The Heart of the Gospel

36. All revealed truths derive from the same divine source and are to be believed with the same faith, yet some of them are more important for giving direct expression to the heart of the Gospel. In this basic core, what shines forth is the beauty of the saving love of God made manifest in Jesus Christ who died and rose from the dead. In this sense, the Second Vatican Council explained, "in Catholic doctrine there exists an order or a 'hierarchy' of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith." This holds true as much for the dogmas of faith as for the whole corpus of the Church's teaching, including her moral teaching. 

The Joy of the Gospel, Pope Francis, par. 36, p. 19

Jesus Christ, Door to the Sheepfold and Master of Dogma

John 20:19 "On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them: Peace be with you." 

Man never has the whole truth at his disposal; a portion of it always remains with God. In all communication of truth, there is a kind of reservatio mentalis. This reserving , however, is not done by us, but by God. When arranging matters as we think best, we must always say: assuming that God does not arrange things otherwise. For man to make use of reservatio mentalis is all right provided he reserves something not for his own advantage, but for God's advantage. In belief, the reservatio of truth occurs on the part of God, who perhaps holds it back for communication to us at a later time. In belief there is a foregoing of complete understanding of truth, an abdicatio of truth, which is based on the recognition that everything we know and love has, in God, the form of the ever-greater. 

But this foregoing does not apply in the case of dogma. Here, nothing is relativized. Dogma is the door that is closed against everything non-Christian outside of it. As directed to the outside, the dogmas are rigid and uncompromising. We must regard the door that the Lord closes behind him as closed for as long a he does not instruct us to do otherwise. And he himself does not open the door anymore , but goers right through the closed door. For him, the rigid closedness does not exist, for him every truth is open. But for  us the closing must be regarded as final, as absolute. If we were able to add something to the Lord's truth by our own thought, the everything would be repeated called into question, including within the confines of the Church. Then, however, the door would not longer be the Lord, but rather, man and his truth.The Lord alone has the freedom to enter, from the outside to the inside, through the closed doors. What is closed for us is open for him. In heaven there will no longer be any unclosed doors because there will no longer be any unbelief. 

Dogmas are securings of belief against outside dangers, not closures for the sake of closure. Dogma has a basis of immovable truth , but it opens itself out from that basis into the unlimitedness of living, inexhaustible truth in God. Objectively, it has an absolute point of departure; but it is also relative in each person who subjectively assimilates it, because here absolute truth is grasped only partially and imperfectly, and exists within an open movement of belief toward the Lord. The framework of the dogmatic truth is unshakable, but within its confines, the infinite truth of the Lord moves in sovereign freedom. God's truth is infinite, and is therefore always just outlined and suggested in dogmatic precepts. The measure of dogmatic truth remains the Lord himself; and the Lord can see everything differently, and infinitely more fully than any particular believer can see it. Neither individual believers nor the Church as a whole have any authority to make changes in dogma; but they are also not allowed to do so, because it is the Lord alone who comprises the truth of dogma. 

From the way that the absolute and relative are intertwined, we can see that whereas man may regard himself personally as the greatest sinner, he nevertheless has no right to regard someone else as more guilty than himself. Another person could, perhaps, by citing different reasons, prove to him that he is wrong; an he too, in a certain respect, could be right. But in the end, both would be wrong, because the Lord alone holds in his hand the measuring stick of sin. All human judgments must, in the end, yield before his exclusive judgments. Similarly, the Lord remains the master of dogma, whose entire depths, which men do not plumb, are his own depths, which he avails himself of in freedom.

Adrienne von Speyr John vol.4, pp. 200, 201

The Risk of Education

Recently a provocative question came up: "What would a classroom like that look like?" I have been wondering about the answer ever since. The that under question is clear and specific, so that is easy to explain, but the question itself is impossible to answer. This is how the question came about: I was with a small group of teachers discussing Giussani's book The Risk of Education, and one of them wondered out loud: "Imagine how marvelous it would be if all teachers actually taught the way Giussani proposes." Then from another person came the question: "Yes indeed, what would a classroom like that look like?"

