Giusani: Psalm 8 - The Meaning of Man

     Within this psalm lies the meaning of the definition of man's life - his relationship with the one who creates him. The whole cosmos reaches for a certain point of evolution, at which it becomes self-awareness: that point is called "I". The "I" is self-awareness of the world, of the cosmos, and of oneself. The cosmos is the context in which the relationship with God, with the Mystery, lives. 

     The Psalmist asks, "Lord, what is man that you keep him in mind, that you remember him?" Among all the beasts and little creatures of the cosmos, man is one-hundredth, one thousandth, one then thousandth. But the greatness of man, the honor and glory of man, lies in the fact that man, the individual man, is in relationship with the Infinite. To live what man is, to realize his person, man must grasp everything God has done. Happiness is the final end of this process, the process of penetrating the eternal.  

The Psalms,  Luigi Giussani, pp. 18-19

Giussani: On Friendship

...love creates reciprocity, generates reciprocity. This, in the Mystery, is nature. The nature of Being revealed itself in Jesus of Nazareth as love in friendship, that is as love acknowledged. Thus the mirror of the Father is the Son, the infinite Word, and in the infinite mysterious perfection of this acknowledgement - in which vibrates for us the infinite mysterious beauty of the Origin of Being, of the Father (Splendor Patris) - proceeds the mysterious creative power of the Holy Spirit. Now, the "I", the human "I", made in the image and likeness of God, reflects originally the Mystery of the one and triune Being, proper to the dynamism of freedom, whose law will therefore be love, and the dynamism in which this love is lived can be nothing else but friendship. 

You or about Friendship, pp. 17-18  Luigi Giussani

Astounding. To think that friendship in its perfect from is the Trinity, and that our human friendships are a participation in the triune love!

Pope Benedict on Homosexuality: Part One

       The book Light of the World consists of a series of broad ranging conversations between  Pope Benedict XVI  and Peter Seewald. It's about various controversial issues affecting Church and World. In Chapter 14, titled "Overdue Reforms ?", Seewald  quotes two statements from the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality, and then asks Pope Benedict if these two views in the Catechism are not contradictory. 

      Here is Seewald's first quotation:...the number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible...They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives.  The Catechism calls us to treat homosexuals with the respect and acceptance that is their due, simply because they (and we) are human beings. Then comes the second statement: Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as great depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.  Here the Catechism clearly says that homosexuality is not a "natural" or "normal" way for human beings to act, and in fact is a disorder, so much of a disorder ("intrinsically") that there is no way to justify homosexual acts or make them right. So Seewald asks: "Doesn't the second statement somewhat contradict the respect for homosexuals expressed in the first one"?

         Seewald seems to be asking how can you accept and respect a person (first quotation) if you think what he/she is doing is wrong, sinful, seriously disordered, and  in fact, a great depravity (second quotation). Worth asking, no? When I find a person's actions to be deeply repugnant,  my feeling of repugnance usually extends itself automatically to the person as well.  Seewald's question, however, is not  phrased in a way that is emotionally charged. He keeps the question theoretical: "Is not one perspective incompatible with the other? Here's Pope Benedict's answer to that question: "No." Well, that is both clear and blunt; no hedging or qualifying, just a straight out negative. He goes on to explain: "It is one thing to say that they are human beings with their problems and their joys, that as human beings they deserve respect, even though they have this inclination, and must not be discriminated against because of it. Respect for man is absolutely fundamental and decisive."

             I love that explanation. We human beings are concrete, specific individuals, not theoretical constructs, and the pope recognizes that fact.  He tells us that every human being deserves to be accepted and respected simply because he/she is, i.e. exists! The pope offers more than a theoretical answer, because both acceptance and respect involve our real feelings and actual emotions towards concrete people. He is pointing out that our value as  humans doesn't begin with our activity or productivity, but springs simply from being. We have no right to reject or despise any member of the human race since our very existence is good. That makes sense to me. A newborn baby doesn't just need love,  it has a right to love, and a right to demand it. What's the basis of that right? The newborn's very existence. If my, or our, worth depended on actual accomplishments, very few of us would be worth anything at all. An embryo, a fetus, an unborn baby, even a new-born,  would be worth nothing. Acceptance of  and respect for one another on the very basis of our common existence, is the decisive starting point for all of our interactions with one another. 

        The pope continues his train of thought: "At the same time though, sexuality has an intrinsic meaning and direction, which is not homosexual." This is the affirmative thrust his"No" leads to. Sexuality has a positive meaning and direction which we do not arbitrarily assign but has been built into the structure of sexuality. That is his second point, which he builds on the foundation block of his first statement. The reason why he can disagree with, and disapprove of, homosexual activity even though he has a very real acceptance of, and respect for, homosexuals as human beings is congruent with the meaning and direction he sees in sexuality. In fact, it is out of respect and acceptance for homosexuals that the pope affirms an obvious truth and says that homosexuality is a disorder. Since homosexuality is itself disordered,  both  the acceptance of, and respect for, anyone who calls himself homosexual require that this truth be made clear. Indeed, why would you lie to someone you accept and respect, no matter what the disorder? Presumably, the more serious the disorder, the greater the need to face the truth instead of colluding with an illusion or a deception. 

