against the current. Sometimes it seems He is making  the river flow and go where He wants it to go. 

Peter: So what do you think He will do next?

John: I have no idea. But it will be something we could not plan or predict. Come on, lets's get in the boat with the others.

  

Threesome: Peter, James, and John ponder over the loaves and fishes

“Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the hills by himself. When evening came the disciples went down to the sea, got into a boat, and started across the sea to Capernaum.” (John 6:15-16)

(The setting is immediately after the feeding of the five thousand. Jesus has gone off by Himself. The disciples are by themselves, without Him. Peter, James and John are talking to one another, trying to comprehend what has taken place.)

”Peter: Have you two figured out what just happened?

James: Not me. The more I think about Him and what He does, the less I understand it. 

Peter: Same with me. Before He fed everybody, I was worried about what He would do with such a large mob of people! Now that He has fed them all I don’t know how we will ever get rid of them! I can understand why He has gone off by Himself. He would really have problems if He ever let this mob make Him their leader! Hah! Maybe it wasn’t such a good idea to feed everybody?

James: I’m with you on that. I can’t get my get my head around the whole scene. I know it happened, but it doesn’t seem real to me.

John: Don’t try to fit it all into your head.  Instead, let your head sink into it, as if you were laying your head on a cushion.

Peter: What are you trying to say?

John:  I keep telling you two that you think about Jesus the wrong way.  And not just about Jesus. In fact, you talk about us, and every person, the wrong way, as if you could figure people out.

Peter: And what is wrong with that? How are we supposed to talk about anybody except by saying what we think?

 John: First of all, Jesus isn’t just “anybody”. And even if He were exactly like you or me or one of the others, it would still be wrong to talk about Him the way you do.

James: John, don’t get worked up.  Please, try to explain to us what’s so bad about the way we talk. What’s the right way?

John:  Every one of us is more than can be put into words. I don’t care who we are talking about. But you two talk as if each one were a puzzle that you could figure out. We can’t figure out anybody, and it’s not fair to do that to people. When you talk about people as things, you change a “who” into a “what.” But every person is a “who”, not a “what”.

 James: I’m not sure I follow you. Give me an example of the difference between the two.

 John: Take a toddler who is learning to talk. He points his finger at something and asks daddy: “What’s that? And daddy says: That’s a “goat”, or, a “donkey”, or a “tree” or a “cloud”. Daddy gives the child names for different things. But the child never asks “What’s that?” when he points to a human. He asks “Who’s that?” And daddy tells him who that person is. Both know without any need to mention it the difference between people and things. Things are whats and people are whos.”

 Peter: What made you so sensitive and concerned about people all of a sudden?  You always had your ideas about everyone too, just like we do.

John: Well, sure. It’s fun to talk about people and try to get into their heads. But we never do figure them out or get their number totally. Every person is always a mystery to everyone else. Even someone you know and love. It is okay to have fun to laugh at people as long as we laugh at ourselves with them. We act like we are better when we are laughing at them.

Peter: Well, we are a lot smarter than some.

John: And a lot dumber than others.

James: Where did you get this “who’ and “what” stuff?

 John: It came to me as I was watching the Master today. He was gracious to everybody. No impatience. No hurry. It was as if He were the host of a large banquet and all the people here were His guests. I saw the whole crowd as a bunch of nobodies, but He personally treated each one as somebody. Yet He was more important than everyone else.

Peter: Yes, but you have to be realistic. When you take nobodies and treat them like somebodies, you make those people feel important. And you create expectations in them. You can’t treat them that way and not expect that they are going to want more and more from you. Look at the huge amount of people still milling around even though He has gone off!  What is He going to do with them?

John: You think that way because you see them all as whats, not whos. So you end up asking “how” instead of “why”. They are not things that you have to figure out “how” to handle. Jesus' way of dealing with them, being gracious, springs from who they are,  persons! Every “who” has a face and is looking for “whys”. That’s why Jesus treats them with respect.  But you treat Jesus as a “what” as well.

Peter: Look, the only way I can talk is by saying what I think and feel.  This is the only mind I have.  I can’t see things the way you do.

 John: Of course you can’t see the way I do, nor can I see the way you do. But you can learn to respect the mystery of people, and the mystery of who Jesus is.  You just have to realize your mind is not a sharp eye that can look into Him and figure Him out. That’s not ever going to happen. No matter what we do figure out about Him, there is always going to be a lot more we never get into our heads. You are smart enough to see that.

