An Enlightened Faith

Wake Up and Hope: It’s Advent

2011-12-14T09:24:00.000-08:00

Behind the rather daunting call for penance and self-mortification is hope. After all, when New Year’s Eve arrives, isn’t it hope that drives our laundry list of tough resolutions? For myself, I have gained the “first-year-of-marriage fifteen pounds” but it is hope that will drive my motivation to lose the weight in the future. Without hope, a person cannot have drive, cannot engage the will for the sake of self-mortification because the expected results could never eclipse the immediate sacrifice. It bears repeating: a person of great self-mortification is a person of great hope (or a person of insanity if there is no perceived good end/hope to their self-mortifications).

To be Catholic is to be a person of great self-mortification only because we are a Church of incredible and unimaginable hope! An outsider cannot see this hope and so hastily dismisses any acts of self-denial by the Catholic as purely sadistic. The Church, in her wisdom, regularly reminds us of the meaning of self-denial and urges us not to be persuaded by the lies of the world, being grounded in despair rather than hope.

Believe it or not, Advent is one such liturgical season where the Church reminds us of this particular truth of hope as the foundation for all things sacrificial. During this season of Advent we are called to take on penitential hearts. The Gospel for this Sunday’s Mass speaks precisely of this need for hope in the context of sacrifice (cf. Mk. 13.33-37). Jesus, speaking of His second coming, offers a parable about a man leaving his home and placing his servants in charge until he returns. It is the real hope in the landowner’s return that fuels the servant’s energy to remain alert and watchful until the owner returns. So too, we must maintain vigilance as our own hope awaits its fulfillment.

So then, what is the hope of Advent that undergirds the season’s call for self-mortification? It is the hope in the second coming of Jesus Christ. This is the concrete hope that all things penitential are grounded in. Why then is Advent the season for this particular hope? If the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity could take on flesh while we were in our deepest sins, how much more can we rest in the hope that He would come again now that we have been reconciled by His blood (cf. Rom. 5.6-10). This hope is so real that we may dare call it assurance, assurance of God’s love for each and every one us!

God will never abandon us! He loves us too much for that even to be a consideration. Casting away the last reason of doubt, God becomes man so that man may have the opportunity and privilege to be like God Who is love. It is God’s desire to bestow His glory upon us, to offer us the opportunity to experience perfect happiness/beatitude. If we begin to doubt we only need to look to the cross to witness God’s fidelity. We have a hope and the hope is that all things will be made right one day and that all love will be perfected through God’s infinite mercy. We can rest in confident hope that we are truly children of God.

Advent is a great season to rekindle this hope because it is the season of preparation for the coming of our savior in the flesh. If we could only see all the ramifications of God becoming man then we would fall to our knees being too overwhelmed by God’s sacrificial love for each one of us. To think that God believes in each one of us individually so much that He was willing to bet His own life on it is almost too beautiful to be true, yet it is.

So here we stand in this season of Advent and we are encouraged to ask particular questions: Are we willing to remove everything from our life that keeps us from loving God intimately? Do we believe in ourselves as much as God believes in us? Have we made the adequate preparations to receive the gift of Jesus Christ in our lives? Are we living out of the gifts God has given us for the sake of His kingdom and are we building upon them? Do we believe that the things of this world pale in comparison to God’s love for us? Ultimately, we are being called by the Church to awake from our spiritual slumber and to rekindle within our hearts a new and deeper love for Jesus Christ this season that is based in hope.

This Advent I encourage each and everyone one of us to deepen our hope in the Lord. More than adding a litany of self-mortifications, it may fair better to revaluate the hope that is within us. Where might we find opportunities for growth in hope? If our weakness is in the mind, then it may be time to dive into a book or two that may help to alleviate the frustrations in the mind. If our weakness is in the world of suffering, then it may be a good time to pick up a book and read about the many saints who suffered greatly, or to speak to someone who has been through suffering and come out with even more hope. If our weakness is rooted in our own traumas and failures then it may be a good time this season to bring these memories to Christ, asking Him to reveal where He was in those moments. My prayer for this season is that we see this parish continuing to grow in hope, a hope that will transform this community in the name of Jesus Christ. May God be Praised!

Why an Immaculate Conception?

2011-05-17T15:09:00.000-07:00

If you have been Catholic all your life, more than likely you have very few qualms concerning the Church’s doctrines (or dogmas for that matter) on Mary the Mother of Jesus. On the other hand, if you’ve spent any time “outside of the Church” Mary may have caused some mild turbulence along the journey home at best or full-fledged engine failure at worst. As for my own journey, Mary was the source of the majority of my frustrations with the Church. I’m simply grateful for God’s grace and patience toward my stubbornness that ultimately led me to a wonderful appreciation for this unique woman who mysteriously and paradoxically imbues both motherhood and virginity without having to reduce the words to metaphors! In other words, she is truly a virgin but she is also truly a biological mother. It does not get much more mysterious than that.

Mary’s Immaculate Conception is a particular doctrine that receives a large amount of criticism among non-Catholic Christians. The doctrine states that Mary, by a singular Grace through the merits of Jesus Christ, was preserved from all sin from the moment of her conception. Such a belief, to begin with, appears to be at odds with Scripture since the sacred text explicitly denotes that everyone has fallen short of the Glory of God, all have sinned and are unrighteous (cf. Rom. 3.10-11). Even if the Scriptures weren’t as explicit, the very notion that Mary received a unique and “singular” Grace smacks of arbitrary favoritism. What use to be a “Good God” now resembles my high school music teacher who would give out solos only to the ones he was “close to” and I hated that! Finally, at the end of the day who cares about some “immaculate conception.” The belief offers the Christian the same amount of theological and spiritual insight as my immaculately receding hairline.

These objections, while overstated, are valid and good for those who genuinely object for the sake of truth. Limited text-space prevents me from treating all three objections in this column (meaning there will be more columns to come on this subject). I would, however, like to offer a reflection that may begin to resolve the last two objections: that such a doctrine smacks of divine favoritism and that nothing theologically or spiritually insightful can be mined from this doctrine. The reflection begins with a Scriptural examination of the effects of God’s “Glory” on humanity.

The Glory of the Lord appears to be a painful experience. Even the holiest of men were unable to withstand God’s presence without buckling to his knees with his face in the dirt. The prophet Ezekiel was one such man who had the privilege of coming into proximity to God’s Glory (although still veiled) on a number of occasions. Apparently the sheer sight of God was too much to take causing the prophet to buckle under the weight of God’s majesty, which is an all-consuming fire (cf. Ez. 3.23; 43.2-3; 44:4). Interestingly, even objects considered sacred due to their association with God could not be touched without the consequence of immediate death (cf. 2 Sam. 6.6). Clearly, the closer one approaches the very nature of God the more one’s life may feel as if it hangs in the balance. This has nothing to do with God’s wrath and everything to do with how that which IS LOVE draws closer to that which has been tainted by sin. Nothing impure can enter Heaven not because “those are the rules” but rather because such a situation could not occur without some kind of spiritual “big bang” that does not end well for the one approaching the throne of God tainted by sin (cf. Rev. 1.17; 21.27).

Such a reflection may offer us some insight to the reason behind the Immaculate Conception. Mary’s sinlessness was not for her own sake but for the sake of the Incarnation. One can only speculate what would happen to a woman under the law of sin if she were to conceive God himself within her womb! If the Old (and New) Testament examples are any indication then we can be confident that it would have not fared well for salvation history. If objects considered sacred by mere association with God have the power to lead to the death of a sinful man, how much more deadly would the situation be of an object who happens to be divinity Himself!

St. Paul reminds us of the importance of receiving communion in a state of Grace. The Apostle writes Corinth exhorting them to approach the Holy Eucharist in a worthy manner. The evidence of his accusation is in Paul’s explanation of sudden deaths within the community of the faithful. Particular Christians were approaching the Eucharist without proper discernment and it apparently had led to physical deaths within the community (cf. 1 Cor. 11.23-26). Communion is not unlike Mary’s conception and if receiving the Eucharist unworthily can lead to such things as death, then it may be inferred with confidence that an immaculate conception seems quite fitting in light of the future fruit of her womb.

Christ, as a faithful Jew, would have obeyed the Ten Commandments perfectly. One such commandment would have been to honor his father and mother. Again, it seems quite fitting that Jesus would have honored his own mother by blessing her through her immaculate conception. Rather than divine favoritism, it is not unreasonable to believe that the Immaculate Conception was necessary for the sake of the incarnation and it is quite fitting to believe that Christ would have honored His mother in a way that only a redeeming God could do.

By no means does this column intend to prove the Immaculate Conception. Rather, the purpose is to illustrate its reasonability in light of Scripture. The next columns will examine this doctrine more directly, mining the Scriptural and historical texts to look for evidence of an Immaculate Conception. Until then, May God be Praised!

The Ebb and Flow of Love

2011-05-10T12:33:00.000-07:00

Life is dramatic. Rarely do we find ourselves resting peacefully on tranquil waters, gazing into the glassy reflection of the beauty before us. Seldom does life afford us the opportunity “to be” without interruption. Life is something that ebbs and flows. As the birthdays accumulate, we gradually come to see that the changing of life’s seasons is not to be seen as a threat to our peace but rather an opportunity for growth and self-abandonment. The turbulent waters never bestow restlessness or sin in our lives but rather reveal the darkest recesses of our heart that has gone unnoticed or ignored for far too long. I’m reminded of a great quote by C.S. Lewis: “On the other hand, surely what a man does when he is taken off his guard is the best evidence for what sort of a man he is … If there are rats in a cellar you are most likely to see them if you go in very suddenly. But the suddenness does not create the rats: it only prevents them from hiding. In the same way the suddenness of the provocation does not make me an ill-tempered man: it only shows me what an ill-tempered man I am.”

The transitions and stresses of life are indispensable for the pursuit of happiness. It requires little effort to perceive the joys of life as a contribution to personal beatitude, but it is much more difficult to perceive the opportunities of joy in the turbulent waters of life. Excluding grave evils, the “ebbs” of life awaken us to our humanity. It is in these moments that we rediscover our self, for better or worse, against that of the world. It is precisely in the dissonance of life’s evils that we see ourselves NOT as a passive agent to life’s circumstances but rather as an active force that contributes to the world by asserting one’s own ‘I’ onto the world. This is precisely what it means to be human and this is something we must be reminded of often. To be human does not mean simply to receive what the world hands us. To be human is to actively assert one’s own self onto the world to make a unique and unrepeatable contribution to the world.

These ebbs of life are painful because they threaten our self-possession. These dark moments are dark precisely because they attempt to steal what is so dear to us: ourselves. Such circumstances present a crossroads by which we can either allow ourselves to be swallowed up by the pain or venture down the road of self-rediscovery. Like the rats in the cellar, the pains of life reveal that which has held us captive for far too long. It is up to us to choose whether we reclaim the cellar for ourselves or to assimilate our lives around the life of the rats.

Like life, love has its own ebb and flow but this is often something under appreciated at best and down right loathed at worst. A healthy love relationship (i.e. dating/courtship or marriage) requires two fundamental callings: a call to be united to the other and a call to remain distinctive persons within this unity. The late John Paul II termed this a relationship that embraces unity-in-distinction. Unity without distinction is assimilation (i.e. doormat syndrome) while distinction without unity is mutual appropriation (i.e. using someone merely as a means for one’s own gratification). The work of love resides directly in the pursuit of these two dimensions and it is where we discover the catalyst for the ebb and flow of love.

When I speak of the “ebb and flow” of love I refer to a particular dynamic of relationships that manifest a continuous drawing closer (flow) to one another with a subsequent drawing back (ebb) from one another. While the reasons for why one would draw near to another in love is self-evident, the reasons why one would “draw back” from the other for the sake of love is not as self-evident. One cannot deny the fact that such a distancing can be a legitimate threat to love and so should be treated as just that. On the other hand, one ought to recognize a well and needed good in such a distancing if it is done for the right reasons.

Like the ebbs of life, the ebbs of love afford us the opportunity to rediscover our self independently of our beloved. This opportunity is NOT for its own sake but rather for the sake of love. Reduced to a quest for autonomy, such opportunities quickly turn from a means of greater intimacy to a threat of love. The drawing back from one another provides a rich terrain for self-rediscovery. This reawakening (or deepening) of the ‘I’ independent of the ‘thou’ enriches the opportunity for genuine unity which is nothing more than an expression of mutual self-gift. The more one is self-aware (i.e. self-rediscovery) the more one is able to give oneself to the other. Hence, the ebb and flow of love.

Pursuing a life of self-rediscovery within a relationship can be achieved in both healthy and harmful ways. One must always seriously discern whether or not such an activity is for the good of the relationship. For instance, a married man may suddenly desire to take a spontaneous three-week trip with “the guys” to Hawaii but is such a trip good for the marriage? While the value of independence is good for the sake of love, this value must always serve love. In other words, while the value of independence must never be compromised, how one prefers to express this must always find compromise since it serves a very particular love who is your beloved. A three-week vacation may not be prudent but maybe a well-planned ahead weekend camping trip nearby might by.

As alluded above, same-sex friendships are one of the most valuable ways to maintain and enrich one’s own self. Countless are the times I have witnessed “new love” abandon all friendships through the impulse to spend every waken moment together. Such negligence only leads to problems down the road. Assimilation impinges upon the relationship which ultimately turns one person into a carbon-copy of the other. It is only a matter of time before the radically compliant partner explodes through months/years of resentment. May we all strive to cultivate and maintain healthy and holy same-sex friendships both for their own sake and for the sake of your current or future beloved! In the end, may we all journey well down the path of self-rediscovery for the sake of love; for the sake of self-gift. May God be Praised!

The Education of Love and Puzzles

2011-05-06T12:17:00.000-07:00

(*So its been a little too long since my last column. Marriage happened! :-))

Throughout human history, culture has been grounded upon religious systems. The more civilizations clung to religion as its cultural manna, the more these respective civilizations would be, well, civilized. On the other hand, as these civilizations began to part ways with their religious heritage they inevitably began their journey toward extinction. Without a foundation, no structure can ever last!

No great civilization has been left unscathed by what we would call secularization today and the West is no exception. With our foundation uprooted, we have been forced to replace it with something less “foundational.” Media or what others may call “pop culture” has become the new foundation by which we interpret reality and instill values. It is a feeble foundation but it is a foundation nonetheless.

This “new” worldview offers us a message that is contrary to the “old regime.” The religious ideologies of yesterday appeared to squelch our freedom and particularly our freedom to love. This new ideology broke the shackles of “religious oppression” by offering a new freedom called radical autonomy. No longer was man called to deny his passions but rather was “empowered” to have unrestricted access to them. In the end, love was reduced to a human experience or an outlet for erotic compulsions. In other words, the transmission of love went from inward out to outward in; getting rather than giving.

Unsurprisingly, the new ideology’s greatest advocate has been Hollywood. Autonomy is the new virtue whereby all things are subservient. Murder can look “cool” as long as it is in the name of autonomy. If a character was forced to kill someone then we look at is as sad but in the name of autonomy it is acceptable. Love is the same way. As long as there are no responsibilities placed upon the relationship then it is a love story. If responsibility is called for it must be a self-induced responsibility since radical autonomy is the foundation for “true love.”

The influential power of the Hollywood love story has led to the demise of real love. The movies say “love just happens to you” but this simply is not so. Love “happens to you” in the same way weight loss does. Weight loss is not primarily an experience but rather an action. Similarly, love is not primarily an experience but rather an action. In other words, love must be educated.

The call for love to be educated can be seen through the analogy of a jigsaw puzzle. Each person enters a relationship with a number of puzzle pieces. Just like a real puzzle, each piece contains both “tabs” and “recesses.” These reflect our unique needs (recesses) and our unique gifts (tabs). Childish love reflects that of actual children with puzzles in that they often believe that any piece will join together with another as long as you pound hard enough. Others may even go as far as to trim their favorite piece so as to properly lock into a random piece. Mature love or educated love on the other hand recognizes that not any “tab” will lock with any “recess” and that compromising the integrity of a piece will only lead to an unstable and unrecognizable picture.

Like the child’s puzzle composed of loosely locked pieces, childish love will not survive long. Such love hangs on by a thread with only the slightest agitation needed for its demise. This love is the “gospel” of our culture. It is a love that says, “I’ll determine what you need. How dare you tell me to love you this way! You are never grateful for all I ever do for you!” This love is based on radical autonomy which ignores the unique needs of the other which ultimately denies the value of the person before you.

Slightly more mature but nonetheless incredibly irrational is the approach to trim one’s own pieces to lock into random pieces. While slightly more stable, it is nonetheless very fragile. This love is not as immediately unstable but is ultimately a time bomb waiting to explode. It is a life of complaint love which is not so much love as it is assimilation (i.e. doormat syndrome). In the end, one person is full of resentment due to a life full of compromises and self-neglect. In the same way the pieces lose their original value, so to does the compliant person. When the make-shift puzzle is finally finished the reality overwhelms them with the fact that the picture looks nothing like what was promised before the puzzle was opened. One must be cautious not to place the sole blame on the complaint person in the relationship as it take two for the compliant behavior: One who is the compliant and the other who is the enabler.

Finally, mature love recognizes that not any tab will lock with any recess. This is a difficult truth to put into practice. It requires a deep self-awareness so that one can distinguish between what is actually a gift/solution (tab) to another and what is really a need (recess) cloaked in the form of a gift/solution. Countless are the times where I have tried to fulfill a need by offering what I think is a “solution” only to find myself pounding a solution that does not fit the contours of the need. I have been accused of “not listening” when I could recall the exact conversation AND give one heck of a solution. It is only now that I realize the statement behind the statement. I was not listening to the particular need, which did NOT need a logical solution but rather a hug and a sympathetic ear.