Those of us who admire Giussani can make the mistake of idealizing him, and regard his book on education as the solution to all the problems we have in our schools today. In a general sense, it is, because the book analyzes our educational situation accurately and gives the correct directions we should go in. However, the book is no quick fix. Our concrete educational problems are infinite in variety and depend on the right use of personal freedom on the part of all involved, especially teacher and student. That is why no book in itself could resolve our educational problems. 

Giussani's slim volume is the distilled wisdom of a lifetime in the classroom and presupposes that teachers accept the living martyrdom they must necessarily endure as they risk themselves trying to communicate truth to their students. While Giussani states the risks of educating accurately and concisely in the book, he also says that the heroic sacrifice of real educators is the only road to success. Such dedication will not guarantee success that is absolute, however, since not all students will be open to the gift the teacher is giving them.

 

Giussani's message could be taught and applied as a technique. His method could be reduced to a formula, an ideology, or a closed system. But teaching is not a matter of learning the Giussani technique,  and then communicating it in bits and pieces to students till they have digested all the information offered. Teaching, or education, from Giussani's perspective aims at opening students up to all of reality. Reality as a whole? How many students have teachers who see reality that way?

Also, teaching and learning are an joint experience. It should be a truism to say that an experience can only be lived. In the teaching, truth come alive, the student's mind and heart come alive, and this lived experience occurs when the teacher communicates not just data or information but something of himself.

 

Himself? (Or herself?) Why? Why does a teacher have to communicate himself? And what of that self exactly? Why not just the material he (or she) is teaching? Why is the person of the teacher so important? Because of the relationship that only persons can have, a relationship with one another and at the same time with Goodness, Truth and Beauty that is greater than they are. No matter how ably the specific material is communicated, if the link to the "greater than" is not present in the teacher, the teacher does the student an injustice. 

Suppose I am a music teacher. I can teach a child what a scale is, and how to play the scale correctly on the piano. I can then move on to teach the student how to form chords, how to read notes on a staff, and also keep time. But scales and notes and chords are boring. These are all "bits and pieces", or rudimentary information a student must have to play music, just as a student must learn how to write the alphabet, print words, and write sentences. As an educator, I can teach the skills involved in writing, or in piano playing, but I have to have a love of music, or a love of language , to inspire passion in my students and wake them up to what miracles language and music are. If I don't communicate the passion I have in me for what is greater than I am, if that passion is not in me to begin with, what right do I have to be a teacher?

The personal relationship between teacher and student is the context in which Truth, Goodness and Beauty are communicated to the student in the present moment. Where the teacher has no relationship to this totality, he has no calling to be a teacher.

Man and his activity

....If by the autonomy of earthly realities we mean that created things and even societies have their own distinctive laws and values, which much be gradually identified, used and regulated by men, this kind of autonomy is rightly demanded. Not only is it insisted on by modern man, it is also in harmony with the design of the Creator. By the very fact of creation everything is provided with its own stability, its own truth and goodness, its own laws and orderly functioning. Man must respect these, acknowledging the methods proper to each science or art.

   One should therefore deplore certain attitudes of mind which are sometimes found even among Christians because of a failure to recognize the legitimate autonomy of science.These mental attitudes have given rise to conflict and controversy and led many to assume that faith and science are mutually opposed.  

   If, on the other hand, the autonomy of the temporal order is understood to mean that created things do not depend on God, and that man may use them without reference to the Creator, all who believe in God will realize how false is this teaching. For creation without the Creator fades into nothingness. 

Gaudium et Spes, nn. 36

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. (Romano Guardini)

So what within science gives it the right or ability to step outside the limits of any particular science and begin its study with a prejudice against the supernatural that posits the impossibility of God and creation by God? 

Body and Soul

Disciple: Master, is it true that the soul is in the body, like a center is in a circle? And, is it true that from this center deep within us we are able to speak to God?

Master: Yes, but there is more. This also is true: That the body is in the soul. The soul is like a spiritual skin that holds the body within.

 

Disciple: Do you mean that the soul contains the body, just as I can carry different things in a sack? Do you mean that my soul carries and moves me, every part of me?

 

Master: Yes. The soul is also what opens you to reality, to all that is, all of you , your entire being, to all that is, including God.