        Since the fall into original sin,  our human nature itself is in a state of disorder. The disorder in us begins when we do. The Creator made us male and female, as the Scriptures say. (True, God made us without any disorder originally, but a look in the mirror, and a look around us at the world we live in, both  provide objective proof that Adam and Eve have passed on to us the skewed human nature they acquired by sinning. This is not surprising, for how could they pass on anything else?)   Men are disordered, women are disordered, and so are our male-female relationships.  As individuals and as couples, we will never be  a complete whole, because both our individual wholeness, and the wholeness that comes from our  male/female relationships, does not start off in right relation to God. We carry that disorder into all we do, and all we develop into,  as we journey through life. 

 

    Our basic disorder cannot be overcome by our own efforts. Because of the Fall, we have no way to stand outside ourselves and evaluate ourselves objectively. The righting of our relation to God occurs by his grace and mercy working in us. But God does not work in us without us, i.e. without our asking him to, and asking freely and profoundly. This asking is not merely a matter of choosing Option A instead of equally valid Option B, but desperate begging. Our asking is "de profundis", a need born of the misery we find ourselves in. Only the Creator who mercifully sustains us even as he lets us experience our interior disorder can put us in right relation to himself. 

   

     Why not simply view homosexuality as one more disorder among the countless others, and let it go at that? Because sexuality is foundational. Sexuality affects the very ground of our being. Our sexuality with its male-female components, constitutes the core of who we are. Certainly  many disorders abound in us, and they are all interrelated,  but since our core being is disordered, so are our perceptions of our selves, and our perceptions of our relationships. Our disordered core-being is male/female, masculine and feminine, two halves of the whole each of us is,  even though one half predominates.   I am not equally half man and half woman, but a male with both masculine and feminine qualities, or a female with both masculine and feminine qualities. How the two halves become more or less integrated, or  or become more out of balance,  in any person male or female, is and remains mystery. 

      To call this process mysterious is not an attempt to escape its complexity, but to respect it. Science should study the phenomenon of attraction and sexual identity, and discover all it can about it: same sex attraction, other sex attraction, or attraction to both sexes. No matter how thoroughly science explores all the other related causes of homosexuality, I do not believe it will never be able to find one that is primary. Science will, I believe, learn more and more about the specific causes it studies. But the danger, I believe, in learning more and more about specific causes is that we also move further and further away from ever getting around to see how all the causes interrelate. The presence or absence of a certain gene, the help or harm from mother or father during early in childhood, or is the result of the psychic wound because of abuse,  the predisposition we have in us because of our genetic structure, the influence of our formation and schooling, society and culture,  etc., can all be studied ad nauseam.  An either-or explanation will never be sufficient, and no amount of studies will ever be complete or definitive. Even if all finite factors could be exhaustively studied and comprehensively understood,  science has no instruments to measure free will and grace. Both are impenetrable to the scientific eye. This does not prevent science from striving to learn all it can about the causes it can measure, but  should serve to increase science's appreciation of the mystery we are.

.

        Our Creator is a Father who loves us even when he does not approve of us.   So acceptance of others by us never means denial of any disorder, nor does it presume any who accept us think we are free from disorder!  Nor does acceptance mean approval of the activity that a disorder  provokes. Disorders are counter-productive, and end up being harmful to the self as well as to others. Acceptance and respect should be the starting point from which the person with any disorder is to be related to and dealt with, by family, friends and neighbors, doctors and lawyers, social workers and therapists, prison guards and or parole officers, etc. But the strange thing in our society and elsewhere is that homosexuality is no longer recognized as a disorder. Why is that? Why is gayness is mainstreamed, normalized, and legalized as an alternative life-style? I suppose one reason is that,  over time, we can be brainwashed and socially conditioned to see the abnormal as normal. Bombardment through the media, training in the schools, political lobbying, legislation, and cultural pressure has succeeded in making commonplace what was startlingly odd in society not so long ago.

       But Pope Benedict has not lost track of the true nature of sexuality He, Benedict, continues: "We could say, if we wanted to put it like this, that evolution has brought forth sexuality for the purpose of reproducing the species." By appealing to Evolution, which science sees as free from the taint of Religion,  he is able to point out what science has loss sight of, or refuses to respect: namely that sexuality is geared by its nature to reproduction. Any honest scientist who deals with plants,animals, humans, or genes and cell structure would have to agree with that observation.  Even an atheist who was a scientist has to admit this. Only then does he introduces Religion: "The same thing is true from a theological point of view as well. The meaning and direction of sexuality is to bring about the union of man and woman and in this way, to give humanity posterity, children, a future. This is the determination internal to the determination of sexuality. Everything else is against sexuality's intrinsic meaning and direction. This is a point we need to hold firm, even if it is not pleasing to our age."  Posterity, children, and future generations: it is so obvious that these are intrinsic to the meaning and direction  of sexuality, that it should not even have to be stated. How would our ancestors of long ago ever have gotten beyond  mere rutting, if that was all nature had designed them to do?  

Wit and Wisdom of Flannery O'Connor

For the fun of it, I began rereading "Mystery and Manners", by Flannery O'Connor, a book mostly about writing which is made up of different conferences, lectures and essays she wrote for different occasions, and which were collected and published by her estate after her death. I had read it back in the 1970's and underlined some statements she made because they jumped off the page at me at the time. They still do. Here are some of her observations for your enjoyment.

.....I have heard it said that belief in Christian dogma is a hindrance to a writer, but I myself have found nothing further from the truth. Actually it frees the story-teller to observe. It is not a set of rules which fixes what he sees in the world. It affects his writing by guaranteeing his respect for mystery....