Love must be educated. When we are acutely aware of the contours of the other’s puzzle pieces we are offered the opportunity to love in truth, the truth of the person before us. We are then empowered to fulfill needs according to the deepest needs of the other. Piece by piece we slowly contribute to the picture by maintaining our own integrity as well us upholding the genuine integrity of the other. Only in this particular pursuit of love (i.e. Christian love) will we come away with a picture that defies logic in that the total will always surpass the sum of its individual parts in truth and beauty. May God be Praised!

To Use or To Be Used: That is the Wrong Question

2010-10-08T16:51:00.000-07:00

A student comes to me visibly hurt. She explains the unrest she has been experiencing over the past few weeks. For her, the pain is a symptom of her “selfishness” which acts as an abrasive agent to the wound. You see, the young student is striving to saturate every dimension of her life with the Gospel, including relationships. She recognizes in the core of her being that genuine relationships must exclude “using” the other for one’s own pleasure. In “using” someone, one treats the other like a consumer product which goes against the dignity of every person. We all experience free-will which is part of our human nature. When someone treats another person merely as a means to an end, the person using the other denies the other person’s freedom by “enslaving” him or her to their desires! Human experience ratifies this claim over and over through the experience of shame that arises when a person is the recipient of objectification. We are never meant to be merely a satisfaction to someone else’s pleasures; we are so much more than this!

It may seem good to conclude that this particular student has a mature grasp of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and how it ought to influence relationships. If that is true, why the unsettled soul and visibly manifested hurt? She has correctly turned away from the hedonistic lifestyle, so we must look at exactly what she has turned toward to understand the source of her pain.

I was most interested in her self-evaluation of being “selfish.” When I asked her to comment on her feelings she responded she was having a difficult time disregarding her own needs/wants for the sake of “the good of the other.” When I asked her to give an example, she immediately spoke about a particular friend who was constantly “needing help” but that this friend would never be there for her in times of need. Instead of talking to her friend about this, she simply suppressed the “negative feelings” calling them selfish and sinful since a Christian “ought to give without asking for return.” It was at this moment that I discovered the source of her pain. The source of pain was not due to the Gospel being lived out in her life, but rather from living a distorted view of the Gospel commonly referred to as radical altruism.

Radical altruism is a belief that one ought to deny one’s own values and pleasures for the sake of the good of the other. While this sounds Christian at first glance, it is as deadly of a belief as hedonism. All one needs to do is look to Peter Singer, an “ethicist” at Princeton University, to recognize this danger. For Mr. Singer, the idea that an individual would push his or her own personal value systems and beliefs on to a suffering person is outlandish. For Singer, the solution is simple: sometimes you should kill the suffering person and end their misery and don’t worry about what you think about it.

While Peter Singer may be an extreme example of radical altruism, it is an example nonetheless and it illustrates the pitfalls of such a belief. Thankfully the young student had not taken her radical altruism that far. Rather, the source of her pain came from allowing herself to be used by others. The irony of it all was that she established relationships with others that expressed the very thing she denied: that no person may be an object of use … except for herself apparently!

If hedonism and radical altruism both lead to the same grave end (a person being used), then is there any alternative? The answer is yes! The wisdom of the Church has maintained a philosophy that has given birth to the most passionate people in the world and the most giving people in the world. We typically call these people saints. They neither live a life of hedonism nor feel compelled to suppress the desires of their heart for the sake of the good of the other.

The late John Paul II has given this philosophy of life a name: The Personalistic Norm. In short, this norm speaks of the need for each relationship to subordinate the value of ones own pleasures to the value of the person you are in relationship with. John Paul is adamant to note that this does not mean to eradicate ones own pleasure, but to subordinate them. In other words, while the value of pleasure is real and good, those pleasure should not exceed (in value) the value of the actual person in front of you. Once that happens, the relationship risks turning into a relationship of utility (or mutual utility).

This is precisely what Christ speaks of when He speaks of the life He is about to offer for the sins of world. He does not offer His life merely for the good of the world, but rather He offers his life to the world feely and in accordance with the desires of His own heart (cf. Jn 10.17-18). How often do we ignore our own desires for the “sake of the good of the other” or how many times do we listen to our own desires over that of the needs of the others? Both experiences are twisted and in need of redemption.

How often do we, like the student I spoke with, give to the point where we are on the verge of breaking? This is a sign of a life lived in radical altruism. How often do we consume to the point that we feel like we no longer have control over our own life? This is a sign of a life lived in hedonism. Ideally we are called to seek the good of the other in such a way that it is always in accordance with the desires of our own heart. Such an integrated life is rarely perfectly expressed but we must always strive to at least appreciate the value of the person more so than our own pleasures. Only through a life submitted to Christ and His Holy Church will we be able to experience the life we were created to live; a life that perfectly integrates our passions and our love and respect for every person we meet. May God be Praised!

Interview with Catholic Man with Homosexual Orientation

2010-08-26T16:22:00.000-07:00

I'm looking forward to the subsequent interviews!

http://www.faithandfamilylive.com/features/im_a_man

The Parable of the Generous Man

2010-08-10T16:32:00.000-07:00

This parable struck me at the core of my heart so I thought I would share it. It comes from page 246 of "For Better ... Forever: A Catholic Guide to Lifelong Marriage" by Dr. Gregory Popcak. This has been a great read for my fiance and I:

-----------------------------------------------------------

There was once a kind and generous man. He attended church faithfully. He ran a successful business. He gave generously both to charitable causes and to the poor and homeless he met on the street. His pastor praised him because he always took the hours no one else wanted at Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration. His community praised him for being such a wonderful civic leader. He was a great witness because everywhere he went he brought his rosary. When he would have a few minutes, people would see him quietly praying in the back corner of the room. He felt full of the Spirit. He defended the faith. His wife and children admired him. Everyone said he was a good man.

One day, this generous man died. He was surrounded by a beautiful light and warmth, but also filled with a strange sadness. Standing before him was Christ -- a vision more awesome, tender, and fierce than the man could have ever imagined. But when the Lord looked into the man's eyes, a tear rolled down Christ's cheek. "Why are you crying, Lord?" asked the man.

The Lord said nothing, but pointed to something the man hadn't noticed before. There was a small group of people huddled in the darkness behind him. The man walked over to the people, and then stopped. He couldn't go any further. The sight sickened him. There, at his feet, were the emaciated forms of his wife and children. They were alive, but barely. Terrified, the man cried out, "Lord, what happened to them?"

"You are looking at the souls of your wife and children. They are starving for me. You did not show them how to find me while you were with them. Now, they don't know where to look."

"But, Lord," stammered the man, "how can you say that I didn't show them how to find you? I led scored of people to you. I donated money. I served my community. I gave my time and effort to Church and a hundred other worthy causes."

The Lord just shook his head, saying, "Oh, child. Do you still not understand? Your family admired you, but they never knew you well enough to love you, much less see me in you. You gave to others so that you could avoid giving to the ones I gave to you."

-----------------------------------------------------------

How often do we hide behind a deceived form of altruism which is simply a cover-up for our unwillingness to love vulnerably and intimately! How easy it is to find joy in giving where it is easy and where it is convenient. When one gives out of weakness rather than strength, then one is loving genuinely and authentically.

Why Apologetics is Important

2010-08-07T08:28:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite quotes from John Paul II comes from his book entitled Love and Responsibility:

We love the person complete with all his or her virtues and faults, and up to a point independently of those virtues and in spite of those faults. The strength of such a love emerges most clearly when the beloved person stumbles, when his or her weaknesses or even sins come into the open. One who truly loves does not then withdraw his love, but loves all the more, loves in full consciousness of the other’s shortcomings and faults, and without in the least approving of them. For the person as such never loses its essential value. The emotion which attaches itself to the value of the person remains loyal to the human being. –p. 135

At the heart of this quote is the exhortation to love in the truth of the other. How often do we (or at least I) pursue a relationship in-as-much as it gives me joy? How often do we (or at least I) rest safely in relationships of common interests, hobbies, ideologies, philosophies, leisure activities, or goals? How often do we, in the name of ecumenism, pursue relationships with a “least common denominator” framework of mind? Are these relationships love? Of course they are! Are they expressions of mature love? I don’t think so!

But won’t “divisive topics” threaten the relationship? For the person of pride yes, but for the humble one there is no fear. In fact, it is precisely in the divisive topics that one is able to experience mature and genuine love. When one loves “all the more” in these circumstances they discover for themselves the bedrock of love. This bedrock is the activity of genuinely loving that which is “other” to oneself. In other words, it is the act of loving not for the sake of pleasure which is rooted in self-seeking, but rather loving that which lies outside of one’s own preferences, interests, and even values. Such a love ensures one is loving not a self-reflection, although faint, but rather that which is outside of him/herself. This may be difficult as it can lead to conflict, but genuine love calls for it. Of course, for one to love the “other” of another person, knowledge of what constitutes “other” must be present in the person loving! Ignorant love does not have the person as its object but rather ignorance as its object.

With the foundation laid, we may now address why apologetics (the art of defending one’s ideas, beliefs, and values) is so important. In light of what has been addressed above, apologetics, when properly used, is the fertile ground by which mature ecumenical love grows! To be a great defender of the faith, one must: 1) Know one’s own beliefs and be able to articulate them clearly; 2) Know the opposing views clearly so as to distinguish fairly one’s own beliefs from other beliefs. Isn’t that precisely the foundation by which mature love is built upon? Apologetics affords the person the opportunity to love “the other” of a person and not simply that which is held in common. It prevents “self-reflecting” love and encourages “self-donating” love.

All this being said, I’m aware that apologetics has often been the instrument of harm rather than love. My past is riddled with such offenses and I’m deeply sorry for the people I have offended! Nonetheless this does nothing to diminish the value of apologetics in the same way that divorce does nothing to devalue the institution of marriage. Like all good things, it can be twisted and used for evil rather than good.

Reflecting on my days at the Evangelical seminary I attended, my most intimate friendships were those in which our differences were clearly articulated and defended. While I was oblivious to the reasons why at the time, I now understand why they became my dearest friends. Through a little bit of maturity and the proper foundation we were able to appreciate and love each other for who we were, not who we wanted the other to be or by pretending the other was something they weren’t.

As for the present, I currently serve as the president of RCO (Religious Campus Organizations), which is a group on campus that supervises and works with all the other religious groups on campus. I believe it is without coincidence that my closest friend and confidant within the group is a Lutheran minister with whom I have had the most apologetic dialogue. We both know exactly where the other stands, and we both think the other holds ridiculous beliefs yet we have a deep respect for each other even in the differences.

My deepest prayer for the community of St. Thomas and all those who read my apologetic material is that it would be used to educate on the differences between Catholics and non-Catholics. That such an education would increase confidence in the faith and to offer tools for entering into genuine dialogue with others who do not share this faith. Finally, and most importantly, my prayer is that this dialogue would lead to mature ecumenical love for one another: a love that is rooted in both common interests and that which is “otherly” thus forming a love that encompasses the whole person. May God be Praised!

Justifying The Doctrine of Justification: Part VI of VI

2010-08-03T12:38:00.000-07:00

What began nearly six months ago is finally coming to a close. For some of you this may have been five columns too many, and for others it may have barely satiated your desire to know the truth which has set you free! For the former I sincerely apologize if the reading has not been compelling enough or has come across too polemical for someone who values ecumenism. My next column will offer a “behind the scenes” look at why I recently decided to spend so much time on apologetics and the paramount importance it offers for the cultivation of genuine friendships with our non-Catholic brothers and sisters. For those who have been barely satiated, I simply invite you to contact me for more information on this and other topics that may be close to your mind and heart.

In the past five columns we have covered a number of angles to the doctrine of Justification: It’s overall importance among Catholics and Protestants, the distinction between “once saved, always saved” and salvation as a process, the difference between imputed and infused righteousness, the teachings of Christ regarding faith and works, and St. Paul’s perspective on faith and works. We are now at a point to examine a couple passages outside the Gospels and the Pauline corpus with the intention to show the integrity of Scripture as it pertains to justification as expressed and defended by the Catholic Church.

It is a curious fact that while Luther believed justification by “faith alone” would be the pillar by which the Church stood or fell, the phrase “faith alone” is itself only used once in Scripture and it is preceded by ‘not.’ The Epistle of James states, “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (Jms. 2.24). With all due respect to our separated brothers and sisters, a belief in a doctrine that is explicitly condemned in Scripture can be a puzzling thing to the Catholic. The strong undercurrent, which forces the non-Catholic Christian to “re-interpret” such a lucid and self-interpreting passage, lies hidden in the phrase “competitive causality.” For the Evangelical, what man causes, God cannot simultaneously cause and what God causes, man cannot simultaneously cause. Such a belief makes sense out of most of life. After all, if ‘X’ is the murderer then that means all of ‘not X’ is not the murderer.

In light of this particular interpretive lens, one may be able to see why many Evangelicals are gravely opposed to a justification that includes works. If works are something the person does, that means the person has exclusive rights to those works and that God has absolutely no role in their causation. All that being said, the inferred conclusion is that a works included justification means a salvation that is earned because he/she brought its own causation without God through good works. By “reinterpreting” James they are in fact pruning a difficult passage in the name of a greater cause: That God is our salvation, not man!

For the Catholic there is no need to re-interpret James since we see no conflict with what St. James has to say and the fact that God is the exclusive cause of our salvation. The reason why there is no conflict for the Catholic is because we do not believe there is any competition between God and the human person regarding causality. In fact, the more God is actively in our life, the freer we actually become! Thus, while it is true that God causes every good work in us, it does not take away from our own causation of the good work. In truth, it is precisely because of God’s causing of the good work that we can freely cause that good work in ourselves. Thus, James need not be dismissed, ignored, or twisted for a “greater cause.” Yes, it is Christ and only Christ who saves me, and no amount of good works threatens that reality as those good works are as much His as they are mine. For more information on particular Protestant interpretations of James and for a Catholic response, see my second column on this series.

One would think the majority of Christians would exhaustively comb through the Book of Revelation searching for clues to the mystery of justification. After all, the concept of personal judgment saturates the Book of Revelation so why not turn to it as well for doctrinal assistance particularly in the area of salvation?

While the Book of Revelation has been the source of many fanciful and downright silly interpretations, there is at least one particularly cogent section that we will turn to so as not to stake a theological claim on an exegetically complicated passage. Chapters two and three consist of seven short letters to the seven distinct Churches in the region of Ephesus. Each letter consists of a particular judgment on the Church addressed, and it is Jesus Christ, while being penned by John, who personally addresses each Church. These judgments are useful as they speak explicitly for the need of good works for salvation, but with a strong implicit recognition for heart-felt faith. The first Church in Ephesus is prized for the patient endurance in suffering and persecution for the faith, but they are quickly admonished for abandoning their first love (cf. Rev. 2.1-7). Christ then encourages them to do the works they committed to at the beginning of their faith journey or else Christ would remove himself from them. Christ never says, “I know your faith” to any of these Churches but rather, “I know your works.” As I said many times in many different ways, to deny works as part of justification is to deny—or be ignorant of at best—a very large body of Scripture.

As Catholics, we are called to live a life of faith, but we are also called to live a life of service in love to our Lord. Our salvation rests on this Truth. May we continue to love and serve our Lord through faith and works, but may we do it not to gain an eternal reward but simply because God is God! May God be Praised!

Justifying the Doctrine of Justification: Part V of VI

2010-06-07T14:03:00.000-07:00

With the end of this series in sight, it is time to address what some would say to be the Achilles’ heal of the Catholic Church’s position on justification: St. Paul. We noticed earlier that Jesus Himself spoke very little of faith as pertaining to the Kingdom of God/Heaven. For St. Paul, faith becomes a dominant theological theme which saturates nearly every letter stemming from the proverbial pen of this Apostle to the Gentiles. The question, then, is not whether or not Paul believes that a Christian is saved by faith, but whether or not he believes the Christian is saved by faith alone. As stated earlier, the Church confesses that faith is the foundation for justification but that this faith is never alone as it must be accompanied by charity/good works.

If Paul is considered the chief defender of faith alone by many Evangelicals, then Paul’s letter to the Romans is considered his magnum opus in defense of this particular non-Catholic doctrine. Due to the triteness of space I will limit the discussion to what most of our Evangelical brothers and sisters claim to be the most persuasive exposition of faith alone theology by St. Paul. Thus, I will briefly focus on the first few chapters of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.

The power of the Gospel message in Romans, according to many Evangelicals, does not begin until 3:21 with the words ‘but now’ (Nuni de). It is here in the middle of the third chapter that Paul transitions into a descriptive analysis of the “righteousness of God” being revealed “apart from the law” (v. 21), being a free gift of grace in Jesus Christ (v.24), and being a reality that removes all boasting from the human conscience through this free gift (v.27). The climax of the passage comes in the following verse when the apostle boldly proclaims, “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law” (v. 28). At this moment, it seems undeniably true that St. Paul is excluding works from salvation, thus at least implicitly expositing a faith alone theology.

When I was an Evangelical and first came across this verse, I was baffled by it. The reason for my confusion had less to do with the verse itself and more with what I had read previously as I was reading the letter from beginning to end. Before I came to 3:28, I read 2:6-11. It was in chapter two that I read that everyone would be justified by their deeds: “For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury” (Rom. 2.6-8). Knowing that St. Paul was simply too intelligent to contradict himself within verses of each other, I set out on a journey to find an answer to this enigma, and this journey ultimately led me back to the Catholic Church in March of 2000.

Being an Evangelical at the time, my first pursuit was to find an answer that would support my belief in justification by faith alone. This quest led me to two explanations of Romans 2 & 3. The more popular and convincing argument of the two was grounded in a particular interpretation of the phrase “but now” in 3:21. Many non-Catholic scholars viewed this phrase as a “temporal transition.” In other words, they believed that everything before 3:21 was an explanation of the Old Covenant with God, and everything after 3:21 dealt with how one was saved in the New Covenant in Jesus Christ. The problem with this explanation is that a significant amount of Christian imagery pervades 1:18-3:20 which become foreign elements if one is forced to think exclusively through an Old Covenant lens. For instance, the concept of “steadfastness” is used in 2:7 which was considered a Christian virtue by the Early Church. In addition, Paul actually speaks of the “gospel” and how each and every person will be judged by Jesus Christ in 2:15. Finally, Paul speaks of the “circumcision of the heart” in 2:29 which is exclusively a Christian teaching! In light of the strong Christian imagery, such an explanation only creates more questions than answers.