 

Disciple: Master: If that is true. why am I so stuck inside myself? Why do I feel isolated and alone, as if only I were here? Why do I have a hard time connecting with others, and God?

Master: The pores of your spiritual skin are clogged, my son.

 

Disciple: How do I unclog them? What do I do? Tell me, please!

 

Master: The answer will take a lifetime, but now is always the time to begin. Begin by taking the time to wonder,  at Beauty,  at Goodness,  at Truth as they enter your soul from all that surrounds you. Let your soul be stirred,  let your mind and heart be moved. Listen to the promptings your soul receives. This will unclog your spirit and start to move you outside of yourself, and you will begin to grow.

Pope Francis on the Media

In the book on Heaven and Earth, I just just read a couple of remarks by Pope Francis in which he makes some astute observations about the Press, Media, Politics, and Clericalism, among other hot button issues. I admire how freely he speaks, speaks up and speaks out, uninhibited, not-one-bit-intimidated, open, friendly and humble, even though he is aware what he says is not going to be accurately represented in the morning paper. 

 Here's one gem: "The problem of the press, truthfully, is that sometimes they reduce what one says to whatever is opportune. Today, from two or three facts, the media spins something different: they misinform."

Here's another: "Today image is more important than what is proposed. Plato said in The Republic, rhetoric- which equates aesthetic- is to politics what cosmetics is to health. We have displaced the essential with the aesthetic; we have deified polling and marketing."

This third one is another favorite: "The media's way of putting things, in black and white, is a sinful tendency that always favors conflict over unity...Today there is misinformation because only part of the truth is said, only what interests them is taken for their convenience, and that does a lot of damage because it is a way of favoring conflict. If I read five newspapers comparing the same story, it is very often that each one will emphasize the part it is most interested in according to its inclination."

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...

Christ's Conception of Life.

"Jesus Christ did not come into the world as a substitute for human effort, for human freedom, or to eliminate human trial - the existential condition of freedom. He came into the world to call man back to the depths of all questions, to his own fundamental structure, and to his own real situation. If certain human values are not safeguarded, all the problems man is called to resolve in the trial of life do not dissolve, but rather become more complicated. Jesus Christ came to call man back to true religiosity, without which every claim to a solution of those problems is a lie. The problem of the knowledge of the meaning of things (truth), making use of things (work), human awareness (love), human co-existence (society and politics), lack a proper formulation, and so, to the extent that religiosity is not at the foundation of the search for their solution, they generate ever greater confusion in the history of the individual and humanity as a whole."

At the Origin of the Christian Claim, Luigi Giussani, p. 97

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.

Virtual-itis: Part One

VIRTUAL-ITIS:  A Socratic Dialogue with a Modern Christian. 

The dialogue takes place during sleep, in a dream.
                                                        

        Only the soul can experience an absence that is  presence, an emptiness that is  filling, a longing that is an enjoying.  Such an experience occurs when the soul awakens and comes alive in the remembrance of Selfless Love.  Today this experience is more and more absent to us and as a result our hungers have no meaning.  We fill ourselves obliviously with empty data, factoids, and bytes.  Diversions, distractions, multiply like virtual loaves. Only in the silent, empty desert will the Mystery of Selfless Love once again dazzle us.

                                                

Voice: Why do you sleep so fitfully? What bothers you?

Modern Christian:  What? Who are you? Am I dreaming?

V:  You may call me Socrates. I was sent to help you know yourself better. Yes, you are dreaming, but the dream is real, more so than the daytime hours you spend walking around in a fog.

MC: How can I be sure? Maybe I am having a nightmare, or going crazy. 

 V: You are already driving yourself crazy. Yourwhole life is a nightmare of worry and anxiety. Do not be afraid of me. You have nothing to lose and much to gain. Tell me: what is bothering you?

MC:  Well, I am having a hard time making decisions.  I can’t sort out my thoughts and feelings and come to a conclusion.   One day one thing seems good to me, the next day something else. Why can’t I be as sure of myself as I used to be?  

V: You may have a common yet unrecognized virus that infects much of the world's population,  a virus called  “virtual-itis.” This is a sickness that comes from a loss of contact with reality. How serious the sickness is depends on how far removed you are from reality. May I ask you some questions? I need to see how badly this virus affects you.  