.....Redemption is meaningless unless there is cause for it in the actual life we live, and for the last few centuries there has been operating in our culture the secular belief that there is no such cause....

{To write}...is to measure oneself against Truth, and not the other way around. The first product of self knowledge is humility, and this is not a virtue conspicuous in any national character....

Whenever I'm asked why Southern writers particularly have a penchant for writing about freaks, I say it is because we are still able to recognize one.....

...To call yourself a Georgia writer is certainly to declare a limitation, but one which, like all limitations, is a gateway to realty....

....Some people have the notion that you read the story and then climb out of it into the meaning but for the fiction writer himself, the whole story is the meaning, because it is an experience, not an abstraction....

....There may never be anything new to say, but there is always anew way to say it...

....People without hope not only don't write novels, but what is more to the point, they don't read them. They don't take long looks at anything because they lack the courage....

....I think it is usually some form of self-inflation that destroys the free use of a gift. This may be the pride of the reformer or of the theorist, or it may only be that simple-minded self-appreciation which uses its own sincerity as a standard of truth...

....St.Thomas called art 'reason in making'. This is a very cold and very beautiful definition, and if it is unpopular today, it is because reason has lost ground among us...

....nothing produces silence like experience...

...I have found, in short, from reading my own writing that my subject in fiction is the action of grace in territory held largely by the devil, I have also found that what I write is read by an audience which puts little stock either in grace or the devil...

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

Virtual-itis Five

MC: I see you have returned. Do you mind if I ask you a question for a change? 

V. Please do. 

MC.  Why do you come to me when I am asleep? And how do you know when to return?

V. Sleep creates a different attitude in you. Your dreams make you more open to Mystery than your distracted, daylight mind. In your dreams you are even capable of wonder. Also, you don't suppress memories. Do you remember when I compared your mind to a cargo crate filled with a lot of stuff? When you sleep, the sides of the crate are down. While the sides hold things in, they also keep things out.  When your defenses are down, more can get in. So I am able to plant a little bit of truth in you. You will not let that happen when you are awake.  That, by the way is the answer to your second question too, the question about time.   You asked how I know when to return, remember? It depends on how long it takes for the truth to take root in you.  Whether in a few days, or a few weeks, I return when the truth has taken root, because that is the right time. 

MC.  But how do you know when the truth has taken root?  That is what I want to know. 

V. Ah, you are beginning to wonder.  You are using your mind to ponder and marvel about what you do not understand. 

MC. Don’t take that superior attitude. And don’t patronize me!  I just want an answer to my question.   

V. Of course you do. But you want an answer you are going to understand, one that fits within the walls of the "cargo crate", an answer that is a bit of data you can store away in your memory bank, one more piece of information that gives you more control. What you do not want is an answer that will wake you up, or make you see you are sleep-walking in your daily life. You do not yet see is that truth is alive. It is not dead data.  Truth can only take root in you and grow because it is alive, and your mind is able to grasp it and grow, because your mind is alive, too. Your mind comes alive by letting the living truth in. You come alive by living the Truth you receive. You become the Truth you live. That is why you must let Mystery be the measure of you. On the other hand, if you reduce truth to store-able ideas, you deprive yourself of the life it offers. That is what happens when your mind reduces itself to a cargo crate, a memory bank, or storage space. 

MC. I sense you are telling me something important. It seems real and beautiful. I want to believe it. It excites me.  It seems true, but at the same time it seems too good to be true. I do not understand it.  How can what you say be true?  It is too, I don’t know, too poetic, to make sense.

V. Do not reduce the truth to what you can comprehend.  The truth is greater than that.  Sure, some of it is understandable to us,  or accessible to us; it is intelligible and reasonable.  That truth is a priceless treasure.  But an ever greater treasure is the truth that is inaccessible to us, the truth beyond our comprehension,  the truth above all that is,  the foundation of all,  and source of all.  That truth is Mystery.  We live in its light, but can never absorb all of its light.

MC. But why? Why  can't we see it all?  We discover more and more facts all the time.  It seems reasonable to assume one day we will know everything.

V. If mankind survives long enough, it is possible, in theory, for us to discover all the truth that is commensurate with human nature. But we will never penetrate the truth that is beyond our nature. There is no way for us to see into its inner workings.

MC. Huh? You're losing me.What is the difference between these two kinds of truth? 

V. We're just repeating ourselves now, like a record that gets stuck and goes over the same phrases over and over. I'll come back when you might be able to absorb more.

MC.   No, answer me now! What gives you the right to come and go as you please! 

V. The only way to get beyond an impasse is to love the truth we cannot yet see, love Truth in all its Mystery. You still want to be in control of it instead of submitting yourself to it. Truth is the measure of your mind,  you are not the measure of it. Absolute Truth is beyond your or any mind's measuring because it is Mystery. 

MC. Go! Leave. All this talk about Mystery is just mystification.

Mystery in Relationship with Us

"The Most Holy Trinity is relationship.
Grace is relationship.
The Church is relationship.
Priesthood is relationship. 
Consecrated Life is relationship. 
Marriage and Family Life is relationship. 
Education is relationship. 
Formation is relationship." 