The most persuasive answer I found was to view 3:21 as a “logical transition” rather than a temporal one. The difference between what precedes and proceeds 3:21 is not one of time (i.e. Old Covenant & New Covenant) but rather of argumentation. Paul believes that God will judge everyone by his or her works, for “God shows no partiality” (cf. 2:11). This is a problem for Paul. The problem is that the Jews have a law which they failed to obey faithfully, and the Gentles have a law (i.e. natural law) which they also failed to obey faithfully. The problem is that if God judges by works, who can be saved? This is where 3:21 comes into the picture as the argumentation moves from problem to solution, not Old Covenant to New Covenant. We will still be judged by what we do, but now Christ has come to redeem us and restore our hearts so that we will be able to live according to our own dignity, living lives of excellence if only we hold fast to the prize, Christ Jesus. This theological understanding makes sense of the many other times Paul speaks of works being necessary for salvation (cf. 1 Cor. 3.12-15; Phil. 2.12; Eph. 2.10; Gal. 5.6).

What then should we make of Rom. 3:28 when the apostle explicitly states that a man is justified by faith apart from “works of law”? The interpretive key is in the phrase ‘works of law’ (ergon nomou). Thanks to a number of non-Catholic Christian scholars such as E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright we now know that such a phrase was a technical phrase meaning something different than general ‘works.’ In fact, the verse following this cryptic phrase enlightens the reader of its technical use. In verse 29, Paul poses a mysterious question to the Roman community: “Or is God the God of the Jews only?” Paul’s inference is that if justification were by ‘works of law’ it would be exclusive to the Jews. Since justification is for both Jews and Gentiles, then it must be by faith. In other words, ‘works of law’ is not referring to all works, but rather those works that are exclusive to Judaism (i.e. circumcision, kosher laws, etc.). Thus, St. Paul is not saying a person is justified by faith alone, but that a person is saved by faith and not by ethnic privilege (in this case Jewish). What Paul is saying is that being a member of the Jewish community does not grant immunity to God’s impartiality. God will judge everyone by works and so without Jesus Christ, no one can be saved, for He is our font of life, our source of healing and redemption.

We all can rest confidently in the wisdom of our great Church for she has and will continue to keep the truths of our Lord and His inspired writers from without stain or dilution. May we all continue to increase in faith, hope and love as we set our face like flint on the magisterium of the Church for she is the face of Christ in truth, goodness, and beauty. Next time I will close this series with a cursory look at some of the other inspired writers in light of the Church’s teaching on Justification. Until then, May God be Praised!

Justifying the Doctrine of Justification: Part IV of VI

2010-06-02T16:05:00.000-07:00

After so many weeks separating my previous column and this column, it may be wise to do a quick review of where we’ve come regarding the Catholic Church’s teaching on Justification. Of the two previous columns I’ve written we’ve come to see that justification is in fact a process by which a person is brought into a transformative covenantal relationship with God the Father through Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. This divine relationship which is established, maintained, and perfected through the process of justification, is far more than a “right standing” with God as the relationship demands faithfulness to the Creator of all that is. This “faithfulness” is nothing more than a life lived according to ones own dignity. Unfortunately, the human condition has been compromised through original and personal sin leaving the individual unable to fulfill their final vocation; namely to become partakers of the divine nature (cf. 2 Ptr. 1.4). Justification, then, is the process by which one is both immediately declared and eventually transformed into the righteous person he or she was created to be thus ushering the Christian through that threshold of hope which is intimate communion with the mystery of God! Another way of saying this, although less eloquent, is that justification is by faith and charity/good works.

Mentioning the word “works” in a doctrinal context with a non-Catholic Christian can cause some undesired tension. As mentioned in a previous column, marshaling works with faith in the context of justification appears to diminish the value of Christ’s meritorious act on the cross to the non-Catholic. To the ears of the Evangelical, such a doctrine infers that one must be saved by grace received by faith along with works which occur outside the scope of grace since the person is doing it him/herself. Thus, a misunderstanding of the Catholic position ensues by creating a false dichotomy between grace and works. Such a misunderstanding can be easily corrected by looking at how faith is viewed through the lens of an Evangelical.

Thinking about the doctrine of “faith alone” may be easy enough when it is isolated from reality, but have you ever tried to think about it as it pertains to individual persons? What does it mean for an individual to be saved by faith alone? When observing the faith of others, one is quick to take notice that there is a large range of qualities to faith. Some people have unwavering faith while others have an anemic faith that borders on skepticism. The challenge for the Evangelical is to determine which faith is “saving faith.” Those who initially had faith but fell away are deemed as not having the particular faith that saves. If this is the case, what kind of faith is acceptable to God? Doesn’t Christ ask us to be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect (cf. Mat 5.48; 19.21)? Doesn’t John tell us that nothing unclean will enter into heaven whether in thought or deed (cf. Rev. 21.27)? Clearly perfection is God’s standard for He cannot deny Himself. If that is the case, then no man can be saved since no one has perfect faith. The answer to this riddle is in the fact that man is saved by grace alone, which means that man’s feeble faith is accepted, sustained, and perfected through grace. What Evangelicals understand about the relationship between faith and grace, Catholics understand about the relationship between faith, works, and grace. It is only through grace that both our feeble faith and works are accepted, sustained, and perfected. Both Catholics and Evangelicals agree that salvation is by grace alone. Where we begin to disagree is in how grace is administered to works as it relates to the act of justification.

In light of the justification debate, one would think that Jesus Himself would have spoken often about the necessity of faith for salvation. After all, to be a Christian is to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. Interestingly enough, when Christ teaches about the kingdom of God/Heaven He is nearly silent about the roll of faith for salvation. Rather, it will be the humble of heart and those who undergo persecution for righteousness’ sake who will enter the Kingdom of God (cf. Mat. 5:3,10). We are told that if our eye causes us to sin, it would be better to pluck it out than to live with it in hell (cf. Mk. 9:47). We are exhorted to recognize our gifts and talents and to use them for the kingdom less we risk eternal damnation (cf. Lk. 19.12-27). Christ cautions the rich not to become too attached to their material wealth if they want to live in God’s kingdom (cf. Mk. 10.23). If anything, the evangelical reader may conclude that Christ has an “exaggerated” view of works being a condition for justification. In fact, Christ takes the Old Testament laws and intensifies them, never diminishing them. While in the Old Law adultery was considered a sin, Jesus adds that even if you look at another person lustfully you have committed adultery in the heart (cf. Mat. 5:28). If Jesus is advocating a faith alone theology, He has chosen a very confusing and misleading pedagogy.

The reason why Christ spends so much time on works is because He has come to redeem the heart, the source of all moral and immoral acts (cf. Mat. 6.21-22, Mat. 15:17-20). Christ has redeemed us in His blood and has called us to live in his redemption so that our hearts may be restored, and that we may live according to the dignity that is ours in Christ. The law has been intensified not to condemn us, but to call us to excellence. This excellence is only achieved through a life in submission to Christ our Lord. Thus, salvation is ours if only we continue to strive in saying ‘yes’ in faith to Christ and His Church, and ‘yes’ in the transformative power of the Holy Spirit which affords us the opportunity to live out our dignity in holiness/good works. Both are necessary for salvation for both are gifts from God in which we will be held accountable for.

Next week we will turn to St. Paul who speaks of faith much more often than Jesus. Paul is considered the chief defender of “faith alone” so it is with all the more importance that we spend a fair amount of time exploring his writing and his understanding of justification. Until then, may we continue to strive for excellence through the transformative power of the Holy Spirit so becoming one with the mystery of God who is love itself. May God be Praised!

Justifying The Doctrine of Justification: Part III of VI

2010-04-23T15:44:00.000-07:00

One of the most striking differences between Catholics and Protestants regarding the doctrine of justification is over the terms “imputed” and “infused” righteousness. The Protestant is adamant in believing that righteousness/justification is something foreign to the individual, something other than the believer. In other words, the believer never becomes righteous but rather receives Christ’s righteousness. This is why they call it “imputed” righteousness. Martin Luther gave a rather crude but effective illustration by comparing the sinner to a dung-heap. When the sinner repents, he or she remains a dung-heap through-and-through but what distinguishes the Christian from the non-Christian is that the believer has a white coat of snow over them. This white coat of snow represents Christ’s righteousness that “cloaks” the sinner.

Catholics, on the other hand, take a different theological approach to justification. Continuing Luther’s illustration, the Catholic doctrine can be likened to the sinner being a heap of pure snow that has been covered by a layer of dung. Sin has compromised his or her original innocence but has not annihilated it. The act of justification is the act of Christ’s merits slowly removing the dung from the snow, making the indivdual pure white again. Thus, we see here that justification becomes more of an “infused” righteousness as the very act transforms who we are as a person, albeit over time.

If you have been following my previous columns on justification, you will immediately notice that this interpretation fits seamlessly with Scripture’s teaching on justification as a process. This does not mean that during this process we are only half-justified. Through baptism we are fully justified. However, sin inevitably creeps into the picture which threatens our relationship with God (like any relationship). We must continually surrender to the power of the cross through repentance whereby we receive the grace to become who we were created to be: partakers of the divine nature (cf. 2 Ptr. 1.4).

Another way to perceive the fundamental difference between Catholic and Protestant theology regarding justification is by likening the Protestant conception of justification to a law-court scene and to likening the Catholic conception of justification to a family-room scene. For the Protestant, being righteous means standing before the divine law-court and to be declared free from all crime. For the Catholic, being righteous means to be adopted into the divine family of God and to live a life that is in accord with such dignity which is only done through grace. One view perceives God as the gracious Judge while the other perceives God as the loving Father. While admitting this is an over-simplification, the analogy still retains its overall distinctive accuracy.

One of the main reasons why Protestants rebel against any notion of infused righteousness is that they believe it diminishes the efficacy of grace by making good works necessary for salvation along with grace. This is simply an error in thinking. While good works are necessary for salvation (i.e. becoming righteous), such good works are grounded in grace for we can do nothing good outside of this grace. I will discuss more about the relationship between faith and works in grace in my next column. For now, it is enough to see that the Protestant belief in imputed righteousness does not make sense of Scripture’s teaching on justification as a process, for an imputed righteousness has no room for process as it is instantaneous.

We must now turn briefly to St. Paul to provide evidence of infused righteousness. The best example comes from Paul’s letter to the Romans. Chapter five of the epistle focuses on contrasting the disobedience of Adam, leading to the condemnation of the world, to the obedience of Jesus which offered salvation to the world. Amidst this contrast, Paul speaks of the righteousness of God which is for all believers, but he does so in a somewhat puzzling way. In verse 18, the Apostle speaks of this righteousness as being the Christian’s acquittal from condemnation. At this moment, it appears as of the Protestant has the advantage as this is clearly law-court language. On the other hand, the very next verse appears to counter this particular notion by mentioning that what he means by this is that in the same way that all descendants of Adam were made sinners through Adam’s disobedience, all believers in Christ are in the same way made righteous through Christ’s obedience. Here we see the Catholic position come alive as Paul stresses the transformative power of God’s righteousness along with the declarative dimension of righteousness.

Confusion may abound for the reader at the moment as how could Paul advocate a declarative and a transformative righteousness at the same time? Are they not mutually exclusive realities? Either righteousness is imputed or infused but it cannot be both, right? For man, yes but for God, no. To see this we must turn to Isaiah 55:10-11. Isaiah is speaking to an Israel that believes God has forgotten His promises of the covenant. To that doubt, God says ““For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return not thither but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it” (italics mine). In other words, that which God speaks infallibly comes to completion. Thus, when God declares someone righteous that declaration will be made manifest in the person without remainder. This is why Paul can intermix both imputed and infused terminology because both result in the same end: a person who becomes righteous.

Once again, it is good to be Catholic! How thankful we should be for Christ’s fulfilled promises that His Church would never fall into error regarding the truths of Jesus Christ. My next column will address the relationship between faith and works in light of grace as expressed in the Gospels and the Pauline corpus. Until then, May God be Praised!

Justifying The Doctrine of Justification: Part II of VI

2010-03-13T07:33:00.000-08:00

I’m confident that many of us have come across the phrase “once saved always saved” in dialogue with our non-Catholic Christian friends. Behind this denominational mantra is the belief that justification is a one-time event. As a Protestant or Evangelical, justification is by faith alone. This faith is a recognition and belief of who Jesus Christ is as both God and redeemer. Once the seeker acknowledges personal sinfulness and the necessity of Jesus Christ for salvation, one is saved. This happens at a particular moment in time which is the answer to the common question, “When were you saved/born again?” The Christian rests on the “assurance” of his/her salvation in this particular moment in life. It is this one proclamation of faith that justifies the individual forever requiring no need to speak of a present or future justification/salvation. The Christian was saved on such-and-such day and this one moment irrevocably carries him/her till death where heaven becomes the reward of that particular day of surrender. For those individuals who initially claim faith in Jesus Christ while later on defecting, the non-Catholic Christian is said to never have had faith (i.e. “saving faith”) to begin with so he/she was never actually saved. After all, once one is saved, that salvation is forever according to non-Catholic Christian theology.

As Catholics, we believe something different. Justification is not a one-time event but a process. Viewing justification as a process flows from the belief that while faith is indispensable (and the foundation) for justification, faith is never alone as it must be accompanied by charity/good works. From personal experience, it is evident that while faith may happen instantaneously, a life defined by good works takes a lifetime to achieve. In other words, while both Catholics and non-Catholics believe good works flow from faith, Catholics make evident in their theology that such works do not flow automatically. Since good works, while associated with faith, do not infallibly flow from faith, God takes them into account regarding justification along with faith. Thus, justification is a process. I was originally justified as an infant through baptism, I am currently being justified now through grace, and I hope to be justified at the end of my life.

The New Testament’s reflection on the spiritual life of Abraham expresses the truth of the Catholic Church’s position on justification. Both Catholics and non-Catholics alike look to St. Paul’s letter to the Romans for the identification of Abraham’s moment of justification in the eyes of God. The thrust of St. Paul’s argument in chapter four of Romans is in the recalling of God’s act of justification toward Abraham which happens in Genesis 15 before Abraham is circumcised, thus showing the lack of necessity of circumcision for salvation. While this passage alone does nothing to either support or deny both the Catholic and non-Catholic position, two other reflections from the New Testament Canon quickly turn the theological tide toward the Catholic understanding.

The Letter of James appears to provide a different part of Abraham’s life for God’s moment of justification. According to the author of this letter, Abraham is justified not in Genesis 15, but rather Genesis 22 when Abraham remained obedient to God by offering his son Isaac as a sacrifice to God (cf. Jms. 2.21). It was Abraham’s “work” that justified him at this particular moment. Many non-Catholics will explain this passage away by saying that the author was not saying Abraham was actually “justified” but rather “vindicated” since the Greek word can have that connotation at times. Abraham simply confirmed the reality of his past justification by his obedience to God even to the point of offering his only son as a sacrifice. While such an explanation is possible, context shows that it is in no way possible for this particular passage. Three verses later the inspired writer compares Abraham’s justification to another historical character’s moment of justification. Apparently, in the same way Abraham was justified Rahab was also justified (cf. Jms 2.25)! This leaves no room for Abraham’s justification in Genesis 22 to be anything other than pure justification. Rahab was a prostitute who helped Israel spy on the military in Jericho without being caught, and through her assistance God justified/saved her (cf. Josh 2.1-21). Thus, we have two accounts of Abraham being justified by God. The Protestant/Evangelical position has already become untenable through the lens of Scripture.

If these examples were not enough, the author of Hebrews also weighs in on the moment Abraham was justified and it is neither Genesis 15 nor 22 but rather chapter 12 (cf. Heb. 11.8). We read that it was “by faith” that Abraham initially obeyed God when he was called out of his comfortable living environment to set out for a land some mysterious God had promised him. Anyone with an ounce of understanding of Abraham’s circumstances must agree with the author of Hebrews that Abraham was justified at this moment. If a faith resulting in leaving family, friends, employment, and security for an unknown territory that had been promised by a then unknown God could not lead to justification then many of us who have left significantly less for God in Whom we know much more about is in eternal trouble!

The idea of justification being a one-time event is foreign to Scripture and so it is foreign to the Catholic faith. In the same way Abraham was justified, we too are justified. Justification is a life long “yes” to God by which we surrender with grace not only our minds but everything we are and do, and we will be held responsible for what we do and say. This is precisely why St. Paul calls us to stand firm in our faith (cf. Php. 4.2) and why the author of Hebrews exhorts us not to throw away our confidence (cf. Heb. 10.35). Justification is not a one-time event so it can also be lost during the process. Next time we will explore how this process informs the material of justification. If it is a process as Scripture proclaims then it means that justification results in an actual change in the person which the Catholic Church calls “infused righteousness.” Until then, May God be Praised!

Justifying The Doctrine of Justification: Part I of VI

2010-02-08T16:15:00.000-08:00

The theological relationship between faith and works is a divisive topic within Christianity. While other issues such as papal authority, Marian devotion, and prayers to the saints attract negative attention among non-Catholic Christians, nothing compares to the passion and zeal undergirding a theology of justification.

The great irony in the divisiveness of this doctrine exists in the fact that Christ’s message of salvation was intended to unite all of the nations under the one Lord, Jesus Christ. Israel’s covenant with God was no longer to be exclusive to Israel but rather the time had come for Israel to be what she was destined to be: a light to the nations and a means for universal salvation through the long awaited Messiah, Jesus Christ. Thus, it is with all the more sadness that we must acknowledge that humanity’s sinfulness has twisted that which was intended to unify to that which now factions Christ’s church into more than 30,000 denominations.

