Giussani on Mystery

I came across the following quotation  in Magnificat magazine. There, it is presented as a meditation on Holy Saturday. As I was getting into it, a seminarian entered the chapel to water the plants, and I said to him, "Listen to this", and began to read aloud to him what had delighted me. He smiled as he listened, and nodded agreement. It was a fragile moment of communion, connection,  that brought home even more the truth and beauty of what I was reading. Giussani amazes me because he is able to put into words, better than a theologian, or a poet, the spark of the Mystery Present that gives life and joy to human friendship, marriage, community, and  Church.

If we stifle the Mystery as a dimension of our relationship with people and things, all reality becomes like a game: it falls to pieces - looks and hands split it into parts that have no connection to each other....

    The alternative in life is between the response to the Mystery which we are called to give, and living according to the rule of "whatever I like." The task that has been given to us is for us and, as an example, for the world; this task is for the world. Christ, alone, died to call the world back to the fact of the Father; thus, no matter how few we are, we are called to this task to call the world back.  There is no middle ground between the task and "whatever I please."

     During the night of Holy Saturday, the fact occurred that saves human existence from the confused tremble to which it could seem destined and lifts it up towards a festive task....

      Reality is already in the hands of the one who conquered it, who won it back to himself. All of reality is his creation, to the point that the meaning of reality is his person. In him everything consists. To us falls the task to show it to everyone, to declare it, because it is something that is.

      We are not meaningless pieces. Our life is not a game! What has begun in our life is a construction....It is the relationship with the Mystery, the relationship with destiny, the relationship with happiness that makes us radically original, like a totally different world, in this world. That everything should come together in a unity without confusion, in a harmony, in a song, in a symphony - this is truly another world.....

     Everything is ordered towards a purpose, a beauty, so in our lives what gives meaning and purpose to everything, what recreates a harmony, has entered in. 

It is a companionship that, above all,  opens up this perspective. It is a companionship for the world, a companionship that opens up, adopting the same perspectives as Christ's, that is to say, the redemption of the world, to shout the happiness the world is waiting for; to shout what the world is made of and to shout the world's destiny, ....that little by little invades everything.

The meaning of life for all peoples, indeed for all of reality, is borne in this people.

Magnificat, Holy Week 2013,  pp.197, 198

Peter and John's love for Christ.

John 13:8 Peter said to him, "You shall never wash my feet!"

In this posting,  we are going to bounce back and forth from John to Peter, from Peter to John, seeing them both through the eyes of Thomas Aquinas in his Commentary on St. John's Gospel. There Thomas meditates on their relationship to Christ, and Christ's relationship to them. Feel free to add your own responses to Aquinas', just as I do , in italics, with mine. See what the reading tells you about Peter and John, about Aquinas, and about you and me.

Peter

1753 If you ask why Peter was the first to object, Origen replies that this was due to the intense love Peter had for Christ.The other disciples had a certain respectful awe and fear of Christ, and so complied without question to everything he did. But Peter, more aflame with love... and taking confidence from this love, refuses to comply and asks to know why: "A true friend will act as your equal and assume authority in your household." [Sirach 6:11] This is why in Scripture Peter often asks for explanations and does not hesitate to say what he thinks best. He thinks his friendship gives him a right to speak up!

1758 Peter says, You shall never wash my feet! He is saying in effect: By no means will I submit to this from my Teacher, my Lord and my God!  And although Peter said this out of zeal, it was an imprudent and disordered  zeal...His zeal was disordered for three reasons. He refused something that was beneficial and necessary...it seemed to indicate a certain disrespect for Christ by wanting to go against his plans. Finally it seemed to disparage his companions in that the others, according to Origen, yielded to Christ without an argument...Peter thinks he knows better than everybody else, even Christ! Sure, I can identify with that!