MC:   What harm can it do?. Ask away. What would you like to know?  

V: Does your mind feel like a cargo crate or like your stomach?

MC:  I don’t understand.  My mind doesn't feel like anything. Not like a cargo crate, not like my stomach. What are you getting at?  

V:  A cargo crate can be empty or full. But it is indifferent to both emptiness and fullness.  It is neither happy nor unhappy over what is placed in it.  Like a cargo crate, your stomach can be empty. But the stomach knows it is empty.  That’s why you feel hungry!  So the stomach is not indifferent to being empty.  Nor is the stomach indifferent to what gets put in it.  It wants tasty food that nourishes it, food that contains the vitamins, minerals, carbs, and proteins which the rest of the body needs.  And after it gets that stuff, the stomach knows what to do with it.  It knows how to break it down and what to send where.  The stomach finds satisfaction in fullness and frustration in emptiness. 

MC. Okay, okay, enough already!  I see what you mean. But I thought the mind was like a blank slate. Isn't that  how the mind works, something like a slate on which you write information?  I thought being a brainy, knowledgeable person meant you had gathered up a lot of information and knew how to use the information to get what you wanted.

V:  That would reduce the brain pretty much to a computer memory bank.  But the brain is more  like a smart cat playing with a ball of string. The cat pokes it, rolls it, runs around it, pounces on it, backs off and leaves it there,then jumps on it again. Of course, if it is a mouse or a canary instead of a ball of string, when the cat is finished playing with it, he finally eats it.  That’s the way the mind works. It plays with an idea, looks at it from one angle and then another, compares it to this and that. The mind questions and pokes the idea and rolls it around before deciding whether or not to leave it be or eat it. Sometimes the mind will swallow it.  And once your mind swallows the idea, it also knows what to do with it.  

MC: Sorry, you are losing me.  What are you getting at? 

V:  Just as the stomach cannot use any old thing we put into it, the mind is meant to take in truth. The hunger of the mind is for truth. The mind is nourished by truth, not just by information or data or factoids.  Today we seem to have forgotten that a mind cannot be healthy without truth. We think just having a crate full of data is enough to fill us. 

MC:  I see what you're saying.  What food is to the stomach,  truth is  to the mind.  How about this: two people discussing an idea are like your two cats, playing with a ball, rolling it around, back and forth to one another. Isn't that a good image for two persons having a discussion or a brainstorming session or even a debate? As they toss the idea around they clarify it, see it differently, and maybe help it acquire depth they didn’t know was there before.   That’s what you mean by the mind being like a playful curious cat, and not just a blank slate, right? 

V: Yes.  You do begin to see!  Healthy people have that kind of mind that is inquisitive, searching, and hungry for truth. They are interested in learning more and more about the truth they already know.  Unhealthy people have a mind like a crate or slate, they don’t care what is inside or written on it, nor have a sense of what to do with what they have inside. The truth to them is just a lot of data or information.  You, on the other hand, may get healthy by talking to me. 

MC. By healthy or unhealthy I presume you are referring to this virus you are talking about?  Virtual-itis?  

V. Yes.   A crate type mind is one symptom of the disease.  Another is a spectator mentality.  That means you...
MC. Wait a minute! I don't buy everything you have said. It is your opinion, and you have a right to it. But I see things a different way. I have a different value system. You don't have any right to impose your way of seeing on me. I am free to see things the way I want therm to be.
V. No you are not. You are free to accept reality or deny it. But once you deny reality, you separate yourself from truth and start living by self deception.
MC. This conversation is over! Go away! Sneak into my head some other day. I don't want to play mind games with you any more right now.