The Sign
I  first saw the above quotation hanging on a wall in the administration building of Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut. The wall-hanging was meant to embody the "raison d'etre" of the place, the reason why the seminary exists, its goal, purpose, rationale, philosophy, theology, spirituality, methodology, and anything else that could be said about an institution whose purpose is to train men for the priesthood. I read it through the first time, simply because it was something to do as I was  waiting for 10:00 am to arrive so my meeting would begin. Then I read it a second time, more slowly and attentively, because the first reading had started working on me, working in me, waking me up to ramifications and implications. So I sat down and thought about it a bit, until I got distracted by people passing by and nodding a greeting to me.  Next the meeting took place, and an hour or so later, I drove back home, forgetting about the sign till it sprang up in my mind later in the afternoon. I knew I wanted a copy, and the friend I had met with soon emailed it to me. It has been the basis for reflection ever since.

What is it a sign of?
In general, of our involvement with Mystery, of Mystery's involvement with us,  as well as the Mystery of our involvement with each other. How Mystery sustains us, connects us, interrelates us, moves us, inspires us, works in us, purifies us, teaches us,  helps us grow, etc. It is a sign of the coherence and meaning all things have because of Mystery, and of how that meaningful coherence would be unrecognized and unexpressed except through the unique creature that each one of us human beings is,  and how even through us Mystery remains always greater than whatever meaningful coherence we get a glimpse of.

Why is everything reduced to "relationship" in the quotation?
"Reduced" is the wrong verb to use.  It would be better to say "open to". Relationship is not reductive nor limited in meaning even though our understanding of relationship  is.  For example,"reduction" would be the right term to use in talking about relationship if we make the mistake of thinking our intelligence is the measure of relationship. This would be an example of rationalism, a misuse of reason that limits its reach.

 Relationship is so open,  elastic and expansive that it unites God and all of creation, heaven and earth, time and eternity. For us, for God, for all creation, to be is to be with. Relationship is the heart of everything. It pertains to Father, Son and Holy Spirit; to Creator and creature; to time and eternity; to matter and spirit; to the Sacraments that make us one with God and one another in Christ; to family life and consecrated life; to any and everything that is. The initiative of relationship come from  Mystery, as well as the grace and freedom in us to say "yes" to the initiative. One of the marvels of relationship with God is we have the freedom to say yes or no to it.

Mystery is always in right relationship with us. It would be impossible for Mystery not to be in right relationship with us, since our very being depends upon it. From our side,  relationship with Mystery can go wrong in an infinite number of  ways, while there is only one way of it being right. How can that be? Can Mystery be in right relationship with us even while we are in wrong relationship with It? How is it possible for us to be in wrong relationship with It? By finding ways to say "no" while Mystery mercifully continues to say "yes".


An old Scholastic adage helps me to understand relationship  a bit:"Receptum in recipiente segundum modum recipientis,"which in English comes across as: What is received (the receptum) is in the receiver (in recipiente) according to the mode of the receiver (segundum modum recipientis). What we have of Mystery in us depends on our capability of receiving It. That capability is built into us, and is itself received, as is our very being.  In a sense that capability is our whole being as well as a part of our being. I didn't start myself up or bring myself into being. My existence was given me, and is given me at present as well. My being and everything in it is constituted by my relationship with Mystery. Even that, however,  is an inadequate way of expressing the way things are.

Why? It is true, isn't it? 
Yes. But it is "more" truth is than I am able to intuit, consciously experience, or fully comprehend.  Why? Because I am not the measure of Mystery. Can a painting comprehend the painter, a symphony its composer, or a statue its sculptor?  No. Each is an expression of its maker, but there is more to the maker than a particular expression. No creature can ever be the measure of the Creator. As creatures, we can only be something of an image and likeness, since that is what is given us to be. Yet Christ is both the painter and he  who jumps into his painting, the author who becomes a character in his book, the potter who becomes clay he molds. Relationship with Mystery is present, yet inexplicable, unforeseen and unforeseeable, unfathomable in its gratuitousness..
 Since it is my nature to be created, at every moment of my being I have to be held in being by Mystery. I am not self sustaining. If I were, I would not be a creature, one whose being is out of nothingness and who has no ground of being except Mystery. At root, I am only because Mystery is. The question for me is not Hamlet's famous "To be or not to be", since I inescapably am. Rather, the question is how I choose to be.

Flannery O'Connor: on Mystery and the Educated Mind

"The type of mind that can understand good fiction is not necessarily the educated mind, but is at all times the kind of mind that is willing to have its sense of mystery deepened by contact with reality, and its sense of reality deepened by its contact with mystery."  Flannery O'Connor

I came across that quote some time ago as I was reading Heather King's blog, Shirt of Fire. My face lit up  with delight and the thought ran through my mind: I have to put that in my blog. It sounds just like something Giussani would say. I don't know if Fr. Giussani ever read Flannery, but I'm sure he would have loved her if he did. They both have the type of mind that sees reality in relationship to mystery, and mystery in relationship to reality. It must come from life long practice, because it sure isn't an ego skill like being a professional writer or theologian or a teacher, but a faith virtue that is ingrained in disciples by  following their Master. Since Christ Himself is the right relationship between all of reality and the Mystery of  God His Father,  and since Christ lives that relationship in our human flesh,  our following Him in faith gives us in the correct perspective towards God and man. 

Romano Guardini on Mystery

        "Science is the study of a subject

         by means of the method required by the subject, 

         not by means of some generally applicable method

         that undermines its specific character."