Luther himself acknowledged that the doctrine of justification would be the pillar by which the Church stood or fell. In a very real sense we must acknowledge that we have fallen. Such factions do more to dissuade the seeker of faith than to persuade. Countless are the times I’ve spoken with non-believers who simply could not believe the truth of Christianity since there were thousands of Christians all proclaiming a different “truth.” If we desire to make the Christian faith contagious, we must strive for Christian unity. If we want to achieve Christian unity with our non-Catholic brothers and sisters then we must equip ourselves with the tools necessary to unify all Christians in their understanding of Christ’s saving mission, which is expressed most concretely in the doctrine of justification.

Since Justification is intimately entwined with the work of Jesus Christ, one most proceed delicately with this doctrine. Any explicit ignorance or casual treatment of the doctrine will be interpreted as ignorance of the Gospel and looked upon as trivializing the very mission of Jesus Christ by a faithful Christian. In other words, such a thing is not taken lightly by any devout Christian. In light of such intense treatment to the doctrine, it is no wonder so many non-Catholic Christians vehemently oppose the Roman Catholic view of justification by faith and works. The Protestant’s objection often goes something like this: The Roman Catholic view of justification deems Christ’s merits on the cross insufficient for salvation. They believe they must do good works in addition to the grace they receive from faith. This means that Catholics believe the cross only partially saves, and that works must be added to grace for salvation.

While the Protestant’s objections are noble in that they defend the soteriological/salvific value of Christ’s death on the cross, in my opinion they are nevertheless a gross misrepresentation of Catholic theology and thus the truth. To begin, such an objection creates a false dichotomy between works and grace. Roman Catholicism does not believe salvation by “grace alone” necessitates a salvation by “faith alone.” Both Catholics and Protestants agree that salvation is by grace alone, but this agreement comes to an abrupt halt when Protestants reduce salvation to a faith alone concept.

Those who know me well know that I have a particular fondness toward this doctrine. Justification is the doctrine that ripped me away from my Catholic faith, but it is also the doctrine that brought me back into solidarity with my Catholic heritage two years later. In hope to offer a foundational—yet far from exhaustive—understanding of the Church’s doctrine of justification, I will be writing five additional columns that will address this beautiful and very complex doctrine. The next column will correct the Protestant error in thinking that Justification is a one-time event as opposed to the Catholic position that Justification is in fact a process. The third column will build upon the second by correcting the Protestant error in thinking that Justification is simply a declaration of righteousness, and show how the Catholic position is the most reasonable and biblical as it professes a Justification that is more than declarative; that it is a transformative event that actually makes the believer righteous rather that just declaring the believer righteous. The final three columns will examine the particular doctrine of justification by faith and works through the words of Jesus, the words of St. Paul, and from the epistle of James in that order.

The Third Annual Great Debate

2010-01-08T08:23:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to have lunch with a GBLT (Gay, Bisexual, Lesbian, and Transgender) teacher for CU. We had a great conversation about our particular jobs sharing both the joys and struggles they hold. Not long into the conversation I told him about the debate the AICT (Aquinas Institute for Catholic Thought) is hosting on campus on the subject of same-sex marriage. I was hoping to gain his support for the debate with the anticipation of advertising our event through GBLT. While I was initially disappointed by his reaction, the conversation ended unexpectedly positive.

His initial reaction could be expressed as a polite suspicion and hostility towards the idea of a debate on such a subject. He had grown frustrated with the Catholic Church’s “incessant need to dirty their hands in politics when they should stick to religion.” His conviction was that religion and politics were unequivocally distinct from one another and that the Church had over-stepped her boundaries by inserting herself into the political conversation. According to him, the defeat of Proposition 8 in California only fueled and confirmed his convictions. Simply put, since same-sex marriage affects no one outside of the same-sex marriage circle, it makes no sense why we would make it illegal.

Before I continue I want first to acknowledge that the gentleman I had lunch with has become a dear friend of mine, and we have had great conversations despite the fact we strongly disagree with each other on many topics. When my friend had finished his charitable yet strong criticisms regarding the debate, he granted me the opportunity to respond. Not having much time to respond adequately, I quickly mentioned the fact that political societies are cultural societies and all cultural societies are born from religious ideologies. In other words, there will always be at least one thread that links religion and politics, namely morality. For a moral order to sustain itself, it must have a foundation above that which it tends to govern, namely a society. If it does not, then morality is not truly morality but rather an arbitrary set of rules that have no objective significance outside the current acceptance, and can be changed at any point in time without “negative” consequences since “negative” would imply a standard outside the sphere of society. In other words, from the pen of Dostoevsky, “Without God, all things are permissible” and deriving from the mind of Nietzsche comes the logical conclusion of an ethical world without God: a world which determines morality through nothing more than the will to power. A political world void of religious counsel will inevitably result in political disorder.

All this being said, my friend’s last remark gets to the heart of the debate we are hosting on January 25^th. The debate is entitled, “Should the Government Approve Same-Sex Marriage?” which will be held in the beautiful Macky Auditorium at 7:00 pm between Jonathan Rauch and Maggie Gallagher. Both Maggie and Jonathan believe that the institution of marriage is in peril in our country and that healthy marriages lead to a healthy society and economy. The question, then, is will the legalization of same-sex marriage help our hinder our already struggling institution? Mr. Rauch believes same-sex marriage will help while Ms. Gallagher believes it will hurt the already suffering institution. When I explained to my friend Ms. Gallagher’s position his demeanor immediately changed from one of suspicion to one of genuine curiosity. The lunch ended with an openness and almost eagerness to help advertise this particular debate at CU.

I mention all this to illustrate the need for this debate on same-sex marriage. This debate has potentially grave implications for the future of our city, state, and country. We are called in scripture to be informed (cf. Mat. 22.37; Rom. 12.2) and to be able to give a defense for what we believe (cf. 1 Ptr. 3.15). I encourage you to purchase a ticket and attend this timely debate. Please visit our website for more information about the debate and how to obtain tickets. Do it sooner rather than later as it will likely be sold out shortly. May God be Praised!

In Whom Do You Have Peace?

2009-11-12T15:50:00.000-08:00

A few weeks have passed since this semester’s Buffalo Awakening (BA) retreat. For those of you unfamiliar with this retreat, it is a high-energy student-led event, which has become one of our most popular and fruitful ministries we have here at St. Thomas Aquinas. Each semester’s BA is distinguished by a theme most recently being “In Me You Have Peace” which comes from the mouth of Christ recorded in the Gospel of John (Jn. 16.33). Reflecting upon this passage, I was struck by the words that immediately followed Christ’s encouraging statement. After boldly proclaiming that peace is something gifted to us through Christ, He then admits that the world will still continue to bring us troubles, but we ought to still rejoice since it is Christ who has conquered the world (cf. Jn. 16.33b).

The first thing I noticed was that Jesus spoke of “conquering” the world. John, the author of this Gospel, picks this word up again to be used as a powerful theme in his last composition before death, namely The Book of Revelation. It is here that this word (nikein) is used not to describe Christ but rather the Christian. Over and over Christ speaks to the Christian communities in this apocalyptical masterpiece explaining to the faithful that it is the one “who conquers” who will enter into God’s Glory and receive eternal life (cf. Rev. 2.6, 11, 17, 26; 3.5, 12, 21). What then does Christ mean by “conquering”? While the Jews were expecting a great political Messiah to liberate them from exile by the sword (i.e. conquering through the sword), Jesus came to liberate Israel and the whole world by the cross (i.e. conquering through sacrifice). Thus for the Christian, “to conquer” refers to the act of utter surrender! In other words, the primary condition for peace is surrender or to let go.

This can be a difficult prescription to follow, although it is not difficult to actually implement. We are surrounded by a world that proclaims a very different message. We are asked to hold on tightly to what we do have and to be suspicious of anyone who may want a piece of us. We are told we must fight for whatever we want because no one will fight for us. We have been convinced that the key to personal peace is to grasp for that which we desire and to do everything in our ability to secure it and maintain it. We appear to live in a world that has embraced a “survival of the fittest” paradigm. This is antithetical to the Christian way and therefore antithetical to genuine peace.

I am reminded of the story of Israel’s exodus. Moses had successfully freed Israel from Egyptian enslavement without Pharaoh’s permission. Clearly not having thought everything through of their escape, Israel was only able to run so far before being blocked by a large body of water called the Red Sea. Being cornered, they had nowhere to turn as word had arrived that Pharaoh’s army was in pursuit of them for reasons other than wishing them farewell. Israel became frantic, questioning the escape, appearing that it was only leading them to death. In the midst of the mass hysteria Moses spoke to the crowd saying, “Fear not, stand firm, and see the salvation of the Lord, which he will work for you today; for the Egyptians whom you see today, you shall never see again. The Lord will fight for you, and you have only to be still” [emphasis mine] (Ex. 14.13-14). You have only to be still! Peace is not something we achieve, but rather receive. We are being asked by God to trust Him, knowing that he does love us and He is working this very moment and fighting for us. Yes, someone is actually fighting for us!

St. Augustine says that our hearts are restless until they rest in God. Notice what Augustine does not say. He does NOT say that our hearts are restless until they accomplish God’s Kingdom, or bring X number of lost people back to the faith, or until we find a spouse, or until we hit the right numbers in our business or ministry. Our hearts are restless until they REST in God. How many times do we get caught up in finding our identity with what we do rather than who we are? We are being called to BE more and DO less. This is why our Lord has designated one day a week to be meant for resting which is Sunday. Our God desires our hearts not our deeds.

Again, peace is something we do not achieve but rather receive from God. Christ warns us that even with peace, we will still undergo troubles. Behind all this is the reality that genuine peace is less of a subjective experience and more of an objective reality. It is through Christ that we have peace, which means we are now in relationship with God through reconciliation. Whether you feel it or not, Christ has died for us and restored us to new life with God. It is up to us to make the choice whether we want to receive it or not.

I pray each of us is able trust in God’s love for us and to allow Him to give us the peace He has promised. We have been reconciled to God through Jesus Christ so I encourage you to be reconciled with God. If you have not been to confession in quite awhile, maybe this is the time to do so as we prepare our hearts for the upcoming season of Advent. Be also reconciled with one another as we are called to be imitators of Christ. He has forgiven us even in our deepest sin so we are being called to forgive those who have offended us. We cannot do this on our own so we beg for God’s mercy and His grace to empower us to do so. Be still and know that God is fighting for you and be at peace. May God be Praised!

Purging Misconceptions of Purgatory, Part III: Indulgences

2009-09-05T21:53:00.000-07:00

The topic of indulgences is an incredibly complicated subject to speak of due to the nearly countless distortions having evolved over the years regarding this doctrine. Furthermore, restricting my type-space (originally printed in church bulletin) to one page only makes this challenge more, well, challenging! Nonetheless, I believe this article will help clear up misconceptions, display the logical structure, and illustrate the biblical foundations of indulgences rather convincingly.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints” (CCC, 1427; emphasis mine). In other words, an indulgence can be likened to a child who inadvertently or deliberately throws a baseball through a neighbor’s window. The neighbor may very well forgive the child, restoring the relationship to its original status, but that does not change the fact that a window is in pieces. The temporal effects of the transgression remains and must be fixed. The child may have to dip into his allowance to restore the window. However, the father or mother may step in and pay for the broken window on behalf of their son. This is where the analogy of indulgences comes into focus. While it would have been fine for the child to pay for the window, the family stepped in graciously to fix the window on behalf of their child. In the case of indulgences, the child is you and I, and the gracious family is the Church: the family of God!

At this point in the discussion with a non-Catholic many objections would begin to manifest themselves in the form of questions: 1) Where is eternal punishment and temporal punishment distinguished in the Bible? 2) Doesn’t such a doctrine diminish the merits of Christ? 3) If Christ’s merits are sufficient then why add the inadequate “merits” of saints to the “treasury of merits”? 4) Where does Scripture give authority to the Church to give such indulgences? Many of these questions may seem cryptic to you, but they will become clearer as they are addressed.

The distinction between temporal and eternal punishment begins at the very beginning of time. Due to Adam and Eve’s disobedience, they lost their relationship with God (i.e. their eternal reward) and they received temporal punishments befitting their crime (cf. Gen. 3: 16-19): Eve was to experience the pangs of childbirth, and Adam was to work tirelessly with little reward. This example from Scripture illustrates the fact that being eternally redeemed in Christ does not necessarily remove the temporal punishment that accompanied the crime. While I know many married women who have been baptized, their childbearing has been far from painless! Another great example is the story of David being caught in adultery. While his sins were forgiven, God still punished David for his actions through the death of the child from adultery (cf. 2 Sam. 12.7-12). There is a clear distinction between eternal and temporal punishment in Scripture, and there is clear Scriptural support that such temporal punishments may remain after forgiveness/redemption.

From this quick reflection of Scripture we can begin to see why indulgences do not diminish the merits of Christ. Indulgences have nothing to do with eternal punishment and reward, for that is Christ’s victory! Scripture is clear that temporal punishment may remain after forgiveness which often times comes in the form of a continued distorted desire to commit the transgression again (i.e. pornography, masturbation, premarital/extramarital sex, etc.). It is in God’s loving kindness that such a disciplinary action is given us. We do not discipline a child for punishment’s sake, but so that the child may know the gravity of his offense, and so that his will may be strengthened not to commit it again. So it is with God!

The third question ought to be broken into a number of sub-questions but space limits such a desire. We know that the cross of Christ was more than sufficient for our salvation. Thus, rather than diminishing the merits of Christ, the belief in indulgences actually magnifies our Lord’s salvific act by acknowledging its “benefits” well beyond our own eternal salvation. This truth is what is behind the Church’s teaching of the “treasury of merits.” The work of the cross was not something that was barely efficacious enough to squeeze us into heaven. Rather, the cross was and is overflowing with graces beyond our salvation. These graces are not wasted but are entrusted to the Church to be distributed to those who may need it. These graces are dispensed in the form of indulgences.

All this being said, we are still not any closer in our understanding of why our own merits would be considered as contributing to the treasury of merits if Christ’s merits are enough. In the same way our imperfect faith is made perfect through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, so to are our imperfect works made perfect by the perfect work of Jesus Christ. These imperfect works of ours are united to the perfect work of Christ to be used for the good of others. In other words, our God ensures that everything we do and everything we are is supernaturalized so that it may be used as a gift for another! What a beautiful reality!

St. Paul articulates this truth quite profoundly in his letter to the Colossians: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, this is, the church…” (Col. 1.24). The Apostle uses language that is much more shocking than anything the Catholic Church has ever articulated. What St. Paul acknowledges is the fact that there are many things that we undergo in life that may not be necessary for our own salvation but are beautiful things nonetheless. Our God does not allow them to be wasted but rather unites them to the merits of the Cross for the sake of the kingdom. What a great God who both saves us and allows us to participate in His mission of salvation not by necessity, but out of His loving kindness and His desire to be close to us!

I am reminded of a childhood experience of my youth that may help make since of why God would bring our own works of charity into the equation if they are not necessary. My father took me with him to work when I was a child so I could see what he did. Looking back, I think this may have been one of the highlights of my youth. I remember sitting in his desk pretending I was him, and helping him with his work which in hindsight only made his day longer. I know my father could have done his work much more efficiently without me since he clearly did not need me, but he allowed me to be a part of his day because he loved me. I can only imagine how many corrections had to be made by my father so as to perfect my small little works. My father never looked down at me for my “imperfect performance” nor did he ever think I was a threat to his position or stealing his “glory.” Rather, he affirmed me in all the little things I did not because I did them, but because of the love behind them. So it is with our heavenly Father! God has given us the opportunity to “work” with Him to build His kingdom not out of necessity but simply out of love for us and because of his desire to have a relationship with us!

A serious question still remains: Who gave the authority to the Church to be the dispenser of this treasury of merits? The answer is quite simple: Jesus Christ. Jesus handed over His own authority in a unique way to St. Peter who was the first pope (cf. Mat. 16.13-20). Christ made St. Peter the new ambassador to the New Israel which was and is the Church. While the ambassador of the Old Testament governed the treasury among other responsibilities in the Old Covenant, it is now St. Peter and his successors who govern the new treasury of the New Covenant, which is spiritual rather than physical! For a more thorough explanation of the Church’s authority, I refer you to my column entitled, “Why I am Catholic".

In the end, a belief in indulgences simply confesses the nature of our faith, which is familial! We are the family of God that is rich in mercy and full of compassion. God disciplines us for our actions because he loves us and He also showers his mercy upon us in that very discipline through indulgences which has for its source the cross of Jesus Christ. The Church has been given that honor and responsibility to be the distributer of such gifts. It is up to the receiver to receive them with genuine hearts, repentant hearts, and faith-filled hearts that are restless until they rest completely and unconditionally with God, for grace is received according to the capacity one is able to receive it. The gift of an indulgence is not a free ticket but rather an invitation to reexamine our lives in light of Jesus Christ, and to seek Him more faithfully than we had in the past. I encourage each of you this week to look up the types of indulgences the Church has to offer and take advantage of such a great gift! May God be Praised!

Purging Misconceptions of Purgatory, Part II: Historical Continuity

2009-08-08T14:16:00.001-07:00

As the title mentions, this is an unanticipated continuation of my column I wrote over a month ago on the biblical and logical foundation of the Church’s doctrine on purgatory. The desire to continue writing on this subject came from two events: 1) The fact that many people enjoyed the column; 2) A Lutheran minister had read it and said it was the most persuasive thing he had read on the topic of purgatory. Before you begin thinking you may see him in this year’s RCIA class, he did qualify the statement by saying he still doesn’t believe the doctrine. With that, I would like to continue the apologetic crusade—filled with charity—and address a couple more points that will further solidify the veracity of the Church’s wisdom in upholding this doctrine in spite of criticisms.