Cardinal Newman: Trust in God

     1. "God was all complete, all blest in himself, but it was his will to create a world for his glory. He is almighty. He might have done everything for himself. But it has been his will to bring about his purposes through the beings he created. We are all created for his glory. We are created to do his will. I am created to do something or to be something for which no one else is created. I have a place in God's councils, in God's world which no one else has. And whether I be rich or poor, despised or esteemed by men, God knows me and calls me by my name.
     2. God has created me to do him some definite service. He has committed some work to me which he has not committed to anyone else. I have my mission. I may never know it in this life. But I will be told it in the next. Somehow I am necessary for his purposes. As necessary in my place, as an archangel is in his. If indeed I fail, he can raise another, as he could make the stones children of Abraham. Yet I have a part in this great work. I am a link in a chain,  a bond of connection between persons. He has not created me for nothing. I shall do good. I shall do his work. I shall be an angel of peace, a preacher of truth, in my own place, while not even intending it, if only I keep his commandments and serve him in my calling. 
     3. Therefore I will trust him. Whatever, wherever I am, I can never be thrown away. If I am in sickness, my sickness may serve him. In perplexity, my perplexity may serve him. My sickness, my perplexity or sorrow may be the necessary causes of some great end which is quite beyond us. But he does nothing in  vain. He may prolong my life, he may shorten it. He knows what he is about. He may take away my friends, throw me among strangers, he may make me feel desolate, make my spirits sink, hide my future from me, and still He knows what He is about.
       O Adonai, O Ruler of  Israel, O Thou that guidest Joseph like a flock; O Emmanuel, O Eternal Wisdom, I give myself to thee. I trust thee entirely. Thou are wiser than I, more loving to me than I am to myself. Deign to fulfill thy high purposes in me. Work in and through me. I am born to serve thee, to be thine to thy instrument. Let me be thy blind instrument.  I ask not to see, I ask not to know,  I ask only to be used."


The Works of Cardinal Newman, Meditations and Devotions, pp. 300 -302

Truth That Lasts

         "The truth, as it emerges, leaves an everlasting impression. It is only when man's memory, that great faculty by which all things are embraced and explored, becomes its own undertaker, that it seems possible to hide the truth we have sensed in the event of an encounter under shovelfuls of earth (the shovelfuls of distraction).  Luigi Giussani,  He is if He Changes, p. 29        

Shovelfuls of earth, millions of distractions, suffocate the minds and hearts of  people who speak and listen, listen and speak, all the time: teachers and students, parents and children, husbands and wives, candidates and voters, bosses and employees, etc.. It is a wonderful miracle, a miracle beyond words, beyond understanding, that any truth gets communicated any time, even more so that it leave an impression that remains forever. Yet, by God's grace. it happens.

Giussani Quotation: Love for Truth

"In effect, an individual must possess a profound desire for truth in order to overcome the scandal of the instrument communicating it."  Why the Church,  Luigi Giussani, p.130

"A gold prospector would never have been  daunted by the mud of the river bed where he hoped to find nuggets. Rather he would have been motivated by the probability of finding gold, not  by the conditions he would have to face in order to come across it." p.131

Quotation: David L. Schindler

      "We belong to the truth before the truth belongs to us. Although both of these statements are true, a reversal in their order changes the meaning and integrity of both the truth and ourselves."

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.

The Threesome

 Part One: The Call

“And Jesus took Peter, James and John…” (Matthew 17:1)

Peter, James and John, stood out among the Twelve, because Christ called them to accompany Him at various times but left the other nine behind.   Because of that special blessing, I imagine Peter, James and John fell into the habit of getting together as a threesome and talking about Christ with one another. This meditation, the first of a series, is an attempt to enter into their conversations and see Christ as they were seeing Him, or better yet, as they were learning how to see Him, through talking about Him with one another.  It is not possible to associate all their conversations with specific events, places, and circumstances, in their common life with Christ. Nor, to express their insights and feelings as   experienced and expressed by them.  But since Truth emerges fresh and new in dialogue among friends, these conversations may help us to come in contact with the mysterious person of Christ who so captivated them. I invite you to listen to them, and enter into the dialogue with three witnesses who knew Him better than we do.

Peter: Do you two ever think about the day He called you? (James and John nod affirmatively.) So what do think about? What do you remember?

John: Well, I try to understand why I said yes. I mean, I don’t think I said “yes” in words, just said it by doing it. I still don’t know how to put it all into words. I’m sure I would not have left everything and followed anybody else who told me to follow him.