        So, by what method do we study God?

Einstein: on Science and Religion

   1."In the temple of science are many mansions."

   2. "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."

   3. "There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle;  or you can live as if     everything is a miracle."

      Those statements  by Einstein amaze me, almost as much as the startling statements  Fr. Giussani comes out withf. The two are very different men, but have such great minds.They are open to, and in love with Mystery, and much in agreement with each other.
       Why do these three statements of Einstein attract my attention? The only way to find out is to start answering my own question and see what I come up with. Of course, the answers anyone ever gets depend in part on the questions one asks, and those questions probably depend on the way one's brain is wired. That said, my musings may not be what Einstein had in mind when he made his statements, but his words are worth pondering  over anyway.

      1. " In the temple of science"....a temple is God's dwelling place. Science is godlike in the minds of many scientists and people. They worship it. They place their faith in it. Yet this temple of science has many mansions, not  just one God dwelling therein. I presume Einstein is saying that each branch of science thinks of itself as its own authority, and maybe that its method sets the proper standard for "doing science" or that scientific doing is necessary for intelligent, well ordered living. Maybe one branch of science thinks it sets the standards for all the other branches?
            I think Einstein is poking fun at scientific arrogance and conceit. At whose arrogance and conceit in the concrete? At anyone dumb enough to make a god out of science, or attribute to science divine authority. That will include scientists and  us non-scientists, the laypeople, who think we are living smartly and scientifically. Who am I,  a non scientist, to criticize a whole field of endeavor I know next to nothing about?  No one special. But neither is the scientist who speaks his mind about God or religion any expert in that field. So I claim the same right to self expression he has, and I appeal to the great scientist Einstein to give some weight to my rambling.

        Shouldn't the scientific method be followed? Followed where? In thinking? In living? In teaching? Much depends on what the scientific method is, no? Surely, it should be followed within the scope of the science where it applies.Can anyone tell me what the scientific method is? Or what its limits are? That second question regarding limits is,  I think,  what the rest of  Einstein's quote implies: there "are many mansions." Each specific science has its proper place in the temple, where it is appreciated and valued, along with all the others. But none of them sits on the throne as god . Why? Because each science belongs to a particular field. How many sciences are there? How many different fields? I would bet that even scientists cannot answer that question. Is not the science of genetic engineering  a new beginning? Cloning was once science fiction. Now it is a legitimate field in its own right. One day it may be possible to create a servile work force, or  an aggressive warrior class, out of animal and computer parts. What would that science be called? What about the field of science that combines human, animal and computer parts, or just animal and human? No matter what the number of sciences is, that number would have to be qualified by the words "at the present time" or "up to now." Because another discovery would explode  into a new science.
        I think science has to narrowly focus its vision more and more to specialize, to study the microcosm, and find more and more in less and less. I think the scientist surprises himself by discovering the macrocosm in the microcosm. The increase in knowledge is a great boon, but also makes any attempt at a universal perspective more and more unattainable.It is a wonderful benefit to humanity that we discover new means of combating sickness and disease. But each new discovery  that improves life also complicates life, posing new questions as to how it should be used, what norms guide its usage, who sets the standards and applies the norms, or does anybody at all?
        The norms don't come from science itself, that's for sure. Scientist are capable of doing science, that's  also for sure. But of monitoring their own scientific field and the application of its  discoveries? That's NOT like leaving a child with his toys, telling him to go and play, and then chiding him for hurting himself, because the damage done when anyone runs amok with science's toys is  astronomical.
       Should governments and politicians should decide the norms that set the limits of science? Big business? Moralists? The press? The voters? The scientific method? The democratic process? Is there any way for science to answer the question? I bet Einstein would say no to all of the above.
               