1761 Peter's words indicate his intense love for Christ. as well as an intense thick head. Before, when our Lord said to him, What I am doing you do not know now, he had intimated that it would be useful; yet Peter paid no attention to this, He doesn't listen, or he listens to the words, but doesn't let their meaning sink in  and could not be persuaded to have his feet washed. But when Our Lord warned him it would mean they would no longer be together, saying, you have no part in me, Peter offered more than just his feet, saying, Lord not my feet only, but also my hands and my head! For Peter was frightened by this answer and affected by love and fear, he offered all of himself for washing. Clement tells us in his Itinerary that Peter was so touched by the physical presence of Christ, whom he loved so intensely, that after the Ascension, when he recalled the sweetness of Christ's presence, he wept so much that his cheeks appeared to be furrowed. Nah, Clement is stretching too far to reach that conclusion. Maybe after Pentecost Peter would have felt that way, but not after the Ascension.

John

1804 John here mentions three things about himself. First, the love he had for Christ as he rested on him...Secondly he intimates his knowledge of mysteries, which were made known to him by Christ, and especially for the writing of this Gospel...Thirdly he mentions the special love Christ had for him, saying, whom Jesus loved, not exclusively but in a way above the others...I bet some of the other guys were jealous, even envious, of John's relationship. Oddly, Peter isn't.

For the present it is enough to say that John was more loved by Christ for three reasons.  First, because of the cleanliness of his purity: for he was a virgin when chose by he Lord, and always remained so: "He who loves purity of heart, and whose speech is gracious, will have the king as a friend." Secondly because of the depths of his wisdom, for he saw further into the secrets of God than others; and so he is compared to an eagle...Thirdly because of the great intensity of his love for Christ:"I love those who love me"( Prv 8:17) 

Peter

1805  Then when he says, so Simon Peter beckoned to him John mentions what led him to question Christ. ...

1806 Since everywhere in the Gospels, Peter is always presented as bold and as the first to speak out because of his fervent love, why is he now keeping silent? It does seem out of character. All of a sudden he is being discreet? Chrysostom gives three reasons for this. One is that Peter had just been reprimanded by our Lord for not allowing him to was his feet...As a result, he preferred not to bother our Lord just now. After getting slapped down, he figured he should keep his mouth shut. Another reason is that Peter did not want our Lord to reveal this openly so that others could hear it. I doubt it. Peter wouldn't give a damn about who heard what. Peter's just smart enough to recognize John's special relationship to Christ and figures he can take advantage of it. Wonder if he realizes that Christ knows what he is doing? The third reason is mystical. John signifies the contemplative life, and Peter the active life. Yes! Bingo! Beautiful! John is mysticism, contemplative knowledge through co-natural love. Peter is action, a working knowledge that lives out the knowing in active doing. This fits in perfect with Von Speyr's vision of Peter and John, Peter representing hierarchy and John representing love.

1817  A question arises here. Since Our Lord had indicated to John who the traitor was, saying it is he to whom I shall give this bread when I have dipped it, and then gave it to Judas, the disciples seem to have been exceedingly dull yeah, huhuhuhuh, ya think?! not to have understood what he just said. I answer that Our Lord said this privately to John in order not to reveal the betrayer. The reason for this being that Peter loved Christ so fiercely that had he been certain that Judas was about to betray him, he would have quickly killed him.

1818 Since John himself was one of those at the dinner, why did he say: no one at the table knew why he said this to him? Yes.., true...everyone else there would have heard. Maybe Christ whispered this to him, or said it sotto voce, so no one else could hear? Jesus tells at least John what is happening, but why tell even him? Why not say it is none of his business? I answer that it is usual for one who is good and without evil to believe that others also are without evil. Geez, Aquinas must be pretty good and without evil to think that way. I would never have come up with that conclusion. Now John was extremely good and never consider becoming a betrayer.  Thus he never suspected that another disciple would commit such a great crime. Hah! I would have started suspecting everybody, maybe  even accusing them, to divert attention away from myself.

Commentary on the Gospel of John, Thomas Aquinas

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/John 13.htm

The Masculine Love of John for Christ

John 13: 23 One of his disciples lay on Jesus' breast, the one whom Jesus loved.