 James:  I began to follow Him because you did. I thought He would be a good teacher. He seemed wise, friendly, and honest to me, but I had no idea what He was like. I didn’t really understand what I was getting into. I don’t know when it dawned on me that this was going to on and on for the rest of my life. I’m sure I could walk away tomorrow if I decided to, and He wouldn’t stop me, but I know He wouldn’t want me to,  and I guess my point is, I don’t want to either.

John: So Peter, why did you decide to follow Him?

Peter: I don’t know all my reasons. I do remember that one of them was to protect Andrew.  Remember, Andrew brought me to Him. Andrew isn’t the best judge of people, and I wasn’t sure he wasn’t getting into trouble. Another reason was that I was curious. I wanted to see who this Jesus was that had impressed him.

 John: So why did you stay, instead of leaving and taking Andrew with you?

Peter: I’m not sure I can explain it.  I liked fishing, I enjoyed the work, not just catching the fish, but the selling too, talking to people from here and there, haggling with them over the price,  giving in a little, but getting them to agree with my price in the end. It was a good life. Sometimes I miss it. But not enough to leave this.

James: But that still doesn’t tell us why you said yes to His call in the first place. 

Peter: The best I can do is put it this way: I had a sense that He knew me better than I realized, that He saw through me. It was scary. I don’t know why I felt that way but I did.  Anyway, that was the feeling I had when He said He wanted to make me a “fisher of men”. It was as if He had my whole life worked and it was up to me if I wanted to say yes to it.  

James:  Gee, that would have been enough to shake me up and scare me off.  If I felt he saw through me the first time I was with him, and He had plans for my whole life, I would have said no to Him then and there.

John: Yes, but now you wouldn’t, because now you know you can trust Him, even though you don’t always understand Him.  As for me, I think I had lots of reasons why I said yes to his call, more reasons than I understand, but I think the basic reason back then was I felt a connection between us, a contact, that was deep inside my guts. I knew I liked Him, but his pull on me was deeper than any feeling that attracted me to Him.  I don’t know, I felt like He was already connected to me even though we had never spoken before. I guess I am saying I felt He already knew me better than I knew myself, and that connection made me say yes to Him.

Peter:  Keep talking. I think you are on to something.

John: No. I’ve thought about this a lot, and that’s the best I can do for now. But another thing I think about is why did He choose all of us? There are plenty of men out there He could have called. He seems to love everybody.  So why call us twelve instead of twelve others, and why stop at twelve?

(James and Peter both shrug and indicate they have no idea)

 John:  But He knows. He knows why he chose us three, and the others. And why He wants only twelve of us instead of ten or fifteen. Somehow He’s on top of what is happening.  He doesn’t force things, but He is in charge.  I think any of us could have said no to Him.  We still could. We could walk off tomorrow if we wanted to and He wouldn’t stop us. But somehow I think He knows we won’t.

Peter. Yeah, I think you are right about that.  I don’t think any of us want to leave. What I don’t get is why He doesn’t get fed up with us and send us away. 

John (delighted): That’s right, Peter!  Exactly!  If I were Him I would have gotten tired of the bunch of us by now.  But, that’s not His way.  Another thing I can’t understand, why does He pay more attention to the three of us than the other nine?  It’s not like we are better people. He’s as patient with them as He is with us. He corrects all of us all the time and isn’t worried about our feelings or reactions.  He is not afraid to come down hard on us. Yet He doesn’t do it to embarrass or humiliate any of us when He does it. He treats us all the same, in that sense. It’s like He expects us to act like idiots and never gets tired of us anyway.

James: That’s true. But He also treats each of a little differently. Like He knows what is going on in each one, what we are feeling and thinking, and always is considerate of us.

Peter: But why does He take us three with Him, and leave the others behind? I don’t get that at all. I mean, I love it, but I don’t understand it.

John: I’m not sure, but I think there is less to it, and also more to it, than we think.

Peter: What do you mean?

 John: Well, the easy answer is this: We three are the most difficult to deal with of everybody there. James and I are the most emotional, and have the most explosive tempers. You, Peter, are the most thick-headed and stubborn. You are also very impulsive and rash. So I think He is doing the group a favor by not always leaving us with them when He has something to do. I also think in some crazy way we three are the hardest nuts for Him to crack, if you get what I mean. And so He is doing us a favor by taking us with Him, because He knows we need more of His attention.