While the theological necessity of purgatory appears to be undeniable and the biblical evidence persuasive, the overall argument is still incomplete. The best way to validate a biblical truth claim is by looking for historical evidence that would confirm the particular interpretation of Scripture at hand. In other words, is there a line of continuity between the Church’s belief in purgatory and the belief of the Early Church? The answer appears to be a resounding yes!

One of the most persuasive texts comes from the middle of the second century (c. AD 160) in a Christian apocryphal work called The Acts of Paul and Thecla. Whether or not the story in this writing is historical is not important since the value of this work is in the story itself. Like every story or book whether fiction or non-fiction, the surrounding worldview informs the norms and practices of the narrative. In the story of Paul and Thecla, the deceased daughter of Trifina appears to Trifina in a dream. The daughter requests that Trifina take Thecla as her new daughter in place of the deceased daughter. When given the reason, the daughter says it is so “that she [Thecla] should pray for me, that I may be transferred to the place of righteousness” (ANF VIII: 490, brackets mine). Notice that there is never an explanation of this request on behalf of the deceased daughter as if this was some foreign custom being added to the narrative. Praying for the deceased had become so common by the mid-second century that it found its way into story telling. In other words, the practical elements of purgatory were being expressed without apology less than a century before Christianity was recognized as a separate religion from that of Judaism!

Story telling is not the only historical manifestation of a belief in purgatory by the Early Church. Archaeology has discovered burial stones with epitaphs that request prayers for the deceased. One such epitaph is by a man by the name of Abercius who after expressing a love for his Christian faith, requests that “everyone who is in accord with this [the Christian faith] and who understands it pray for Abercius” (Epitaph of Abercius, c. AD 190, brackets mine). Again, the customs and practices of the Early Church express an understanding of and belief in purgatory.

Yet another dimension of the historical record that has archived an image of the Early Church adhering closely to the image of the Catholic Church today is the written accounts of Christian martyrs. One such story articulates a vision of Perpetua’s blood brother who apparently died from disease. The sister received a vision of her brother being purified through fire after death and, with the help if her prayers, seeing him eventually purified for his eternal reward (cf. ANF III: 701-02, c. AD 202).

In the end, an entire monograph could be dedicated to an analysis of all the Early Church Fathers who explicitly spoke about the doctrine of purgatory whether that be through Origin’s commentary on 1 Cor. 3, or Tertullian’s interpretation of Mat. 5:25-26 (cf. Homilies of Jeremias [c. AD 244] & ANF III: 234-5 [c. AD 210]. The fathers of the Church are overwhelmingly in favor of the doctrine of purgatory and in light of such company—which only confirms the previous columns attempt to express purgatory’s biblical foundation and theological necessity—a sense of arrogance is almost needed to outright reject the doctrine without question. If the Judaism of Christ’s day believed in a form of it, the biblical text spoke of it, heaven needs it, and the Early Church practiced and preached it, then it would appear as if this doctrine is not up for dissenting.

I mentioned at the beginning of this column that my intention was to address a “couple” more points about purgatory, but I have only mentioned one additional point being the continuity of the Early Church Fathers. My next column will address the question about indulgences. Is it possible that while the Church got the doctrine of purgatory correct, she erred with the dispensation of indulgences? Stay tuned…

Purging Misconceptions of Purgatory

2009-06-20T15:27:00.000-07:00

Dealing with a non-Catholic Christian’s objections to the Church’s doctrine of purgatory can be incredibly intimidating.The average Evangelical or Protestant is well versed in Scripture which can present a formidable challenge to the average Catholic who is typically not as well versed in the details of Scripture. While we may be quick to speak of scriptural stories, the scriptural precision of the non-Catholic appears to override the Catholic’s own Scriptural acumen pressuring the faithful Catholic to back away from the sacred text and turn to the rather impotent phrase, “Well, that is what we believe!” Such a response only vindicates the non-Catholic’s belief that the Catholic Church is deeply erroneous in doctrine AND that she is “clearly” anti-Scriptural. While both beliefs are unequivocally false, one can sympathize with the non-Catholic in light of the Catholic’s lack of intellectual ability to answer objections to their faith.

How easy it is for each of us to conclude something about an organization simply based upon a nearly universal observation about each of its members. If we want to heal the rift that was created by the Protestant Reformation, if we want peace, if we want justice, if we want Jesus Christ to be visibly and powerfully manifested in this world then the buck begins and ends with each one of us in a sense. While ultimately peace, salvation and reconciliation come from Jesus Christ, it is in God’s loving will that He asks us to participate in this mission (cf. Mt. 28.18-20). In light of this truth, we are being asked by God to love Him with our entire mind (cf. Mat. 22.37) so it is our duty and privilege to prepare ourselves to be able to give a defense for what we believe (cf. 1 Ptr. 3.15). To this end, let us examine and critique the objections to the Church’s teaching on purgatory.

The two common objections made by non-Catholic Christians are that the doctrine is nowhere found in Sacred Scripture and that the concept of purgatory makes a mockery of the of cross since the belief implies a second safety net for salvation which lay outside the meritorious act of Jesus Christ. In other words, the accusation being made is that purgatory implicitly states that Jesus Christ was not sufficient for salvation and so purgatory exists for the sake of the deficiencies in Christ. The second objection is a strong accusation which explains the hostility many non-Catholic Christians have toward purgatory; their hostility comes from a deep love for Jesus Christ and what He has done. Fortunately, the accusation is entirely wrong and based upon distortions of the Church’s teaching.

To begin, the Church teaches that Jesus Christ is the sole mediator for salvation (for the disctinction between Christ's role as mediator for salvation and the Christian's role as mediator of salvation, see article on intercession of saints). Purgatory is not a second chance for salvation because it is exists exclusively for those who have already been saved in the blood of Jesus Christ. At this point, purgatory may appear to be a superfluous teaching. After all, if we are already saved, what is the need for purgatory? The answer to this question articulates the necessity of this teaching! In fact, whether one believes in imputed or infused righteousness the logical and theological necessity of purgatory still holds.

For the sake of the argument, let us say that justification is simply through declaration (cf. God says you are righteous but it doesn’t mean you actually are). This is different from Catholic theology which states that justification is both declarative and transformative (cf. Rom. 5.19). If life lived in justification on earth is one of declaration but not necessarily transformation, what then about heaven? Is heaven simply an eternal life of “declaration” not necessarily tied to transformation? Of course not! Heaven is not a place where fornicators continue to fornicate or even feel tempted to fornicate while simply being declared righteous. Nothing unclean can ever enter into heaven whether that is in thought or deed (cf. Rev. 21.27). If I were to die today, while being fully redeemed in the blood of Christ, I would die with a tendency toward sinful desires which often times concretize in the form of selfishness. What is God to do with a dead man redeemed in Christ yet not perfectly virtuous which is the exclusive criteria for a life lived in heaven? Purgatory is a logical necessity if we are to understand heaven as that which is completely free from sin, the direct beatific vision of God. For the overwhelming majority of us, purgatory serves as a state of loving purification for those who have been saved in Jesus Christ.We are sanctified and made perfectly holy in purgatory through the blood of Christ so that we may enter into the marriage banquet in heaven without spot or wrinkle (cf. Eph. 5.25-27).

After having understood purgatory’s theological and logical necessity, and recognizing purgatory’s intrinsic relationship to Christ’s meritorious act rather than seeing it as something outside or in addition to the cross, what does Scripture have to say about this teaching? While Scripture never explicitly mentions the world purgatory (which simply means “a place of purification”), there are a number of passages that speak of a state of purification after death.This should be no cause for concern as there are many things that both Catholics and non-Catholics alike believe in that are not explicitly stated in Scripture (i.e. hypostatic union of Christ, divinity of Christ, Trinity, Infant Baptism, etc).

One of the clearest attestations of purgatory in Scripture can be found in St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. In chapter three of his letter, St. Paul speaks about a day of judgment which has a particular three pronged judgment. There are those whose works will be tested and be seen as worthy of a reward which contextually refers to heaven (cf. 1 Cor. 3.14). On the other hand, there are those whose works are destructive and so are worthy of damnation (cf. 1 Cor. 3.16-17).However, there is a third peculiar judgment where a person’s works are judged and neither found to be universally accepted nor condemned. This person’s bad works will be “burned up” and “will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor. 3.15). St. Paul’s explanation fits very well with the Church’s teaching on purgatory as a state of purification for those who have been saved in the blood of Christ yet must undergo a cleansing from the residual effects of sin.

We also know that Judaism believed in a type of purgatory which urged them to pray for their fellow dead (cf. 2 Macc. 12.46). This places the Church’s teaching in integrity with the teachings of God’s chosen people of the Old Covenant. This is all the more important when we understand that the New Covenant did not come to abolish the Old Covenant, but to fulfill it (cf. Mat. 5.17)!Finally, Christ Himself appears to allude to a sense of purification in the life to come (cf. Mat. 5.25-26; 12:31-32).

This is clearly far from an exhaustive treatment of the Church’s teaching on purgatory, but I pray it has better equipped you to be able to give a defense for the love you have for Christ and His Church! May you love Him more with all your soul, body, strength, and mind. May God be Praised!

Self-Mastery & Gadgets

2009-06-06T11:56:00.001-07:00

Those who know me know that I love technology! Although I have been formally removed from the world of software development for nearly ten years, my hunger for new technology has not dissipated in the least. Like Moore’s Law which states that technology roughly doubles every 18 months, my desire for a new gadget intensifies almost proportionately to that law. While I think it is safe to say I’m exaggerating my gadget addiction, I do want to recognize a potential disproportionate desire for new technology at times. I typically rationalize my longing through my deeper desire for organization. Anything that helps me quantify every aspect of my daily life is incredibly alluring! After all, the more I can use technology to quantify things (including myself) the more I will be able to know myself better and be more responsible, right? Such a belief almost makes my disproportionate desire for technology a noble quest. Believe it or not, it wasn’t until last week that a pin-leak was discovered in this inflated rationality of mine which is soon to become a full-blown flat.

The error in my thinking was revealed shortly after a grueling run with a friend of mine who is currently on summer break from seminary. For the sake of my friend, I must admit that it was a grueling run for me and not him. As we were walking back to our cars I brought up the topic of my new fancy running watch which records about everything you could possibly record about yourself and the surrounding landscape. He then told me about a mutual friend of ours who is currently a cross country runner for CU and an active member of our campus ministry. He explained to me how this runner begins every race deliberately in the “back of the pack.” Basically, what he does is take inventory of himself, the landscape, and the surrounding runners before engaging the race with intensity, and he doesn’t do this by a gadget but through self-evaluation and observation. He has trained himself to translate accurately the breathing patterns of himself and others. The student can quickly determine if his body is starting to go anaerobic thus enabling himself to make the proper corrections almost instantaneously. Hearing all this was both breathtaking and humbling!

Up until this point of the conversation, I had thought that my constant connectivity to gadgets was only aiding my quest for self-mastery through accurate knowledge, planning, et cetera. What I quickly learned was that I really did not know myself like I thought I knew myself. One may easily make the excuse that as long as you are in tune with your soul, you are doing well, but that is bad theology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the body was created as the form of the soul. In other words, our soul and body are so intimately tied together that what you learn about the body can lead to knowledge about the soul and vice versa. This runner’s intimate knowledge of his body can easily be translated into virtue of the soul!

Take for instance the student’s ability to gauge his physical heart incredibly well during a run. Having the ability to modify his pace correctly given the slightest change in the rhythm of his heart offers him the opportunity to run efficiently, giving his best each time. One can only assume that such self-awareness is equally present off the trail as it is on the trail. How much more is the runner able to perceive physiological stimuli that are heading toward temptation well before the temptation becomes enticing? While the phrase “listen to your body” may sound too new aged to some, it is deeply Catholic!

We live in a plugged-in world. Everywhere I go I see people plugged into laptops, cell phones, and ipods. While technology is a great gift, it also can be an enormous impediment to knowing oneself. The impediment largely comes in the form of only knowing two dimensions of ourselves: zero and sixty miles per hour. Unfortunately, we are plugged in during those times when we move from 10 to 20 mph which consequently doesn’t register on the radar screen. I would like to challenge all of us to unplug ourselves a little more from the distractions that may be preventing us from knowing ourselves. This is a hard challenge to offer since I’m arguably the most plugged in among us. Our bodies are all too often against us; it is with excitement that I’m able to see a profound way for our bodies to work for us by drawing us deeply into our spiritual lives, further enabling us to give ourselves to another through the art of self-mastery and virtue! May God be Praised!

The Moral Difference Between Contraception & NFP (edited)*

2009-05-04T11:45:00.000-07:00

A student from my Theology of Body class asked a very common question a few weeks ago. Apparently she was discussing the moral implications of contraception with a friend when this friend posed an unanticipated question. The question went like this: “If it is true that the Catholic Church believes marriage must be open to life, then wouldn’t Natural Family Planning (NFP) also be immoral when used to prevent pregnancy in light of the Church’s teaching? After all, both NFP and contraception are being used as a means to prevent life which the Church says one must be open to in marriage. It appears as of the Church is arbitrarily picking and choosing what is moral and immoral.” The question is a good question worthy of a good response. I must admit that my initial answer to this student was deeply unsatisfactory in my own mind, so I spent the next week looking for a better answer. What I discovered was rather alarming.

When I followed up with the question at my next class, I began with a true/false quiz to the students. I asked them to answer ‘true’ or ‘false’ to the statement, “The Catholic Church believes marriage must be open to life?” The answer was a unanimous ‘TRUE’ which I then replied, “You are unanimously incorrect.” Before I continue I feel obligated to try and curb any initial responses one might have when reading what I just wrote. I am NOT saying that the Church approves of contraception. I simply ask for your patience as I unpack the Church’s wisdom on human sexuality.

My alarming discovery mentioned above was in the realization that many people (including myself) have a misconceived notion of the Church’s understanding of marriage and its relationship to life. If it were true that “marriage” was to be open to life at all times then it would follow that NFP used to prevent pregnancy would be morally illicit since it would be closing the “marriage” to life. However, this is not what the Church teaches. Humanae Vitae (Pope Paul VI’s encyclical on Human Life) states that “each and every marriage act must remain through itself open to the transmission of life” (HV, 11-12). Notice that Paul VI carefully stated that it is the “marriage act” not marriage itself* that must be open to life! One may argue that since the Church views the marital/conjugal act to be reserved exclusively for marriage (even “consummating” the marriage itself) then the marital act and marriage ought to be considered equivalent. It is true that the conjugal act is intrinsically related to marriage but we must not mistake a part of marriage for marriage itself otherwise we risk reducing marriage simply to the conjugal act (this is called the Fallacy of Composition).

Another way to express this necessary distinction is through an example: It is true that all atoms are colorless. We also know that all dogs are made of atoms. However, no one in their right mind would make the conclusion that this means all dogs are colorless. The error is in attributing a quality from a part of something to its whole. Thus, the Church’s teaching does in fact permit couples in marriage the right to delay pregnancy as long as such reasons are just and moral and the means by which they obtain this end are just and moral.

With the misunderstanding corrected, we may now begin to understand why the Church views contraception and the use of NFP differently. The questions the Church seeks to address are: 1) Is it possible to engage in the marital/conjugal act in a way that is morally illicit? 2) If so, what does such a marital/conjugal act look like? The Church answers ‘yes’ to question one and proclaims such an act exists when the nature of the sexual act is compromised. I recognize that the previous sentence desires extrapolation but space limits me from addressing this which is not necessary for the subject at hand. The important element to notice is that the object of moral inquiry is the activity of the conjugal act within marriage. Thus NFP, even when used morally and justly to prevent pregnancy, has no voice in the discussion above. When NFP is used to prevent pregnancy it is done so through abstaining from the sexual act during the woman’s fertile period. Again, the Church’s teaching is about the actual engagement of the sexual act and its morality. There is nothing wrong with abstaining as I’m confident all of you are doing as you are reading this column! While the couple may be intending not to get pregnant, they do so in a way that respects the value and nature of the conjugal act through abstaining. This is fundamentally different from intending not to get pregnant by sterilizing the womb before intercourse so as to remove a fundamental and natural value of the conjugal act. In the same way we make moral distinctions between death by means of “natural death” and death by means of an “unnatural death” (i.e. murder, euthanasia), the Church is calling us to apply the same distinctions to the conjugal/marital act.

Where the use of NFP appears to become the subject matter of Humanae Vitae is when the married couple actually engages in sexual activity during the infertile periods. If the object of moral inquiry is the sexual act and if each sexual act necessitates an openness of life, then is not the couple breaking the Church’s teachings by engaging in the sexual act during infertile periods? While they may not be actively sterilizing the act, their intentions are to engage in a sexual act without getting pregnant. Do not their intentions make this equivalent to a contraceptive act? The answer is no since you cannot intend something which cannot actually happen. While the statement “I do not intend to get a woman pregnant” has meaning, the statement “I do not intend to get a man pregnant” sounds absurd! The reason for its absurdity is based upon an absurd intention which is in fact no intention at all. One cannot engage in a conjugal act that is infertile with an intention to either get pregnant or not get pregnant any more than one can intend to make a square circle. Thus, even the marital/conjugal act during infertile periods is free from this particular moral scrutiny as the act maintains the integrity, value and nature of the sexual act.

Contraception was NOT invented to prevent pregnancy as there was already a fully effective way to prevent it which, again, I’m confident all of you are practicing as you read this column: abstinence. Contraception was invented to sterilize the fertile period so that if the urge to have sex were to arise during that period, neither the man nor the woman would need to muster up the energy to deny that urge in the fear of pregnancy. It is precisely this truth that opens new horizons of understanding between contraception and NFP. While contraceptive sexual acts risk enslavement to the sexual urge, NFP frees one from the all-too-real threat of sexual addiction through periods of abstinence. This makes NFP not only permissible but even virtuous! After all, one’s ‘yes’ is meaningful only when one has the self-mastery to say ‘no.’ However, this level of self-mastery is impossible outside the grace of God concretely and most powerfully manifested through the sacramental life of the Church! May God be Praised!