John "places himself in a completely different relationship to the Lord from that of the other disciples. The others are still wholly caught up in themselves, enclosed in their own spheres...John, on the contrary,  rests on Jesus' breast....He knows only one thing and it fills his whole soul: the Lord loves him, and he lets himself be loved by the Lord. That is the single content of his life; that is his office.

...the hierarchical Church, for which the sacraments were instituted, and which is their steward, does not exclude the Church of love. with its immediate contact between loving souls and the Lord. 

    Why does the Lord permit this uttermost sign of  love: resting on his breast? Is it because he himself is man? Or is it because John is a lover? Both reasons are valid.  The Lord is a human, and every human being needs tangible love.

...But neither the Lord's love nor John's love has a purpose at this moment. although the purposes of love are fulfilled, love rests entirely in itself, having its own meaning in itself. John symbolizes love  as Peter does office. Both were called from the very beginning. Since then, Peter has been singled out in many respects. but here John is clearly given preference. It shows that such love for the Lord really exists, and that it takes this form. This is made evident to all, without the others feeling set aside. For John embodies the love of all. He is love becoming visible. One sees in him what love is. The Lord condescends to this form of loves' expression so that the others will recognize love in it.

Here John is at the same time the first priest, and as such an incitement to love. He shows that the priestly office, far from excluding the office of love, rather has love as its center. As long as a priest does not venture to lay his head on the Lord's breast, his love is not yet completely given. What John, the model, does, is perfect self-giving in love, resting in love, in a love that is not continually doing and demanding, but ultimately simply love, and rests in love.

John also represents masculine love without the slightest trace of disorder; the love between men who share the same orientation in their work and tasks, looking in the same direction, but then turning at times to each other and resting with each other, beyond office and work. The Lord wants us to seek and see not only restless intensification in love; he wants us to find the fulfillment of love as well. We should allow ourselves this time of fulfillment and not distort the growth and the always-more of Christian life into a kind of athletic achievement.  This generosity, which gives itself time and takes a break, is likewise masculine.

John: The Farewell Discourses Adrienne Von Speyr Vol. III pp. 47, 48    Ignatius Press

Celibacy Equals Homosexuality?

We have to "head off a situation", Pope Benedict said, where "the celibacy of priests would practically end up being identified with the tendency to homosexuality". That's how my (two paragraph) quotation of his statement ends. That conclusion, however, is not a  a resting place for me or for us, but a point of departure. He sets out for us the problem he is struggling with, and with which our minds and hearts are to grapple.  But what precisely is the problem he is pointing to? Why would celibacy end up being equated with homosexuality?  How could that happen? Who would be doing the equating, and why are they  arriving at that conclusion? 

A possible answer to the question: They are the public, or at least that part of the public who come into contact with priests, and form impressions of what they see. That means they are mainly (but not exclusively) Catholics, and mainly churchgoing Catholics at that. What would make regular, churchgoing Catholics (the few of them left) start to identify the "celibacy of priests" with "the tendency to homosexuality"? The logical answer is: seeing priests whom they think are homosexual, whether they are or not.  

That clause, whether they are or not, is somewhat important. I can be heterosexual, yet appear to others as homosexual.  Or, I can be homosexual and still appear to others as heterosexual. It is not just a matter of what I am, but of what people perceive me to be. Generally, perceptions are accurate.

But perception is not infallibly in touch with the truth of things in every instance. At times my perceptions tell me more about myself than they do about what is really out there.  We assume our perceptions are correct unless we have good reason to question or doubt them. I suppose people would only start equating celibacy with the tendency to homosexuality when they start seeing a number of priests who strike them as homosexual. Not just seeing one or two, now and then, but seeing a lot of them, a multiplicity. If that happens, they would begin to think it is a normal state of affairs among the Catholic clergy. 