      2. "Science without religion is lame"...Why? Lame means to be physically disabled, unable to walk as one would with two good legs. Why can't science walk without religion? It has no where to go, no direction to head in, nothing leading it, guiding it, nor propelling it. So how does it progress? It limps along like it always has, growing incrementally, accidentally, by providence that turns misfortune into a blessing, by inspiration, by blind luck, by stumbling on a breakthrough through a hunch,  instinct, or the "scientific method". What difference would religion make? Religion in what sense? How did Einstein mean the word?
       Religion meaning a sense of God behind it all, behind the universe, the Intelligence, the Mystery, behind the complexity, the order, the beauty, the wonder of all that is. I think this is the sense in which Einstein is using the word, "the religious sense", so to speak. He is not referring to any specific religion like Judaism, or Christianity or Islam, ( I do think he would  never be a polytheist).)
       How does this religious sense help science, and cure its "lameness"? It give science the right attitude with which to do its work, the attitude of wonder, which leads to gratitude and joy.  That's all, but that's a great deal. A scientist who is capable of wonder has his mind and heart open to Mystery, to receiving what Mystery is doing in creation, through creation, and with creation. Such a scientist can be in harmony with what beyond his mental grasp at the moment and be blessed with discovery. The know-ability, the intelligibility of creation is more accessible to such a man, because of the inner sympathy the man experiences with what he is studying.
       Religion without science is blind... meaning what, exactly? Religion can devolve into an empty form or a meaningless practice. Dogmatism means the Mystery is reduced to formulas. Ritualism, that religion is a matter of the correct actions and  precise words. Moralism, faith in God is seen as an ethical code or correct manners. Science, since it probes deeper and deeper into Creation, gives Religion an ever greater grasp of God's greatness, intelligence, goodness, wisdom, power, etc. A simple example may make the point more clearly. Early man was able to see the stars, and when able to count, probably numbered them at a few hundred. When, because of telescopes, man was able to see more and more of the sky above, he estimated the stars at a few thousand. As science progressed, galaxies were discovered that revealed a universe beyond imagination. The horizons of religion extend further and further into the infinite expanse of Mystery, giving man even more to wonder about and question, thanks to science. This happens with the macrocosm of the universe, and also in the case of the microcosm of the cell. Science opens man's eyes more and more widely the more broadly and minutely it explores creation.
      3. "There are two ways to live", Einstein says. Why only two? Why not loads of different ways, given man's infinite capacity for choice? Because all the variety reduces to one of the two at root: either there is a God behind it all,and that means everything is miraculous, even the natural is supernatural, or there is no God and therefore nothing is miraculous, and nothing matters. Matter does not matter. Science does not matter. There is no reason to get out of bed in the morning. No reason to do anything at all.
          Let's take the first alternative Einstein offers: "live as if nothing is a miracle". This reduces to living by instinct. Not by reason, but instinct.Why not by reason? Because reason has already been rendered unreasonable due to its elimination the supernatural. Whatever its use, reason becomes a function
of self preservation, ego enhancement and self aggrandizement. A lot of mental effort may go into that way of living, seemingly highly intelligent,  but for the mind to flourish,  it has to do more than function on the level of animal cunning. Reason feasts and fulfills itself when it goes beyond itself into the reality it cannot measure, Mystery.
        Look at the second alternative: live as if everything is miracle. Everything. Waking up in the morning. Breathing. Walking to the bathroom. Daydreaming while showering. The people you run into. The conversations at work. The work itself. The food you eat. Your friendships. The tiredness you feel at the end of the day. The sleep that restores you. The misunderstandings, disagreements, arguments and conflicts you have. The wounds you give and receive in relating to others. None of that could happen if there is not Mystery behind it all, in it all, sustaining it all, while each of us thinks we are each doing everything on our own. If all we are and do is not the gift of Mystery, including our freedom to do nothing and even to do evil, then there is no meaning to it all, no meaning at all. But awareness of the Mystery Present is the blessing that bubbles into joy, gratitude, appreciation, and peace, as well as humble, ongoing wonder which results in further illumination for  both science and religion.

Marriage Equality for same-sex couples

SR:  What do you think of Obama’s endorsement of same sex marriages?

  M:  How tiresome! We have already discussed the topic. 

SR: Yes, I remember you admired Obama’s use of language and choice of words in presenting his position. 

M: It was well done, was it not?  He expressed himself very nicely.

SR: Never mind how nicely he worded things or the expressions he used, what do you think of marriage equality for people of the same sex?

M:  Marriage equality?  It is another marvelous term which frames the outcome Obama wishes to achieve.  

SR: Never mind the expression!  What do you think of the idea?  

M:  The idea is a wonderful construction of words to sell his product to the American Public.  Remember the saying: The medium is the message?  The term marriage equality is good packaging for his message.  Many have already bought the idea.

SR:   I don’t think it is good packaging. I find it deceptive and contradictory.

 M: From your perspective it looks that way, but not from his. He has a right to frame the question the way he wants.

SR:  I disagree. He should frame the question fairly so that it corresponds to reality, instead of putting a spin on it that promotes his goals. 

M: Really?  I see nothing wrong with this phrasing of the issue.  He is for the right of people of the same sex to enter into marriage, and says they should have that right recognized by law, just as people of opposite sex do.  Why not call that marriage equality?

SR: Because two men cannot do what a man and a woman can do, namely generate new life. Nor can two women. So marriage equality between gay couples and heterosexual couples is a contradiction in terms.  It is like a square circle:  an absurd concept that does not fit the reality it purports to name. The mouth can say the words, but the mind cannot picture the reality.  No same sex couple can couple and engender new life. That’s the reality of the situation.

M: Can you prove your assertion and get people to believe you? Obama has a good following behind his proposal.

SR:  It is self evident and axiomatic. It doesn’t have to be proved because it is obvious, like the statement that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

M: It is not at all axiomatic. There is much more to marriage than the act of procreation.   

SR: Of course there is.  Man is to woman, and woman is to man, as lock is to key. But what is clearly distinct and unique to the male-female union is the generation of new life.  That is why it is the distinguishing feature.

M: Aha! The lock and key metaphor shows that you are using the same slippery language as Obama! If it is fair for you to do, then he can use elusive language too.

SR:  Man and woman are to each other as lock is to key.  There is nothing deceptive about that. The use of lock and key imagery connotes the depth of rich meaning signified in the marriage union. It is accurate and corresponds to reality because husband and wife do unlock what is in each other by enabling one another to grow in various ways.

M: You may say so, but I believe you bear the burden of proof. You have to make your assertion so attractive that it compels consent.

SR: Truth is attractive. Truth is compelling.  The truth is good and beautiful.

M: Only to those who already agree with you. Remember the words of the poet Robert Frost: “They say the truth will set you free. But my truth will bind you slave to me.”

SR: I have heard that verse somewhere.

M: Some people find your version of the truth enslaving, not freeing. They find your position too rigid, dogmatic, and in short, absolutely inflexible.  What can you say to them to change their minds?