* I have received some questions/criticisms about the statement that “marriage” must not be open to life but rather the “marital act.” While I firmly believe the statement is technically accurate, I do acknowledge that it can be misleading to some. As an accurate compromise, another way to articulate what I have mentioned above is to say that marriage must be open to life as it corresponds to the marital act.

The Healing Sorrows of Lent

2009-03-10T09:37:00.000-07:00

What I live for yet fall miserably short of. I believe, help my unbelief!

But He Has Potential: The Tragedy of the Imagination

2009-03-08T21:10:00.000-07:00

The imagination is a powerful reality of the human mind. With it we have the capacity to re-create the past within our own minds, create scenarios of an unknown future, go on journeys in which the traditional laws of nature simply do not apply, and the like. While the imagination is powerful, it does have limitations and even weaknesses. While I may have the capacity to re-create my past within my own mind and even alter the historical chronology of events, such changes in the imagination do not translate into reality. In other words, no matter how much I imagine something to be so, reality trumps.

While this point may appear to be overdrawn, it is worthy of deeper consideration. How many times have we awoken from an imaginary stupor with feelings of accomplishment? Countless are the times I have come out of my imagination nearly convinced that I was some incredible Jujitsu master, a secret service agent, or married with a great family! Of course, these creations of my imagination can be quickly debunked when I realize I can’t even kick above my knee without falling over! Nonetheless, caution is the rule of thumb when engaging the imagination. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this statement of caution, one should find it easy to admit that the imagination does in fact make claims completely disproportionate to its actual merits. For this reason alone, one might find reason to engage this faculty more consciencously.

The late great pope John Paul II examines the human faculty of the imagination in a context that is exceedingly more difficult to correct; the context of “Relationships”. In his book Love & Responsibility, the pope speaks about the “raw materials” of love, two of them being sensuality and sentimentality. Sensuality is the sexual desire of a particular part of a person’s body while sentimentality addresses the whole person in their expression of affection for that person (i.e. his/her charm, strength, sensitivity, compassion, etc.). While it is easy to see the potential pitfall into objectification within the arena of sensuality, the dangers of sentimentality are more subtle. However, JPII is quick to warn us that left alone, sentimentality offers a formidable danger to the health of relationships.

The danger of sentimentality is that it utilizes the imagination for its power. So much so that the pope deems it worthy to state that “in the eyes of a person sentimentally committed to another person, the value of the beloved object grows enormously – as a rule out of all proportion to his or her real value” (LR, 112). How many times have we entered into a relationship enchanted by the perceived “perfection” of the other only to become incredibly disenchanted weeks or months later? This profound experience of disappointment can lead to a sense of anger and even hatred. One may even conclude suspicion of deliberate deception. Such a reaction diminishes if not destroys the capability of seeking the real value of the other! At this point the relationship has ended before it had really begun. The tragedy of the imagination!

However, the real tragedy of the imagination is not at the stage of disenchantment, but in the response to this “awakening.” Numerous are the relationships I have witnessed having degenerated from a sentimentally committed relationship to a “potentially good” relationship. There is nothing wrong with valuing the potential in another, but when a relationship is reduced to a love based upon its potential goodness, it ceases to be a relationship at all. Rather, the one who loves the potential in another has really turned a subject into an object onto which ones own ideological goods are projected. In other words, the relationship is incapable of love for love demands the gift and reception of the actual value of the other person, not one’s perceived value of the other!

Being faced with the Christian understanding of love, the pope comments:

The Christian call to love is a difficult reality to live. Without the redemption afforded to us through Jesus Christ, the most we can hope for is either coping mechanisms or suppressive tactics against our distorted desires lest we fall into indulgence. The Christian no longer needs to look at the raw material of love with fear and trepidation. Rather, Grace is afforded us in the redemption of the body so that we may live authentically human lives of love imbued with divine love. May we all open our hearts wider to our Lord so that we may have the capacity to embrace the raw materials of love as they were intended to be embraced. Not as an end leading to objectification, but as a powerful means to draw ever closer to the value or unrepeatability of the other! Do we not also want to be loved for who we actually are? May God be Praised!

"This" Is Why I Believe In The Real Presence (UPDATED)

2009-02-13T14:36:00.000-08:00

I am incredibly grateful for my education at an evangelical seminary. The nearly continuous faith-challenging questions posed by both faculty and fellow students only strengthened my Roman Catholic convictions. However, one particular objection to a Roman Catholic doctrine, presented by a professor I deeply admired (and still do), affected me quite significantly, and drove me to search diligently for an answer.

The real presence of our Lord in the most holy Eucharist is a unique doctrine of the Roman Catholic faith. When such a truth is challenged, the Catholic feels compelled to defend such skepticism with ferocity. This is how I felt when my professor challenged this doctrine in my first class at the evangelical seminary. His two main arguments (at least presented in class) consisted of one assumption and one critique based on language. The assumption was that no one would have imagined our Lord claiming the bread and wine to be his actual body. Not only does this beg the question, but such a skeptical assessment contains a further assumption that Jesus would have only said things that could be clearly understood by others. From a cursory reading of the Gospels, we see that such an understanding is far from accurate.

The second argument presented by my professor was an argument from language. Jesus likely spoke Aramaic. So a phrase like “This is my body” could not have been said since Aramaic did not use “to be” verbs (e.g. is, was, were, etc.). The inference to this argument is that the Greek writing authors of the Gospels inserted an ‘is’ so as to not go beyond Christ’s own words yet maintaining proper Greek grammar. In other words, the ‘is” in the phrase “This is my body” is a deliberate generic verb which functions simply to fill the lack of a verb from the original Aramaic quotation. Thus, Roman Catholics—according to my professor—have gone beyond the scope of the text with their “transubstantiation” theology.

Despite my profound admiration for this professor, I vehemently disagree with his rather sophisticated argument. While it may be true that Jesus did speak in Aramaic, such an argument is an argument from silence. A more powerful argument comes from a close examination of the Greek texts to see if the author, guided by the Holy Spirit, left any clues to what Jesus might have meant when we said “This [no verb] my body” in Aramaic. When such an examination is done, we find an answer that confirms the validity of our Catholic faith and gives the believer goose-bumps.

Those of you who have studied a language like Spanish know that words can have genders. While both Amigo and Amiga share the same basic structure (the stem), the ‘o’ and ‘a’ at the end of the word give it its gender (the first being masculine and the later being feminine). Greek is very similar in that many words may look nearly identical with only a minor change being due to gender differences. One such example is the demonstrative pronoun (e.g. this/these, that/those). In Greek, you can find the word “this” in feminine, masculine, and even neuter forms. The gender of the pronoun is chosen by what it is referring to (i.e. the antecedent). If Joe asks Sally, “Can you hand me my book?” and Sally responds, “Is this your book?” Sally’s “this” obviously refers to “book.” In Greek, “book” has a gender (feminine) so “this” would also have share the same gender as the word book. Enough with Greek grammar and on to the good stuff!

From Scripture we know that when Jesus picked up the bread from the table and said, “This is my body” the ‘this’ was referring to the bread He was holding up. In Greek, ‘bread’ has a Gender (like all nouns) and it is masculine. Thus, we ought to conclude that the ‘this’ that Jesus speaks is also masculine in gender since it is referring to the bread. But wait, it is not masculine at all but rather neuter in gender. Have all three Gospels committed a grammatical blunder? By no means! If only we had the eyes to see (Greek in this case) the reason why all Last Supper accounts record such a grammatical faux pas. We already mentioned that the Greek word ‘bread’ is masculine but we have not yet made explicit what the other critical noun’s gender is, and that would be ‘body’ which is neuter!

Tying all the loose ends together, we must ask why all the Gospel writers took the liberty to make Christ’s “this” in the phrase “This is my body” neuter in gender when it is clear that the ‘this’ is referring to the masculine in gender bread which he is holding up to his apostles. The answer is quite clear to the Catholic. By the time our Lord and savior raised the sacred bread from the table, the bread had changed into the body (and blood) of our Lord Jesus Christ, which the grammatical gender-change from masculine to neuter conveys! The bread is no longer simply bread but now has taken on the grammatical gender of the body which communicates to the reader the breads substantial change into the body of our Lord! The Gospel writers, guided by the Holy Spirit, could not have been any more explicit regarding the Real Presence of our Lord in the bread and wine consecrated by our faithful priests! Thus, the ‘is’ in Christ’s phrase “This is my body” is not some verb to be disputed, but rather a powerful lens into the Real Presence of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist.

Saying all of this, it would be unfair of me to ignore the common non-Catholic objection to this “demonstrative” argument which favors a Real Presence understanding of the Last Supper passages. Due to the intricate and complexity of this rebuttal, I will only deal with its most “deadly blow” to what I have just argued above. For those wanting a more exhaustive treatment of the non-Catholic perspective, I refer you to Robert Sungenis’s article.*

It is true that there are a small number of passages that share the grammatical structure of the Last Supper passages. Both Matthew 13.38 and Luke 8.14 contain a demonstrative pronoun followed by a ‘to be’ verb and ending with a noun or noun equivalent. While the pronoun ought to be taking on the gender of its antecedent, it actually takes on the gender of the substantive following the verb (a substantive is a noun or noun equivalent).

In the case of Mt. 13.38, we have the verse “the field is the world, and the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; (emphasis mine).” Many English translations do not translate the demonstrative pronoun (these) for the sake of fluidity but it exists in the Greek text. In this particular verse, ‘these’ takes on the gender of “the sons of the kingdom” rather than “seeds.” One may argue that Christ is clearly not saying that seeds are truly the sons of the kingdom but that the seeds are a metaphor for the sons of the kingdom. Thus, the non-Catholic claims victory in that this appears to be a clear attestation that such a grammatical usage does in fact point to a metaphor. If true, all I have stated about this grammatical rarity found in the last supper discourses amounts to very little regarding an apology for the Real Presence.

However, on closer inspection the weight of this objection collapses (along with every other similar example by the non-Catholic interlocutor). Both Mt. 13.38 and Lk. 8.14 are explanations of parables by Jesus which had just been presented. The actual metaphoric usage was in the parable. Jesus is NOT explaining a metaphor (i.e. the parable) with another metaphor as that would be no explanation at all. We must make the distinction between metaphor and assigning identities.

Coming from a computer science background, I find the best way to explain this is through the lens of programming. Taking bank software as a concrete example, such software will inevitably use multiple instances of the prime rate to calculate interest for their credit cards. Such banking software must have hundreds if not thousands of instances in which it must calculate something using this rate. One could create a program and physically insert the current prime rate into every formula that will use it in a computation. The downfall with this is that when the prime rate changes, the programmer will have to find every occurrence in the program and manually update it. Another and much easier way is to assign the prime rate a variable (this is equivalent to a metaphor) which represents the prime rate. Now, all the programmer must do when the rate changes is to find the location of the program where all variables are assigned identities and simply reassign that one variable with the updated number. Such assignments are not representatives, but rather a variable that actually takes on the identity of that which it symbolizes. Another way of saying this is that the assignments actually imbue the variable entirely. Thus, we have the clear distinction between metaphor and the assignment of identities.

In light of what I just said, it makes all the more sense why these additional exceptions simply prove the rule. Since both Mt. 13.38 and Lk. 8.14 (and many more like these) are assigning identities, it makes sense why the demonstrative pronoun would take on the gender that follows rather than its antecedent. This grammatical rarity is conveying the message that the subsequent noun is taking on the identity of the pronoun! Again, it is good to be Catholic!

Next time you are at Mass and you hear your parish priest say the words of consecration, “This is my body” I hope you will have a greater appreciation for such a simple word as “this”, and have a deeper love for the Son of God who stands before you in the Holy Eucharist! May God be Praised!

*It is important to acknowledge that while I do believe Robert Sungenis is a gifted Catholic apologist, he does hold to a number of beliefs that one may consider "fringe positions." Caution is advised when reading some of his material.

The Great Debate: Atheism Vs. Religion

2009-02-07T10:45:00.000-08:00

Here is the debate our ministry (The Aquinas Institute for Catholic Thought) put on. Enjoy and please leave comments if you'd like.

Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza at CU Boulder from Justin Leddick on Vimeo.

*The debate was held on Monday, January 26th, 2009 on University of Colorado, Boulder's campus in the beautiful Macky Auditorium. All 2,047 seats were filled with an additional 304 attendees participating through a live feed of the event which was held in the Eaton Humanities building, room 1B50.

The event was formally sold out two weeks before the debate, and by the numerous phone calls leading up to the day of the event, we could have easily filled an auditorium of 5,000+.

We did ask each attendee to fill out a survey card and here is what we received:

Summary:

Of the approximate 2,350 debate attendees, only forty-three percent of the debate attendees, 1011 people, completed the survey and were tallied. Prior to the debate, 68% of attendees said that they sided with D’Souza while 29% said they sided with Hitchens, leaving 3% neutral. After the debate, 66% of attendees said that they left siding with D’Souza (2% drop), while 30% left siding with Hitchens (1% gain) and 4% left undecided.

Questions:

Who were you more likely to agree with before the debate?

686 came into the debate siding with D'Souza (67.9%)

297 came into the debate siding with Hitchens (29.4%)

28 sided with neither previous to the debate (2.7%)

Who do you agree with now?

664 people left the debate siding with D'Souza (65.7%)

306 left siding with Hitchens (30.3%)

41 sided with neither following the debate (4.1%)

Analysis:

D’Souza lost 22 prior-to-debate attendees; Hitchens gained nine. More attendees in the sample left undecided than were undecided upon entering debate. Considering the ratio of D’Souza supporters to Hitchens, this means that 3.2% of D’Souza siders either left undecided or sided with Hitchens, while Hitchens gained 3.03%.

Finally, some of you know that we had three followup sessions after the debate. Unfortunately, they were poorly attended. I believe tuesday's followup session consisted of three non-St. Toms students. I was a part of the Wednesday session which only had one person not from our ministry there who happened to be a rather well known philosophy professor at CU. I know nothing of the Thursday, but if the past two days have anything to say, I'm sure it was also anemic in attendence.

I would like to end by saying if you enjoyed the video of the debate and you believe in the necessity for campus ministry, I ask you to help use through your prayers and a financial contribution. You may do so at our website @ www.thomascenter.org.

Thank you!

On Being Unevenly Yoked and Hurting Others

2009-02-05T16:02:00.000-08:00

Many of you may know that I teach a Theology of the Body class on Monday evenings in the upper room of the Catholic Student Center. This teaching position has served as a kind of catapult into relationship counseling that I honestly had not anticipated but thoroughly enjoy. I’m fully aware that I am not a licensed counselor so I quickly refer those students needing licensed attention to more qualified professionals. However, many students come into my office wanting basic advice on their current relationship, and I am happy to listen and offer an “outside” perspective if they so desire. After only six months of one-on-ones with students I have begun to see a couple common threads that unite relationships deemed “unhealthy” or “complicated” by the students in them. The first common thread may be expressed as the complication of being unevenly yoked (cf. 2 Cor. 6.14-16), and the second thread revolves around an exaggerated fear of “hurting the other.” I would like to address the unevenly yoked complication first.

I began dating a non-Catholic girl during my first year of seminary at an evangelical college. While the relationship was great in a number of ways, it also was very difficult as we obviously did not see eye-to-eye regarding each other’s beliefs. My awakening to the gravity of this disagreement came from my father. Speaking to him one day about my relationship he said, “Son, marriage is a difficult vocation as it is. If you see your relationship worth the additional level of difficulty due to your conflicting beliefs then go for it. However, just remember that this will in fact be an additional cross to bear.” From that moment on I took a very different approach to courtship. I knew that my Catholic faith was the center of my life, and I deemed it necessary that I find someone who shared that intense love for the Catholic Church that I had.

St. Paul calls each of us to a similar discernment as we approach relationships (cf. 2 Cor. 6:14-16). A positive way to express St. Paul’s desire for us not to be unevenly yoked is to say that we ought to strive to find someone who shares the same spiritual foundation we have. While it is important to find someone whom we enjoy and have fun with, such a reality may fair poorly in times of trial when unsupported by a firmer and deeper common faith. I want to be clear that I am not saying that unevenly yoked relationships are doomed to failure, but rather that such relationships offer unique hardships that evenly yoked ones do not.

St. Paul offers us a reason for this warning that I find quite profound, and ironically the reason is presented in his brief treatment of celibacy. In 1 Cor. 7:32-38, the apostle expresses his concern for those who choose the married life. The chief concern is that those who marry may have increased anxiety over the fact that they must split their time between God and family. The celibate person, on the other hand, has the opportunity to live a deeper “inner integrity” since he (or she) does not have to live dividedly. This is why St. Paul appeals to the goodness of celibacy over marriage. He does so NOT because he believes marriage is bad, but because he personally sees a temptation in marriage to become divided in heart. Ultimately, Paul leaves it up to the individual to discern their proper gift from God whether that be the vocation of marriage or celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom.

If it is true that marriage lends itself to the danger of a “divided heart” then we must do what we can to prevent such an occasion of pain. I have encountered many relationships both married and unmarried alike who suffer from wounds caused by this divided heart. Often times, one or both feel as if they have compromised their own integrity so as to keep peace in the relationship. Unfortunately, such actions can lead to spite and regret which further hurts the relationship. However, if we seek another who shares our same Catholic foundation, we quickly bridge the gap between God and the spouse, offering the opportunity for a marriage that nearly shares the great inner integrity inherent to celibacy. I recognize that this column does not address those who have already married into such a relationship stated above. Unfortunately, such a topic must be saved for a later time.