James: So what are we supposed to do?

 Peter: Look, the others are getting up and moving, going down to the water. Let’s head that way and talk as we go along.

Same-sex "marriages"?

Recently I expressed my computerized views on Facebook. Someone had made a posting congratulating President Obama for his courage in publically supporting same-sex marriages. I made a brief comment about also acknowledging the courage of those who oppose such unions. Later when I revisited the posting to see where the conversation was going, I found the response  that I should not allow my Catholic Faith to cross the barrier that separates Church and State. Nor should I try to impose my beliefs on those who do not have the same religious perspective I do.  I typed in that my view on same-sex marriage does not rest on my religious or faith beliefs. I believe my opposition to such unions is grounded on the truth of things, on reality, and I would therefore hold this view even if I were not Catholic, nor a priest.

 Among many other comments on the posting was the opinion that the State had no right to step into the arena of marriage. That seemed true to me, and I “liked” it. A day later when I looked to see where the ongoing discussion had gone, I discovered that it was not there.   Nothing was there.  No record of all the pro and con comments on the topic of same sex marriages. I am not skilled in using the computer, and maybe I just could not find the posting because of my ineptness. I hope that is the case.  I hope the topic is not such a hot potato that cannot be reasonably discussed online.  I hate to think that the cliché “You can’t discuss Politics or Religion in public” might be proving true in this instance. There is nothing more important for a citizen of any country to be concerned about than Politics and Religion. Their relationship to one another is of supreme importance.

As an American exercising my civil rights, and concerned about my homeland, I want to state four truths I believe any person of any religion has a right to hold.

1.   MARRIAGE PREDATES THE STATE. Men and women had to be having children in large numbers and for many generations before the State came into existence. That’s just the way it is.

2. THE NATURAL FAMILY IS THE BASIC UNIT OF SOCIETY. The individual is not the basic unit of society.  If you believe differently, all you have to do is show me the individual who can reproduce by himself or herself without involving another.  Again, this truth seems self evident to me, like “the shortest distance between two points is a straight line”.

 3.  The State has as its primary purpose and duty to protect the natural family and support its citizenry in building a civilization that enables the family to flourish.

4.   A nation is as strong or as weak as its family life.

None of those four points is difficult to understand. The first two are so obvious I don’t know how anyone could deny them.  Perhaps the last two would require more thought and discussion before acceptance, but I believe they follow as logical conclusions of one and two.

If civil discourse and a general consensus are not possible on at least the first two points, then all truly is lost.  A good friend of mine believes our country has reached precisely this point where reason is dead, logic means nothing, common sense is nonsense, emoting has replaced thinking,  and the divisions between us are so wide and multiple that mere civil discourse is an unattainable goal. In his opinion, as a nation, we are “coming apart”. Perhaps the next presidential election will show us how far along we are in that process, and if the coming apart is reversible or not.

Threesome: Getting to Know the God-Man

In this second reflection, we find Peter, James and John trying to articulate their perceptions of Christ. They are in the habit of talking freely with one another about everything that happens to them, and sharing their perspectives. In this scene, each one of the three is in a different inner space. Peter is puzzling over Jesus' startling statement to Philip: "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." (John14:9). James is frustrated and angry because although he is in awe of Christ, he does not understand the Lord's teachings. John is peaceful and contemplative, thinking about the Lord's teaching regarding the Vine and Branches (John 15: 1-8) Walk with them, and listen to their conversation.

James: Why does Thomas ask the Master so many questions? That drives me crazy.  Why doesn’t he ever shut up?! 

Peter:  Why does he bother you so much? Phillip does the same thing. So does Judas. We all ask Him questions. Thomas is no different than the rest of us.

 John:  We are just trying to understand what Jesus is saying.  At least Thomas isn’t afraid to look stupid. Whenever he gets stuck on something, Thomas is going to let everyone know, and then Jesus explains things to us even more.  Thomas ends up doing us a favor by speaking up.

James: I don’t know about that.  When the Master explains things, all He does is make everything more complicated! Thomas should keep his mouth shut.

Peter. I felt that way too! Remember when the Master was talking about going back to his Father’s house, getting a place ready for us there, and then telling us we knew how to get there?  Thomas tells Him we have no idea what He is talking about, no idea where He is going and no idea how to get there either.  All of that is true. But then the Master tells all of us that He IS the way, the truth, and the life, and we get to the Father through Him. That didn’t explain anything at all, and I was more mixed up than ever.