It's not helpful to waste a lot of time trying to discovering who is and who isn't homosexual, nor to puzzle over my mis-perceptions, and discover their causes. Why not? Much depends on each human being's personal history, of which sexual preferences are a part: my family, culture, education, experiences, past and present choices, plus the imponderable element of God's grace and my response to it. If I am  am mystery to me (and I am), how can I presume to have an accurate perception of you, since you are definitely a mystery too? Anyway, even if perceptions are generally accurate, and mis-perceptions were correctly addressed by each one of us, the result would be...what?  The one Pope Benedict arrived at: To think that these men were priests because they were not attracted to the female of the species but to the male. 

Since this is a concern of the pope, it is fair to assume he thinks that such a general perception is not just a dangerous possibility, but a probability. Any guesses on the likely  countries he thinks that such a conclusion about the clergy is taking place?   What would you say are the top three countries? Would the United States win, place or show?

The Homosexual Seminarian or Priest

The following reflection on homosexuality in the priesthood springs from my musings  on Pope Benedict's statement about that topic. For the full quotation see the blog entry for March 1, 2013

Priesthood and homosexuality are "incompatible" says Pope Benedict. The reason he offers is that there is no renunciation, no sacrifice. The homosexual priest is not giving up marriage, "offering it up"or "sacrificing" it, since he would not want to get married anyway. He would 1) not want to father a child, 2) not be interested in the ongoing burden of fatherhood, 3) not be motivated to embrace a lifelong marriage to one woman, 4) nor look forward to a life that included a wife and a family.  A heterosexual priest would be sacrificing all of that.  The homosexual priest would not. So why should he want to be a priest, a man whom all call "father?" 

 

Perhaps one reason is so that "magically" by means of the the sacrament of Holy Orders, he can supernaturally assume a fatherhood he does not naturally experience? He experiences a lack, an absence, which he will not admit to himself as a negative,  and uses  Holy Orders as the means to somehow turn it into a positive? If so, it doesn't happen. He doesn't somehow because of ordination desire to father the way a heterosexual would. 

The maxim states: "Grace builds on nature". If nature is defective, the grace of Holy Orders doesn't repair the defect, it just builds on the flawed foundation. Yes, the homosexual priest will validly consecrate, validly give absolution, validly forgive sins and baptize, etc. because Christ works through the sacraments, but the homosexual priest won't experience himself fathering the way a heterosexual priest would. 

Presumably the homosexual would, as a priest, experience even more sexual desire for men because the brotherhood of the priesthood is masculine and the masculine is what attracts him. To start with, the sexual tension of the seminary would be tantalizing. Perhaps that very thing would attract him to the priesthood. I suppose being around men who did not know he was "turned on" by them  would increase his excitement? 

Suppose I was a seminarian and thought I was gay, because I experienced same sex attraction without acting it out. Would I have the humility and courage to discuss the matter with my spiritual director? Or instead of addressing the issue, would I be tempted to ignore it, deny it, and continue on with my studies? After all, I have invested a lot of time and effort in my studies. It wouldn't be too hard for me to rationalize the situation. What would I tell myself? One obvious fact I could point to is: there are certainly a good number of homosexual and gay priests out there already. If they can do it, why can't I? That would probably be enough to convince me to bury the problem, or not even acknowledge it as a problem. Now that homosexuality has been normalized in American life, what's the problem? The challenge becomes hiding my orientation and getting myself ordained. After ordination, it won't be too hard to fit myself in with brothers who understand me.

 Of course, there are plenty of other rationalizations I can employ as well. I can see that many men father physically without fathering spiritually. They engender kids but don't raise them. I also can see that it is possible to father spiritually, without fathering physically. Many priests, teachers,  coaches, uncles, grandfathers, etc. end up fathering kids who haven't experienced the closeness of their natural father. So, as a seminarian experiencing same sex attraction, I tell myself "I can father spiritually even though I have no desire to father physically. After I get ordained, all I have to do is carefully say the right things and mouth the correct pious platitudes. Of course, because I believe my rationalization, it doesn't dawn on me that "saying the right things" and mouthing the correct pious platitudes" won't work. It won't work because my heart won't be in it.  It will be just some more boring preaching that puts people to sleep. Or more drivel that entertains people and makes them feel good  by telling them what they want to hear.