SR: I don’t know. I don’t know how to make anyone see what they don’t want to.  Do you?

 M: That is the weakness of your position. You want the truth to be freely embraced. Truth is too complex to speak for itself; also, too abstract. It has to be specific, concrete and alive.

SR: I agree with that!  But instead of complex, I would use the word mysterious. Truth is simple but mysterious. The lived truth is what mysteriously compels assent. The lived truth is beautiful and attractive. Its witness has a splendor which moves people to freely say yes to it! 

M: That is not the point I was trying to make. Now you are twisting my words for your purpose.  But I digress. To return to my point:  You need specific, living examples that personify the Truth of marriage you profess to see so clearly.  Many in your Church do not share your vision of marriage.  What does their lived experience say? What does their  testimony give witness to if not the falsity of your position?

SR: I’m not sure. I need to think more about that. Maybe their lives witness to the mystery of God’s abounding mercy.

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."                                                                                                         

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.

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.

St. Paul: Playing with Prepositions

                                           

                                          Part One: Some reflections on in, from, to, and with 

St. Paul has a unique way of using prepositions to move us into right relationship with God and one another. Religion’s role is to teach us how to relate correctly, while codependence is a dysfunctional way of relating.  Prepositions are insignificant parts of speech, compared with more important words such as nouns and verbs. God is always turning matters upside down and inside out by making the insignificant into the important. Nobodies are always chosen to be his somebodies.  St. Paul tells us that God uses the weak to shame the strong, and the foolish to shame the wise. In fact, God chooses what is lowly and despised to bring to nothing the things that are something ( see I Cor.  1:27 -28). St Paul is imitating God, we might say, by not using nouns and verbs exclusively to help us into right relationship, but prepositions, (the nobodies of the Grammar Book), to help us get into the continual conversion process our religion calls for.                 
 St. Paul’s perception of himself is equally humble and therefore wonderful. Paul never calls himself a theologian. He refers to himself as an “apostle”, seemingly a proud title, but its basic meaning in Greek is probably what Paul is proud of. And that meaning is "to be sent as an ambassador of someone else," namely Christ. Paul also calls himself “a slave of Jesus Christ”. He does not belong to himself but to His Master.  As Christ’s property, Paul does what he is told to do, namely preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. His slavery is freely embraced, and in fact is what enables him to be sent all over as an apostle.  It was a glorious vocation, but the glory of it came through the suffering involved in carrying it out. 

 Part of the marvel of Paul is his use of prepositions as a way of gaining entry to the Mystery of God that is in Christ.  His aim was to get real people to know Jesus Christ.  Paul used everyday examples and metaphors taken from their lived experience and daily conflicts in order to introduce them to spiritual realities beyond their imagining. Through his letters, Paul changed the way the people of his day saw reality, and the way they related to one another and God. In doing so he laid the foundations of Christian civilization in what would centuries later be Europe.   That is a stunning achievement, all the more astounding, when we realize that Paul had no idea what he was accomplishing. All he wanted to do was write a few letters to a few scattered communities. He had no idea of the impact his words would have on us centuries later. If he had, he probably would have been more careful of how he expressed himself. Paul’s Master, Jesus Christ did with Paul what Paul could never have hoped to achieve had he been pursuing his own agenda. Our Lord used Paul to change peoples’ thinking, feeling, behaving, in short, how they saw themselves in relation to Christ's message. By following Paul, people would move from codependence to interdependence, from tribalism to Church, or in the terms Paul uses, from death to life, from sin to grace, from slavery to freedom, in Christ Jesus.

Prepositions ably express various styles of codependence, and also concisely state the interdependence we care called to. In addition, prepositions illustrate the journey from one state of being to another.  Prepositions help us to see whatever we are stuck in, to look beyond it towards what we are being called to, and to go with the flow of grace moves us to cooperate. But they are so insignificant that they do not win our attention by themselves. Prepositions are humble servants that do not try to be noticed. All they want is to be part of the process of freeing us and helping us grow. Perhaps St. Paul should be named the patron saint of prepositions.  For, like John the Baptist, Paul goes before the Lord. Preparing the way for Christ, Paul positions himself before the people not as their savior, but as a slave of Christ.  Paul incarnates the meaning of the term pre-position by helping all who will listen to him to relate to God and man in Christ Jesus.

Christ and Codependence

                                                              

PART ONE

Why am I writing about Christ and Codependence?  Or, for that matter, why should you bother to read it? The best answer I can give is that Christ is the Way out of Codependence. However, for some readers, that may seem like the worst answer. They would probably ask me:  “Why bring Christ (and therefore ‘religion’ of some sort) into a discussion of Codependence? Certainly we can study the topic without Him”.  Am I being narrow-minded, arrogant or sectarian, trying to sneak in my religious views where they don’t belong and impose them on others?  I don’t think so. I know Christ and Codependence don’t fit together in everyone’s minds, so I need to explain what I am doing and why.