 John: That’s because every answer is always bigger than the question. I think Jesus is talking on one level, but we hear him on a different level. That’s always going to be a problem no matter what He says, and the only way we can even start to understand Him is by getting him to talk more. Sure, when He says more He loses us, but He is also making things clearer too. 

Peter:  Clearer?!  You’re showing off because you think you understand Him better than we do!  How is He making it clearer by confusing us more?

John: I don’t understand Him any better. I can’t figure Him out either. I stopped trying to do that a long time ago. What I try to do is jump into the mystery of what He is saying, and let that carry me along. When I am able to do that, sometimes I catch what He is saying, even though I can’t put it into words.

  Peter: Sometimes when the Master speaks, I really do feel a flash of understanding, but when He is all done, and I think about what He said, it doesn’t all fit together like I thought.

James:  Why is it so hard to get what He is saying?  What did He mean when He said He was the vine and we are the branches?

 John:  Let me explain what I do and you see if it helps you.  I imagine drops of water, a pond, and an ocean.  I think He sees us as drops of water, but I think we each see ourselves as a pond, and I think Jesus sees Himself as the ocean.

(James and Peter look at him, obviously puzzled.)

 John continues:  I think Jesus is always trying to catch us up in who He is, and who the Father is. That’s the ocean, Him and the Father.  But that ocean is too big for our heads. So we tell him to cut it down to something we can understand. That’s us trying to get the ocean of Him and the Father into our ponds.

 As Peter considers this, James asks: What about the drops of water? I thought we were drops of water and not ponds?

John: That’s right.   That’s how He sees us, as drops of water. And not just drops of water here and there, but drops of water already in His Ocean!   He sees us as connected to Him and His Father. But we can’t understand that, because each one of us thinks he is a pond off by himself.

Peter: But we all are ponds! We are separate persons, aren’t we? I mean, I have my life,   and my thoughts and feelings, my experiences, and you have yours; James, his; and Thomas, his! Everybody is a different pond, a different person. That’s true!

John: it is true, but it is not the whole truth. The truth is that we can’t see how small as we are, just a teeny part of the whole ocean. We think we are bigger, stronger, and more independent than we are. So each of us thinks he is a separate body of water, a pond, and we think Jesus is just another pond, maybe a little bigger one than we are, but still a pond. So we expect to understand Him the way we understand each other. But He sees all of us as part of Him and the Father, and there is no way for us to understand that.

 James:  I don’t get this drop, pond and ocean stuff. Explain to me how this applies to Thomas. Explain it to me from his point of view.

 John: Okay. Thomas wants things clear and concrete and definite, like building blocks. He wants to be able to put one block on top of another and know how each piece fits into the previous one. He can’t put one piece  into or onto another until he is sure of each. So when Jesus says something like “I am the Way”, Thomas is lost because his mind is already working the wrong way. Thomas hears the word way, and he thinks of road or a path, he thinks of the different ways he knows to go to different places. They all have concrete dimensions. All the roads are so long, so wide, begin somewhere and end somewhere. Thomas wants to have all of that clear in his head so he can understand what Jesus is saying.

 Peter:  What’s wrong with that? That’s how we understand things. We learn something new by fitting it onto what we already know and then we continue to build on it. And Jesus is always using things we know to teach us about things we don’t know.  Seeds, fig trees, water, light, darkness, earth, wineskins, and so on. He is always talking about the world around us. 

James: That’s right. This is the only world we know. I know nets, boats, fields, plows, millstones, and oil lamps.  I can understand Jesus when he talks to us about those things. My mind grasps what He is saying. When you talk about us as drops of water, or ponds, or part of an ocean, or Jesus as an ocean, my head can’t get around that. You go floating off and you lose me.

 John:  I’m sorry, but I don’t know how to explain it any other way.   Look at it this way: we like specific clear ideas we can fully understand. Once we understand the first idea we can connect it to a second. But when Jesus talks about concrete things, He is talking images, not ideas. He is not speaking clear ideas that fit into our heads but mysteries that are greater than our heads.  Even when he talks about stuff we know like vines, branches, sheep, wolves, shepherds and hired men, He is talking about more than those things.  He is using the ordinary things to introduce us to mysteries about the Kingdom that are greater than we are.

Peter: Sure, we know that. That’s how He teaches us. He is always getting poetical.