James: I never thought of that. But when I hear you say it, it rings true.

 Peter: Yes. It does. And you know, there is probably another reason too. I bet He knows that in order for the group to be able to work together, He has to be able to get us three to work together.  If He can do that with us, the others will fall into line.

 John. You may be right. With Him I think there is always more to everything He says and does than we can take in at any one time, because there is more to Him all the time.  

Peter:  James, why you stay instead of leaving?

 James: I never thought about that before. I suppose it is because even though this is the hardest thing I have ever done, it is also the most exciting.  No, exciting isn’t what I mean. Sometimes it is exciting and sometimes it is frustrating, but it is never boring. That’s it. That’s what I want to say. When I am around Him, when I pay attention to Him, I feel more alive as a result.  He makes life into an adventure. Before, without Him, it got boring.

Christ and Codependence

PART THREE

I think self-help groups like Alcoholics Anonymous are successful because they are founded on the right principles and practice. I love the fact that the principles and practices are Christian, but they would be true, right, and good, no matter who had come up with them.  No one in AA or any other self-help group has to be a Christian. The principles work for anyone who practices them.

 A reading of the twelve step program makes it clear that: 1) we need to believe in a Higher Power to which we surrender our lives, 2) take a moral inventory of our lives,  3) admit our character defects to another human being, 4) acknowledge our powerlessness to change ourselves, 5) humbly petition the “God” we believe in to remove our faults and defects,  6) ask forgiveness of God as we understand Him and of the persons we have offended  (in so far as it is possible)  for the harm we have done,  7)practice prayer and meditation so as to grow in our awareness of God and our willingness to do His Will, and  8) carry the message of AA to others  through regular group meetings where we give and receive the help we need.   All of that would certainly help me be a better human being as well as a better Christian and Catholic. (All those steps are what we do in the Sacrament of Reconciliation which empowers us to witness to Christ’s mercy in our lives).  If I am neither Christian nor a Catholic, the principles and practices will help me be a better whatever-I-happen-to-be.

I don’t suppose the principles and practices would help an atheist be a better atheist, but who knows?  Atheism is something I don’t really understand. Atheism seems to be a matter of Faith to me as much as any other religion is. From my perspective, atheism is even more a matter of Faith than Christianity because atheism more unreasoned and unreasonable. Christianity, on the other hand, goes beyond reason, into Mystery, but is consistently reasoned and reasonable in doing so. Perhaps atheism can be defined as the religion of those who believe in the God-who-is-not-there?  Are there common dogmas which compose the Creed of Unbelief?  Are there different splinter groups or sects that have separated themselves from a main body, as with other religions? What little of it I do understand makes me think some atheists make the same mistake all of us human beings make to a lesser degree, but as atheists  they carry the mistake to its logical extreme. Namely, they act as if our minds were the measure of all that is, even God. Of course, our minds are in no way up to the task of taking the measure of God. So these atheists conclude God doesn’t exist because he doesn’t fit into their brains. The believer concludes He does exist for that very same reason!  We could never think Him, because He thinks us.  He can’t be an idea in our minds, since we begin as ideas in his.

 Other varieties of atheists, such as those who deny God because of the existence of suffering and evil, I find myself more in sympathy with. They make some sense to me because I know my mind by its natural powers could never reason beyond the existence of God, to a God who was self giving Love, one who would take all of our sin and suffering into his very being and use it to redeem us. I could never think such a thing logical or reasonable unless I believed in Christ, the Son of God who actually does “become sin so that we could become the very righteousness of God”.

 To grow out of codependent behavior we human beings must grow in Truth and Love.  That would include atheists too. Any atheist who thinks that Truth and Love are nothing but imaginary abstractions has no way to explain how he grows and becomes a better person.  The transformation, the growth in goodness, (if real, and not a matter of grandiose imagination), is the work of Love and Truth in him, stretching him beyond the limits of is self centered Ego. Any atheist who does develop his head and heart has to confront the fact that Truth and Love are taking his measure, no matter what Creed he holds to.