One reason is that I write from a Faith perspective. From that perspective Codependence is something that Christ is constantly confronting in us whether we are aware of it or not. Becoming aware can be a step forward for us so we do not offer him so much resistance.  Since my religious Faith creates that perspective in me, it would be unfair of to expect me to jump out of my skin and try to write as if I were a non believer.  Secondly,  looking at the issue of Codependence from a  Christian Faith Perspective broadens and deepens my horizons by opening the topic to the dimension of Divine Mystery instead of focusing on the issue narrowly, say, from the perspective of one brand of Psychology or another. Thirdly, Christ is involved in issues of codependence in one situation after another all the time throughout the four Gospels. Fourthly Christ is not just one more player in the arena of Codependence because I or anyone else decides to mention Him, but because of whom he is. He is the Creator of all that is.  He is the Logos, the Cause, Rationale, and Goal of all that exists.  “In him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible… all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things and in him all things hold together. (Colossians I: 16-17) We all appear as blips on his radar screen even if we try to keep him out of the private Ego Bubble that makes up our little world.

 For example, suppose I jump off the Empire State Building, a) because I a depressed and suicidal, or b) because I am insane and think I am able to fly. It really doesn’t matter what I think or how I feel. The Law of Gravity will automatically take effect. No matter what my state of being, I will fall to my destruction. My accepting, rejecting, or ignoring the Law of Gravity, doesn’t influence its operation. The same is true of Christ. He is the Word, “through whom all things were made and without whom was not anything made that was made” (John 1:3). There is nothing that is a part of us that he is not in touch with, and nothing that does not touch him. Everything finds its origin, meaning and fulfillment in him. He is the Alpha and Omega. All that our human nature goes through is caught up in his Incarnation, redeemed by his Crucifixion, and drawn up with him to the Father in his Resurrection and Ascension. This includes the Cosmic Laws that guide the stars, sun, moon, and planets, as well as those which govern us ensouled bodies.

If I had been born in a different time or place, I might have been a pantheist, an atheist, an agnostic, or a believer in any of many different gods. I am sure that no matter when or where I was born, I would have been codependent!

 I am happy to be here now and be the person I am. But the fact is that (as is the case with every other human being,) I could very easily never have been born, and in that case the world would exist quite nicely without me. I am not necessary to the world for its operation. My existence and thinking may matter little in terms of the dynamics that govern creation in general and human existence in particular. The same is true of every one of us. But because I am alive now and have both Faith and Reason now, I would be foolish not to make the best use I have of both. My hope is that by doing so I will cooperate with Christ in his work of freeing me from my codependence and, Deo Volente, even be of some help to others.

PART TWO

 As a Roman Catholic priest, I have often wondered why we Catholics, lay, religious, and clergy, do not make more progress in our spiritual lives. My experience tells me that generally we Catholics are more likely to be spiritual pygmies than spiritual giants.  One of the reasons is that we are caught up in codependent behavior patterns that render us incapable of true spiritual growth. Much of the time, our Christianity may be more counterfeit than genuine, in spite of our sincerity.   For example, I can think I am praying to Christ correctly, or following him as a disciple, or keeping his commandments, yet that will not actually be the case.  Instead, I will be caught up in my own codependent style and unconsciously attempt to catch Him up in it too. In fact, real conversion, discipleship, and prayer are not possible until I grow in self knowledge and wake up to my codependent style.  

The instance of the two brothers fighting over money in Luke 12:13 is an example of this problem. One of the brothers tells the Lord: ‘’Teacher, bid my brother divide the inheritance with me.” The man sees Christ as some kind of authority figure that he can appeal to, and is asking him for help in getting the property he thinks he has a right to.  On the surface, it seems like a fair enough request.  The brothers know that Christ has a reputation for being a caring, loving person who can work wonders to help people out of difficult situations. He does what is right and good to everyone.  So Christ’s response must have come as a surprise to the brother. “Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?”   (vs. 14)  He refuses the request, and says he does not have to involve himself in their dispute. They must have been surprised by his response. Probably they changed their minds about him. He definitely was not the “nice guy” they thought he was.

 Christ does not feel obliged to fulfill the man’s expectations.  He is not going to take the side of one of the brothers over the other.  It is not a question of which brother is in the right, because from Our Lord’s perspective both are wrong.  Christ warns the two of them:  “Beware of all covetousness.” They’re both in the wrong, because both are acting out of their desire for more. Neither is really interested in justice, just in winning the fight.  That is why Christ won’t get involved in their squabble. He won’t collude with them and play their game by their rules.

 What does this have to do with codependency? Everything!  It is a great example of the way we relate to Christ out of our codependent style with one another and expect Him to go along with us. But He who is the Truth is going to expose our falsity. The two brothers are into aggression as a way of getting what they want.  This has probably been going on since childhood, and now it is a fixed style they are more or less locked into whenever they relate.  Even when they are civil or polite, the underlying aggression is there, like a tiger ready to pounce, when the opportunity presents itself.  But neither brother has enough self knowledge to be aware of this habitual behavior. The self deception, or blindness in Biblical terms, is a component of codependent life style.  So each thinks (probably in all sincerity) he is seeking justice, when he is basically looking for his own advantage.  Even if they both agreed to let Christ mediate their dispute, his decision would not bring about harmony or peace between them.  Their fighting would continue, no matter what He decided.   The real solution is for each to realize that covetousness, self seeking greed for what the other has, is in their hearts and moving them to be fighting with each other over everything.

 Christ is not a Mr. Fixit with quick one-step solutions to our problems. He calls us to a new way of being that begins with conversion, and deepens as the conversion takes us over more and more completely.  In our struggle for independence and control, we would like to reduce conversion to a simple, one-step process. (Been there, done that!  In fact, still there, still doing that!) Conversion includes the crucifixion of our Ego, and the Ego has such a grip on us that it colors all we do, including our relating to God.