If I am hiding my same sex orientation instead of dealing with the issue, I am not going to receive the spiritual fathering that  I need because I won't be open to it. I won't be aware that I lack that manliness, because its absence starts to feels natural. In today's culture,  since gay is being mainstreamed and legalized to include even marriage, I can tell myself that it is only a matter of time till the Church changes its teaching and accepts gay marriage and gay priesthood as perfectly okay. In fact, becoming a homosexual or gay  priest is my right as a human being. Therefore I can proceed full steam ahead to ordination. Once a priest, I can do my part to strike a blow for full equality of my gay brothers! Goodness, there is nothing we can't convince ourselves of if we really try. 

Of course, I am a product of my times, so I can't be sure that my attempt to imagine how a seminarian with same sex attraction would act in today's world is accurate. Back in my seminary days I suppose my rationalization for getting ordained would have been that priesthood was an easy way to escape being bothered by single women,  to avoid explaining why I was still single, or why  I didn't have a girlfriend. 

That's certainly not the motivation today! 

Christ's Gaze

            "The greatest miracle, which left a deep imprint on the disciples every day, was not the healing of crippled legs, the cleansing of diseased skin, nor the restoration of sight to the blind. The greatest miracle of all was that truly human gaze which revealed man to himself and which was impossible to evade. Nothing is more convincing to a man than a gaze which takes hold of him and recognizes what he is, which reveals man to himself. Jesus saw inside man." 

Luigi Giussani The Christian Claim p.53

Christ's Presence

The Salvadorian Jesuit Jon Sobrino writes, "Christ's credibility is assured as far as the poor are concerned, for he maintained his nearness to them to the end. In this sense the cross of Jesus is seen as the paramount symbol of Jesus approach to the poor, and hence the guarantee of his indisputable credibility." This is indeed a God who stayed with us, who resides in our midst - not just "spiritually" but concretely in every aspect of our world. That is how we know this God is real. It is not our Christian belief that makes God's nearness credible. Rather it is God's nearness that makes Christian belief, especially the Paschal mystery, credible.

Roberto Goizueta, excerpt from The Symbolic  Realism of the U.S.Latino/a Popular Catholocism

Theological Studies, 65 (2004)

Prayer to Mary, by de Grandmaison

Holy Mary,  Mother of God, 

preserve in me the the heart of a child, 

pure and clean like spring water; 

a simple heart that does not remain absorbed in its own sadness;

a loving heart that freely gives with compassion;

a faithful and generous heart that neither forgets good nor feels bitterness  for any evil. 

Give me a sweet and humble heart that loves without asking to be loved in return,

happy to lose itself in the heart of others,

sacrificing itself in front of your Divine Son;

a great and unconquerable heart, which no ingratitude can close and no indifference can tire;

by a heart tormented  by the glory of Christ,

pierced by his love with a wound that will not heal until heaven.

Life Promises Life, by Vincent Nagle, p.26

Pope Benedict on Homosexuality

"Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation. Otherwise celibacy itself would lose its meaning as a renunciation.It would be extremely dangerous if celibacy became a sort of pretext for bringing people into priesthood who don't want to get married anyway. For, in the end, their attitude toward man and woman is somehow distorted, off center, and in any case, is not within the direction of creation of which we have spoken.

The Congregation for Education issued a decision a few years ago to the effect that homosexual candidates cannot become priests because their sexual orientation estranges them from the proper sense of paternity, from the intrinsic nature of priestly being. The selection of candidates to the priesthood must therefore be very careful. The greatest attention is needed here in order to prevent the intrusion of this kind of ambiguity and to head off a situation where the celibacy of priests would practically end up being identified with the tendency to homosexuality."

Light of the World, Benedict XVI, 2010  pp. 152, 153  Ignatius Press