The second common thread deals with the phrase I hear from students “stuck” in an unhealthy relationship. When pressed why they continue the relationship, they often say, “I can’t break up with him/her because I don’t want to hurt him/her.” I have to admit that I have often said the exact same thing. I have come to suspect that behind the altruistic phrase is actually a sense of profound guilt. Upon further inquiry I have discovered that nearly everyone who had shared such a sentiment also had been living a physical relationship beyond that of their own personal convictions about the relationship. In other words, their bodies were writing checks their person was not willing to cash. Behind the altruistic desire not to hurt the other in the relationship was a deep seated guilt based on the truth that they had been expressing ideas through their body (sexually) that they themselves were not ready to commit to personally. Breaking up with the other would only reveal the duplicity presented between their personal and physical commitment. This is what I have commonly seen behind the whole exaggerated emphasis on the fear of hurting the other.

Of course, there are those who simply have a healthy fear of hurting the other that increases to paralyzing implications. To those who struggle with this fear, I offer a powerful quote from none other than C.S. Lewis: “To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket -- safe, dark, motionless, airless -- it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable...The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers of and perturbations of love is Hell” (The Four Loves).

The remedy to both these contemporary difficulties among students is quite simple. If we are convicted to the heart about our Catholic faith, we ought to strive to find someone who is also deeply convicted to the heart about their Catholic faith. In so doing, we create an atmosphere of external integration. Furthermore, if we desire a healthy relationship that is free from exaggerated fears then let us work to love more purely, to love in such way that our bodies speak the same language as our person. In so doing, we create an atmosphere of internal integration. May we all strive to live more authentic and integrated lives for we can do all things in Christ! May God be Praised!

The Rise Against Intellectual Apathy

2009-01-18T13:41:00.000-08:00

I had the privilege of participating in a Cathedral Mass a few weeks back, the celebrant was Archbishop Charles Chaput. The Sunday happened to be Epiphany Sunday when we celebrate the coming of the Magi to the foot of Christ’s crib (cf. Mt. 2.1-23). If you have ever had the opportunity to attend a Sunday evening Mass at the Cathedral, then you know that a homily by his Excellency is something you simply do not want to miss. I can say confidently that I would take notes if it wasn’t for my pride persuading me that people would deem me as one of “those” who wears a Holy pocket-protector! While much of what he said on Epiphany Sunday has been forgotten, there is one piece of his homily that has stuck with me to this day and that I find particular pertinent to our upcoming debate on campus.

Like any good homilist, Archbishop began his homily by painting the historical and sociological landscape on which this event of the Magi occurred. Unfortunately, such an accurate portrayal necessitated a significant correction in popular thinking. When we think of the Magi, phrases such as “the three kings,” or the “the three wise men” often come to mind. Such conceptions are nearly entirely wrong or at least a gross exaggeration of the original words. Whether there were three of them, or whether they were “wise” is completely absent from the original text. In addition, evidence for their kingship is about as strong as evidence for their queenship! What we can learn from the text is that these Magi were magicians which was something considered deplorable to Jews and Christians to this day. In other words, they were genuine pagans.

A light may have flickered for those of you reading this. There is an irony to be said, a perplexing puzzle to be solved. We see in this narrative an unexplainable interest by a number of pagan magicians in a rather obscure Jewish prophecy, all the while a near silence befalls Jerusalem for whom this prophecy has been fulfilled. In other words, there is a greater expressed interest in the covenantal God of Israel by pagans than those who claim to be Jewish believers! It is in this rather perplexing inverse of prophetic interest that the Archbishop provides an acute observation in its application.

The archbishop has keenly observed that at times there appears to be more non-believers interested in God today than believers! I actually have a tough time saying those words as they are difficult to stomach. Putting the archbishop’s observations to the test, I did a little research project. With the debate only days away I did a couple google searches. The first search I committed to was to see what results I could obtain in support of Hitchens (the Atheist coming to our debate) in light of this particular debate. I immediately received a rather large number of blogs and other websites talking about this “great opportunity” with many atheists making plans to carpool with one another. With hopeful expectations I then searched for results that would include those people in support of D’Souza (the Christian) in this particular debate. Excluding those sites originating through our own publicity, the results came back with……..ZERO. Sadly, it appears that the archbishop has been proven correct.

I wish I could say that my experience as the Director of Outreach and Evangelization could help curb these disappointing results, but they do not. FOCUS has been doing some incredible work getting the word out on campus about the debate. After a day of success in the distribution of tickets, a missionary made a casual comment about how she felt that “nearly 60 percent” of tickets she distributed were to atheists. In light of the overall population of atheists in Boulder, that is quite a skewed statistic.

I say all this not to be a dirge, but rather to act as a call to arms! We live for a reality that is deeply personal but it is NOT private. We have a public commitment to our faith which must be imbued with both good and beauty, but it also must be grounded in absolute Truth! We are not ashamed of the Gospel because it is the power of God for everyone who places themselves in that love who is Jesus Christ (cf. Rom. 1.16). We have no need to fear the truth of our faith for it stands unabated with or without us, but we are called by St. Peter to give a reason for why we believe to those who inquire about it (cf. 1 Ptr. 3.15). We have many opportunities to satisfy this call to take arms which Hilary spoke of in last week’s column. May we continue to deepen our love for God with all our mind (cf. Mt. 22.37), and may we find such pursuits personally enriching and fruitful. May God Be Praised!

D'Souza vs. Hitchens

2009-01-11T09:00:00.000-08:00

FYI....Something Our Ministry is Hosting:

D’Souza and Hitchens Debate Religion at CU:
“What’s So Great About God?-Atheism vs. Religion”

(Boulder, CO)—On Monday, January 26th, the Aquinas Institute for Catholic Thought, the intellectual outreach arm of the St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Center, will host nationally-known speakers Dinesh D’Souza and Christopher Hitchens for a debate at CU entitled “What’s So Great About God?-Atheism vs. Religion.” Taking on Christianity, Atheism, Islam, fundamentalism and the war on terror, Christopher Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, and Dinesh D’Souza, author of What’s So Great About Christianity, will draw intellectual swords in an impassioned debate. From opposite sides of the spectrum they present cases for and against organized religion, its influence on world history and impact on current events. Together they explore the social, political and historical foundations of faith.

“We are thrilled to host an event featuring two of the most outspoken and influential individuals in the contemporary debate on religion,” said Father Kevin Augustyn, director of Campus Ministry at the St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Center. “One of the primary goals of the Aquinas Institute for Catholic Thought is to promote dialogue on the most important and pressing issues of our time and this debate is an effort to do that on CU’s campus.”

WHEN: Monday, January 26, 2009 at 7pm
WHERE: University of Colorado-Boulder, Macky Auditorium
WHO: All are welcome.

The Catholic Center expects 2,000 people to attend the debate, which was scheduled as part of the celebration for the feast day of St. Thomas Aquinas, January 28th. “What a perfect way to celebrate the feast day of our patron saint, St. Thomas Aquinas—a man who so intelligently and fervently engaged the ideas and controversies of his day and age with grace,” said Father Kevin.

Tickets are $10 per person and can be purchased at www.ticketswest.com or at any King Soopers. CU Students with valid ID are eligible for a free ticket by calling the St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Center (720) 564-1111. They can also be picked up at the UMC on CU’s campus. Credentialed press will be admitted free of charge--seating is limited and pre-registration is required for free admission. To register for credentials, contact Megan Dillon at Megan.Dillon@ThomasCenter.org.

# # #

The St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Center serves the University of Colorado-Boulder community. We strive to live and proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ, engage higher education and form students, faculty, staff, parishioners and those who choose to share in this mission in the intellectual, spiritual and apostolic tradition of the Catholic Faith. For more information, go to: www.thomascenter.org.

Good and Not-So-Good Bible Studies

2009-01-05T00:00:00.000-08:00

Bible Studies are a wonderful way to go deeper in our faith and to establish a more intimate relationship with Jesus Christ. One of the many benefits of Scripture is that it has the capacity to add a dialogical dimension to our prayer life. Without Scripture, our prayer life can quickly degrade into a chatty monologue. We have a tendency to avoid those “awkward” silences with the Lord so we simply talk God’s ear off expecting no response. Of course, I think we all desire a formal response but we frequently consign ourselves to defeat in that area. Scripture offers the Christian an instant solution to our deepest desire to have a genuine conversation with the Lord. The living and breathing Word of God speaks to our very hearts as if each letter written on the sacred parchment was penned with us in mind. What a beautiful gift God has given us and kept unblemished through the protective and loving arms of the Holy Catholic Church.

Bible Studies form an indispensable role in our spiritual formation. By entering into a scripture study we communicate the reality that this sacred text is very different from ourselves. We look to others whether that be the Church, certified Bible Study leaders, or resources written by qualified theologians, historians, or socio-rhetorical experts to aid us in our pursuit of Truth.

All this being said, we must also use caution when entering into a group study. One red flag of an unhealthy study group is when the discussions are dominated by the question, “What does this passage mean to you?” This is a trumpet blast to all those attending that the study has moved from looking at Scripture as something “other” than the group to looking at Scripture as “another” of the group. In other words, we have moved from trying extract the riches of the text (exegesis) to imposing our own ideas onto the text (eisegesis). I am not saying that personal application is bad. All good Bible Studies have as their goal solid personal application, but we must always make a firm distinction between our means and our end.

To this end I would like to suggest four solid pillars to a healthy and spiritually edifying Bible Study. The first criterion is that a study should be exegetical. There are many words and phrases we do not understand in Scripture that inhibit our ability to read the text correctly. The function of exegesis is to fill those empty words with a first century meaning so that the reader can read the text fluidly. Of course, exegesis may come in handy to redefine words that the reader thinks he/she knows but has misunderstood due to ignorance.

The second pillar of the study is history. Scripture was not written in a vacuum. Every book you read has a unique and powerful social and historical context. One of the greatest injustices done to Scripture is the idea that the contemporary reader’s worldview was roughly equivalent to the worldview of the first century. Much of the tragedy of the Reformation stemmed from Martin Luther’s belief that St. Paul was battling legalism like Luther was battling “legalism” in the Catholic Church. In other words, Martin Luther sometimes projected his own contemporary crisis onto St. Paul and his letters thus gravely distorting many things. We must deal with the scriptural authors on their own terms and within their own worldview!

The third pillar is theology. Just as each person comes with their own worldview, so too does each person embrace a unique theology. St. Paul does in fact have a different theology than St. John. This does not mean they contradict each other, but rather that they supplement each other. If we are studying Romans, we must be diligent in our endeavors to understand Paul’s own theology. This requires us to study St. Paul’s life seeking to answer particular questions like, “Was Paul a Jew and if so, which Jewish Sect did he come from?” “What kind of Roman education did he have?” “What does it mean that he studied under the great Rabbi Gammalial?” Such questions will help us tremendously to get into the theological mind of Paul.

After mining the exegetical, historical, and theological dimensions of our study we have finally won the right to move to practice! Now it is time to ask the great question, “What does this passage mean to me?” We have stepped outside of ourselves in order to understand the original intention of the passage at hand. In light of this truth which we have discovered through laborious study, we may now apply it to our life with confidence.

I pray these four pillars to a good and healthy bible study are helpful. May God bless you as you read the word of God, and may the information you receive always lead to personal transformation. May God be Praised!

Christmas: Metaphors Need Not Apply

2008-12-24T00:00:00.000-08:00

I would like to suggest a movie to watch as Christmas day approaches. About a couple years ago I had the opportunity to rent The Nativity. My sole expectation of this movie was to provide a few nice personal spiritual reflections for myself. What I actually received that night was an incredible grace from God that brought me to me knees crying. Before I continue, I would like to preface that The Nativity is clearly not a big budget film so don’t expect anything visually grandiose. This is no Passion of the Christ. The angel Gabriel looked as if he had just come from Saturday Night Fever while apparently not having enough time to grab a quick twenty-first century haircut before delivering a rather important message to Mary. Furthermore, the portrayal of Mary is less than satisfying at times. However, all-in-all this was a great film that I recommend to everyone.

While everything up to the last thirty minutes of the movie was great, I had not shed a tear. It was the last ten minutes of this movie that lead me to my knees. When I saw the birth of our Lord my eyes immediately began to glaze over. I was initially speechless and motionless. Then, IT happened. Like water I somehow found myself taking the path of least resistance to my knees. Something had "unlocked" deep in my soul; a wall had been broken, a dam had been shattered and years of built up tears hemorrhaged from my eyes. I hid my face in the cushions of my couch for I had never felt this vulnerable in front of "no one." Thoughts began surfacing as fast as my tears were running down my face. "What have I done to you? Why have I confined you to abstraction for so many years? Please forgive me! I have wasted so much time pursuing you exclusively as a thought! You were child! You were really a child? This is unbelievable! You were actually a baby? I don't understand!" Thoughts like these continued for what felt like hours. I would have been fully content with this intimate encounter with the humanity of Christ, but our Lord wanted me to go deeper. I was still thinking objectively. I believe Christ wanted to meet me in the inner most sanctum of my heart. He did so and with aggression.

As I mentioned above, thoughts kept pouring through my mind as all this was happening. At one point in time (the analytical side of me) I tried processing my emotions. I was moved to my knees with a deluge of tears and I wanted to know why. I tried rationalizing my emotions. As I tried to activate my mind so as to grasp the origin of this emotional state my mind felt as if it was trapped under a freight train. Moving my mind was like trying to bench press a thousand pounds; the effort was futile leading only to exhaustion. I'm reminded of what Chesterton once said about the logician: "The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.” My head was on the verge of splitting so I submitted to the ecstatic power of God.

I had been holding on too tightly to my mind which was preventing me to go to my heart. As soon as I cut that last intellectually dependent thread I fell rapidly to the inner most dwelling place of my heart. I honestly do not know how it happened but it happened. As if the tears could not flow more quickly from my face, when I reached my own heart my entire body collapsed into futility. This is when my own most intimate and deepest longing was revealed to me! I had realized that the yearning in my heart was not to be forgiven, nor to be called a son, nor to be justified, nor to have a free ticket to heaven. My longest desire was to be touched by God! However, any kind of metaphoric touching would not do. I need God to physically touch me. Then it came to me. Before our Lord incarnation, such desires could only be met through metaphor. It was only at the incarnation that my deepest desires could finally be met. This is when I cried to the point of convulsion. Someday, Jesus will reach out his hand toward each and every one of us and physically touch us!

The reason I say all this is to express the beautiful reality that our longing to be embraced by another can be genuinely and physically met by God. No other religion adequately fulfills the natural and human desires of a human being as does Christianity! As we approach Christmas, may our prayers be filled with thanksgiving for we are incredibly grateful for a loving God who wants to fulfill our most human desires (and super-human desires). Have a blessed Christmas. Praised be Jesus Christ!

Attitudes of Understanding and Doing

2008-12-21T08:39:00.000-08:00

As the Nativity of our Lord quickly approaches, we are confronted with a deeply personal question. Have we taken seriously this season of Advent? Have we heeded the Church’s wisdom as she calls us to find a desert so that we may prepare our hearts for the Lord? The desert in this context is referring to repentance, fasting, and introspection. So then, what has our attitude been during this season? If it has been one defined by a constant conversion of the heart then we have run the race well thus far and we only need to finish strong. However, many of us (including myself) may not have responded to this call of preparation as seriously as we would like to have responded. For students, finals can dominate our attention to the point that we feel “forced” to exclude all things not school related. The corporate world is reacting to another business cycle come to an end with an economic future that appears unpredictable and unstable. The pressures from work to capitalize on the remaining days of the 08’ year may be “forcing” many of us to exclude other more “optional” activities so to meet particular seemingly impossible deadlines. Amidst this chaos the Church is reminding us of our true identity: We are not defined by our successes but rather by our sanctity!

We can do next to nothing with our own lives if we do not know who we are. During this season of Advent, what has been our attitude toward understanding more deeply who we are? As Catholics we know we are human beings made in the image and likeness of God. Through our Baptism we know we are also disciples of Jesus Christ with a particular vocation as man or woman. These truths are all very good but have we taken seriously the call to understand who we are as the unique and unrepeatable child of God that each of us is? Have we strived to listen to the voice of the Lord during Mass, or have we become too comfortable with the liturgy to the point of deactivating our minds altogether? Have we listened intently to the Lord only to quickly succumb to the noise of the world thus preventing any real possibility of deep internalization of His voice? It is Christ and only Christ who reveals man as male and female fully to himself or herself! If this is true as we claim it to be, what better way to understand who we are than by reading the life of Jesus Christ. It is never too late to pick up Holy Scripture and begin reading one of the Gospels with the intention to understanding who Jesus is so that we may understand ourselves better! We all desire to give ourselves to another. Jesus provides us the way to do just that. By revealing Himself to us, he reveals our self to our very selves thus opening up new horizons of self-giving love!

This leads us to our attitude of doing. A couple weeks ago I heard a young child ask his mother, “How do we get to heaven?” The response was a startling, “If we live good lives, we go to heaven.” A sinking feeling overwhelmed me when I heard this response. All I could think of was that this child may one day become another disaffected Catholic simply out of misinformation. How many of us believe that as long as we live decent lives, we are doing well with God. Such an assumption makes a mockery of the cross as it reduces such a horrific reality to an illustration of God’s love. I want nothing to do with a God who must send His son to undergo unbearable pain exclusively for “illustrative purposes.” We must be careful not to hold to the forms of our religion while denying the power of it.

We rejoice in our anticipatory hope of the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ! We rejoice because we know that while this mystery of the incarnation communicates to us a reality of what it means to be authentically human, it also provides for us a real transformative power, enabling us to live lives as we were meant to live! Brothers and sisters, we can do NOTHING good without God. Living lives through self-righteousness will only lead to disenchantment and despair. The Christian norm is not one defined by success but rather through the forgiveness of sins. To this end, we are being called to open our hearts to the Lord so that He may heal our rebellious and self-seeking hearts. Responding to Israel’s anxiety as Pharaoh’s army was bearing down on them, Moses says, “The Lord will fight for you, and you have only to be still” (Ex. 14.14). Be still this advent season and allow God to fight for you! However, God waits, like our Immaculate Mother, for own personal fiat to God: our yes to God. May we open our hearts to the Lord with integrity and with a singular vision so that we may be reconciled to God and to others. There is no better way to prepare in this fashion than through taking at least one hour a week before the Blessed Sacrament in adoration. It is here that we can truly be still before the Lord, allowing Him to fight for us!