 John: No, no, it is more than Poetry.  He is teaching us Mystery. Not Poetry, not the idea of Mystery that we could fit into our heads but Mystery that our heads can never measure, Mystery that leaves our heads dizzy!  Poetry can spark my mind and open it to Mystery, but they are not the same thing. Even if we reduce His message to Poetry we can take in and understand, and His message is always more than that. That’s why He has to tell us the same thing over and over.  We think we already know it because we heard it before. We don’t really know what He is saying until we live in the Mystery of what He says.  

James: Live in the Mystery? Now you are getting poetical.  Talk straight. There is no need for all this Mystery stuff. All the Master has to do is be the Boss, give us orders and we do what He says.  There is no need to get fancy. You’re just acting superior again.

 John (laughing): Let’s go back and join the others.

A Woman's Touch

 My posting of “Noli Me Tangere” provoked several reactions from women who disagreed strongly with my portrayal of Mary Magdalene. One told me “Mary would never have been so chatty!”  Another reminded me that the Magdalene was “a woman of her times”, and her first instinct would have been to throw herself at the feet of her Lord and Master. She would never have been so bold as to hug Him.  I have to agree. Those two perceptions are much more in touch with the Scriptural portrayal of Mary Magdalene, and more consistent with what little we do know of her character.

             I apologize for casting her as a modern day, assertive, independent, over-talkative woman, who didn’t know when to shut up. The way I portrayed her probably reveals more about me than it does about her. It probably shows the stereotypical women I am most familiar with, as a man of my times! Maybe my first posting of the event is a good picture of the way Christ would encounter the many Mary Magdalenes of our day?

            The posting that follows is an attempt to atone, and to respect the Magdalene by trying to come closer to the person she really is. I hope this account of her encounter with Christ also respects the fact that his gestures and movements speak to us even more eloquently than his words to her. To begin…

Mary Magdalene has thrown herself on the ground at the feet of the Risen Lord, whom she has recognized when He spoke her name.  Overcome by his presence and weeping with joy, she clutches at His feet, and presses her forehead in the dirt.

Christ: Do not hold Me. (John 20:17)

Bewildered, Mary dares to look up.  She gasps, stunned at what her eyes behold. He is bending over her. She sees every detail of his head at once. Her eyes “freeze” His face as if time were standing still.    Looking up, she absorbs his eyes shining at her, teeth white, mouth curved open in a joyous smile, beard and hair neatly groomed. Her memory flashes back to the blurred image of His face on Veronica’s towel, matted with hair, streaked with dirt and blood. She finds herself speechless. She also remembers His face above her as she stood under the cross, puffed, battered and misshapen.

 His right hand reaches down and firmly grasps her left arm just above the elbow.  He begins to pull her firmly but gently to her feet. She cooperates by getting her legs set beneath her, and pushing herself upwards.  Once standing, she is still dazed, and uncomfortable, her chest still heaving. She does not want to take her eyes off Him but cannot help from lowering her head and looking downwards.  

 Our Lord lets go of her arm, and puts his right hand under her chin.  He lifts her downturned face upward, toward Him. His gaze is as gentle as it is penetrating. She feels her legs strengthened and her whole self calmed by the love He communicates.

The Lord’s voice steadies her even more. She finds herself focusing entirely on His words as He says “I have not ascended to the Father”. (verse17). She hears the lighted-heartedness and also the gravity in his tone, and knows He is being playful and serious at the same time. Obviously there is no need to clutch Him since He has not gone anywhere. Her touching Him was never an issue. If it were, He would not be holding her now.  His voice continues: “Go to my brethren and say to them: ’I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God (verse 17).’”

The encounter is over. She is dazed, but has no doubt about what has happened. He happened.

But she is back in real time. She feels the breeze and the warmth of the sun. A nearby cricket “sings” tuneless notes for her. She tells herself she has something to do. Her body moves forward even though she has given it no conscious command. As her legs propel her, head and heart feel wonderfully united but disconnected from the rest of her. She ponders, wonders, loses herself in the event that took place. She realizes she has no way to express what just happened.

 (Yes I saw Him. Yes, He was new, the same but so alive and so different. Risen! I have no words to tell what He looks like. The apostles are going to think I am crazy or hysterical. Well, that is their problem, not mine. Hah, what does it matter what they think?  The only thing that matters is I carry His face burned into my heart. That will carry me through everything for the rest of my life.)

 “Then Mary Magdalene went and said to the disciples ‘I have seen the Lord!’ and she told them that He had said these things to her.” (verse18)