Finally, in typical paradoxical fashion, Christ desires us to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect (cf. Mat. 5.48). This is where the power of religion must be embraced alongside its forms otherwise such a command will only lead to despair. We cannot achieve such a high standard, but in Christ—and only in Christ—all things are possible (cf. Mat. 19.26)! We are not called to be still for the sake of being still, but rather for the sake of perfection. It is God who works with us for our salvation if only we open our hearts to Him (cf. Rom. 8.28; Eph. 2.10). Such a truth will never lead us to despair but rather hope toward a continued and deepened conversion. We must always remember that while we strive for perfection/excellence, the norm for the Christian is the forgiven sinner.

May we strive with repentant and open hearts to the Lord this Advent Season. May we fall prostrate before our Lord in silence before the Blessed Sacrament so that He may fight for us. May we read the Gospel so that Christ may reveal ourselves to ourselves. May we deepen our conversion this season in renunciation of those things that keep us from Christ. When Christmas comes, I pray that God will look to each of us and say, “Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master” (Mat. 25.21). May God be Praised!

Living a Concrete Ideology

2008-10-11T18:38:00.000-07:00

A student came up to me last week and told me about a discussion she had with a number of other students after a daily Mass. The question that came up from this discussion was whether or not it was healthy for a man to allow a woman to step in front of him in the communion line if she is not his girlfriend. This may sound like a scrupulous question at the surface but I was taken back by the profound theological and anthropological implications undergirding this question. The student’s ambivalent attitude toward her own opinion to this question expressed, in my opinion, the question’s natural complexity.

Those who expressed a desire to limit when a man should encourage a woman to go in front of him did so for good reasons. For starters, such a noble action could ultimately be a distraction. What if the woman genuinely takes such a gesture as a sign of interest on behalf of the man? I have had similar experiences at coffee shops when a nice girl behind the counter would say things like, “This one is on me.” I quickly found myself no longer interested in the drink which had been superseded by wonderment in her actions. One must admit that such a possibility of miscommunication is probable at times, but is such a “remedy” getting to the heart of the matter?

The problem that must be resolved is not “miscommunication” but rather the heart’s disbelief in disinterested love! While the question at hand may appear scrupulous to many, it points to a broader reality. How many times have we questioned the intention of a good action of another? It almost appears as if we are inclined to look at anything good through a lens of suspicion. In other words, behind many good actions lie selfish ends. Of course, such suspicion does not come out of a vacuum but rather from past experience. These tragic experiences of our past come from the life of concupiscence (meaning our fallen nature’s twisted inclination to be self-seeking). Thus, any action to prevent any miscommunication on behalf of the opposite sex—like the communion question—is a genuine coping mechanism for the life of concupiscence that we live in. However, while coping mechanisms are very good and needed, are we not called to something more?

We are called to the redemption of the body (cf. Rom. 8.23). Without Christ, all love (including friendship) can amount to is the accumulation of pleasures which are extremely volatile and unfulfilling. However, in the beginning it was not so (cf. Mat. 19.8). We are empowered and called in Christ to give and receive disinterested love passionately. If the heart of friendship is in the seeking the good of the other, then anything that impedes such ends must seek redemption in the love of the Lord. If that entails a concrete measure such as “coping mechanism” then so be it, but we MUST remember that we are called from repression to redemption! Coping with our fallen humanity is the equivalent to living on spiritual milk (cf. 1 Cor. 3.2). May we continue to open our hearts to the redeeming love of Christ through his Holy Church. Do not be afraid for He longs to fill us with the beatitude that comes from passionate disinterested love! May God be Praised.

Till’ Death Do Us Part: Vows of Both Love and Lust

2008-10-06T10:53:00.000-07:00

I spoke last week about love being the fulfillment of lust. Lust is something we ought not to repress but rather complete with love through the redemption of the body (cf. Rom. 8.23). Our shared fallen humanity has compromised our ability to freely and genuinely see the person in and through the body. Because of this fact we often feel inclined either to indulge in our disordered sexual desires (i.e. animalism/hedonism), or to vehemently oppose them to the extent that we wrongfully conclude that anything associated with the body is bad (i.e. angelism/puritanism). Both attempts to assuage the dilemma of the conscience are antithetical to the Gospel message. The kingdom of God is at hand (cf. Mat. 10.7) and this affords each and every one of us the opportunity to love and even desire to love greatly here and now!

Unfortunately, the devil is rather cunning. He is fully aware of the Gospel message and he opposes it with every ounce of being he has. The Evil One is intimately acquainted with the desires of men and women, and it is through this knowledge that he is able to twist the good we seek into an alluring trap. While we can find some refuge in Lucifer’s inability to create, his mastery in twisting the good into seductive evil is alarming!

This is why both love and lust share similar qualities. All Satan can do is imitate that which is from God; it is always a mockery of that which is true, good and beautiful. We know from the previous column that behind love is the free and genuine gift of oneself to another. Such a gift requires sacrifice if love is to be properly expressed as self-donation. If I am to give myself to another, I must first have some kind of self-mastery, for I cannot give that which I do not have. This self-possession comes in a certain sense from a constant desire and willingness to die to oneself in those areas that compromise self-mastery. Thus, the essence of love can be seen as death to self (cf. Jn. 15.13).

In the brilliance of seduction, Satan has finely tweaked love so that it might maintain much of what humanity desires, yet lend itself the opportunity to lead to perdition rather than life! Lust shares many of the same attributes of love only the directional force of love has changed. In other words, lust is simply love turned inward. Rather than seeing the other as inherently worthy of the gift of oneself, we tend to see the other as a gift to oneself!

In this finely constructed twisting of love, lust also lends itself to death. This is part of the mockery of love! While love is the death to self, lust is the death of self. Such a distinction brilliantly articulates the seductive power of Lucifer’s ways! In the phrase “death of self,” Lust expresses itself as a paralyzing force. The connective “of” denotes the passive nature of this vice. Through the expression of lust we quickly begin to lose self-control to the point of being taken captive by its power (cf. 4 Macc. 1.3; Prov. 11.6). Lust leads to enslavement which is death!

On the other hand, the phrase “death to self,” expresses activity/life by the connective “to.” The phrase is deeply theological as it expresses both death and life within the same breath. Fundamental to love is both death and resurrection. When we deny ourselves in the name of self-mastery we are free to give of ourselves genuinely and completely to the other. Love is freedom.

While the distinctions between love and lust may appear subtle, the practical applications of these distinctions are self-evident. We love when are able to make sacrifices that may not accord with our own desires. There may be times in a relationship that you may be called to sacrifice something for the good of another (cf. 1 Cor. 9). Consider such moments a blessing from God Who calls you to love! We have a right to pursue that which is good, but sometimes we must forsake a good for the better! This is the fundamental distinction between love and lust. We cannot do this on our own. It is only through the redemption of the body through Jesus Christ that we will be able to desire the good of another in spite of our own desires. May God be Praised!

Stereograms and the Relationship Between Love and Lust

2008-09-28T20:29:00.000-07:00

I have always had a difficult time seeing the image behind a stereogram. You know those pictures that at the surface look like colored static, but “behind” all the seemingly chaotic colors lay a concrete image? I attempted to get behind this grand mystery of the allusive image through a little research. I learned that I was engaging the picture too actively. Instead of staring at the picture intently, I was suppose to relax my eyes and see “through” the picture. With this new information in place, I approached the picture again under full expectation that I would see this hidden treasure. Low and behold, I saw nothing yet once again. Needless to say, I was a little disappointed at my ability to see beyond the surface of these seeming entertaining stereograms.

All this being said, I am quite surprised how closely the human body reflects a stereogram. In the same way the seemingly random colors on a stereogram actually reflect a concrete image to those who have eyes to see, so to does the human body reflect the person beautifully to those who have the eyes to see! Unfortunately, sin has twisted and darkened our ability to see the person reflected in the body perfectly. Instead of relaxing the eyes and seeing “through” the body, we may catch ourselves starring intently at another person with the desire to take that person to ourselves. In other words, we find ourselves starring for the sole reason to feed a passion that has arisen in our own body.

This is the distinction between love and lust. Lust is simply love turned inward. With respect to the stereogram, if we look at the picture too intensely with the purpose to “grasp” the image behind the picture we will never see it; we will simply have to do with looking at random colors. However, if we can train ourselves to relax the eyes so as to receive the picture, thus freeing us to see through the picture, we will find the hidden treasure which is reflected in the seemingly random colors. This is love!

Each of us is called to see through the body so that we may behold what the body is reflecting: a unique person worthy of love! Unfortunately, due to sin, our eyes gravitate toward viewing another through the lens of “grasping” rather than “gifting.” Similar to what I have to do with the stereogram I long to view properly, we must retrain ourselves to see beauty in its entirety. The road to this freedom to love may be long for some, but it is certainly worth it.

Jesus Christ has given His life for us so that we may live life abundantly (cf. Jn. 10.10). He wants was to be able to fulfill our deepest desires to love and to be loved. Christ continually gives Himself to the Church through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass so that those who cling to the Church may love as Christ loved: a passion-filled love overflowing with a love that is stronger than death. We are called to love greatly, and we have the ability only because we are greatly loved by Jesus Christ. If it hasn’t been considered already, maybe try daily Mass as a way to see the Lord “behind” things that seem like bread and wine.

Reconciling Two Ideologies in Jesus Christ

2008-09-17T15:16:00.000-07:00

Growing up as a child, my father would repeat to me over and over again his belief that the overwhelming majority of conflicts between people originated from one initial problem: a lack of communication. This familial mantra had (and continues to have) a profound impact on my life. In fact, one might say that I have become somewhat hypersensitive to “miscommunication” in light of this teaching. Honestly, my nearly OCD attention to communication may have less to do with the “familial mantra” and more to do with the fact that while I was inculcated with this lesson early on in my life, I did not always see it lived out in our own home. While I believe my family did in fact value communication, it was not something always passionately lived out.

I say all this because I have become increasingly aware of the ideological polarity between the generations that surround me and the “baby-boomer” generations. On one end of the spectrum lay the belief that life is preeminently lived through duty, obligation, and responsibility. On the other end of the spectrum lay the conviction that life is all about living according to one’s own desires and passions. One generation gravitates toward the objective measure of happiness in exclusion to the subjective, while the other embraces the subjective reality of life in exclusion to the objective. While this is an over-simplification of the generational differences, I believe the general conclusions are accurate.

Both generational ideologies are inadequate and are in need of redemption. In the process of excluding the subjective for the objective, the older generations have potentially diminished their ability to have genuine self-knowledge, inhibiting their ability to communicate themselves deeply, freely, and lovingly. Such relationships have a tendency to be stable but passionless. On the other hand, the younger generations have whole-heartedly embraced the subjective in rejection of the objective. This is the generation of “self-help” books which call the individual into deep introspection and self-knowledge. Unfortunately, while full of passion, many relationships are incredibly unstable going through multiple breakups. The rejection of the objective has led to consumer-based relationships which is ultimately unfulfilling.

All of this may sound rather dismal and depressing, but there is GREAT news! St. Paul always would acknowledge the problem before proclaiming the solution from the rooftops. The problem has been articulated and now we await the solution which is here if only we are willing to receive it. We have been wrestling with the deeply personal problem between what we ought to do and what we actually feel like doing. However, in the beginning, it was NOT so (cf. Mat. 19.8). Our passions and the truth of our humanity were originally perfectly integrated, and Christ has come in the flesh to reintegrate our fleshly desires with the truth of our humanity.

Christianity is not some pie-in-the-sky dream, but rather a here-and-now reality of transformation. Christ desires to redeem our passions so that we may be free to love passionately all that is true, good, and beautiful. The ideologies above are genuine but inadequate solutions to the problem of our humanity. It is only in Christ that we will be able to be loved and to love others as we were created to love; passionately and with complete self-donation! The more we find ourselves before the Blessed Sacrament, the more this dream will become a reality. May God be Praised!

Marriage and Celibacy: Reflecting Images

2008-07-02T08:29:00.000-07:00

Transcending all my classes at Denver Seminary was the phrase, “already but not yet.” In a sense, the student could forget all else, but “already but not yet” was too critical to escape the mind and lips of the Christian. We know that redemption has been offered to us as a gift from God through the blood of Jesus Christ (cr. Jn. 3.16). The second person of the blessed trinity took on flesh so that the entire human being both body and soul could be restored into its original integrity. In other words, Christ has come so that we may love and be loved as we were created to love! This truth of the Gospel message articulates the “already” of the phrase already but not yet.

We also recognize that even though we have been baptized into Christ’s death, have received His real body and blood through the Eucharist, and have been sealed with the Holy Spirit through confirmation, we still do not always love the way we desire to love. As St. Paul beautifully confesses, “I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate” (Rom. 7.15). What St. Paul humbly expresses reflects the “not yet” element of the phrase. While salvation in Christ is offered to each and every person here and now, its full effects will not be felt until He comes again. Our king has conquered death and is currently standing before the throne of God in heaven, continually offering supplications of Himself for all the sins committed in the world (cf. Heb. 8.1-3; 9:11-14). However, he will come back to us one day to fully inaugurate His kingdom He established upon the cross. This is a cursory reflection of what lies behind the theological phrase, already but not yet.

The point of application is in the inner integrity of the tension in the phrase already but not yet. Both the already and the not yet must be retained for the Gospel to maintain its salvific potency. A Christian who solely focuses on the “already” is doomed to scrupulosity, becoming a slave to the external law from which we were freed from in Christ. On the other hand, the Christian who restricts the faith to “not yet” rejects the salvific power of the cross for humanity resulting in an existential crisis. We can never be better than we are since we will always be a product of our fallen nature says the “not yet” Christian. The “both/and” Christian understands that there is real power in the cross for healing, but is still fully aware of his/her disordered desires that remain even after conversion.

The most concrete reality of this phrase is made manifest in the relationship between marriage and celibacy. Like already but not yet, marriage and celibacy must be held closely together for the power of the Gospel to be made manifest. In fact, marriage expresses the not yet of the kingdom of heaven while celibacy expresses the already of Christ’s inaugurated kingdom. In the truth and personal beauty of marriage, we image the inner life of the Trinity and the marriage of Christ and His Church through our intimate true communion of persons. In this image, we have hope that the sacrament of marriage will one day be fulfilled when are fully lifted up into the eternal exchange of love within the Trinity. Thus, marriage expresses the not yet of the kingdom, but a hopeful not yet!

On the other hand, celibacy in a sense bypasses the sacrament of marriage to taste more immediately that which marriage beautifully and mysteriously points toward. In the renunciation of conjugal love, celibacy in fact reveals the inner truth and divine direction of the conjugal act which is complete gift of self from God to man and man’s complete gift of self to God! Thus, a Christian who discerns one’s vocation in complete exclusion of celibacy risks reducing the sacrament of marriage to an end rather than a means to complete and eternal communion with God. Marriage is no longer a sacred bond which expresses God’s own love, but rather simply something a couple does when they like each other “enough.” On the other hand, a Christian who discerns celibacy in complete exclusion of marriage risks scrupulosity and its negative effects because they have lost the image of the hope that stands before them; the hope of being raptured with God’s divine love!

It is safe to conclude then that a proper understanding and appreciation of marriage is most fully met with a proper understanding and appreciation of celibacy (and vice versa). In and through celibacy, marriage is seen to be a sacred place whereby a male and female can give of themselves completely and entirely without reservation thus imaging the unseen divine exchange of love within the Trinity. In addition, the reflection of marriage in the mirror of priestly celibacy expresses not only a call to physical fatherhood and motherhood through gift of self, but also spiritual fatherhood and motherhood. We are called to teach our children the faith.

We are blessed at St. Toms to have such wonderful priests who joyfully embrace their vocation. I pray that everyone who has embraced the vocation of marriage may look to strengthen their marriages even more through the lens of celibacy which has been graciously presented to us through Father Kevin and Father Peter. Their sacrifice lends us the opportunity to perfect our weaknesses! In the same way, may the wonderful marriages of St. Tom’s continue to transform and strengthen their priestly vocation. May God be praised!

Seeking the Unrepeatable in Another

2008-06-10T09:39:00.000-07:00

What would the world be like if “misunderstandings” ceased to exist? What if every person you met understood you completely upon meeting you? Taking this a radical step further, what if everyone loved you in that understanding? Do we not feel at the core of our being a deep-seated desire to be understood as we are? Unfortunately, perceptions of others do not unmistakably mirror the desires of our heart. The “noise” of the world and the distortions of life that we have experienced collide with our desires and wreaks havoc with them, often times leaving a fundamental part of who we are unrecognizable to the other.

While this portrait may appear somewhat grim, it does not need to be. There is good news! Behind the desire to be understood is the profound longing to be loved “unrepeatedly.” Each one of us is a unique person created from the infinite loving wisdom of God. We are unique and unrepeatable. This unrepeatable dimension to each human being is literally chiseled into our bodies down to the seemingly irrelevant thumb print. Our bodies bear witness to the unrepeatable person, extending an invitation to be loved in a similarly unique and unrepeatable way. Unfortunately, Original Sin has darkened the body’s ability to proclaim the unrepeatable person by proposing to us that there is a disconnect between our spiritual and sensual self. Herein lay the origin of the conflict between the world and the desires of human nature.

However, in the beginning it was not so! Adam saw Eve and immediately proclaimed, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Gen. 2. 23-24). In 21^st century language Adam is saying, “From the moment you created me Lord I have felt some kind of void, a desire to be understood. You blessed me with all the animals in the world, but even after naming them the void remained; they were different than me for they could not understand me. The very physicality of my body visually proclaims the deepest desires of my heart; the desire for complete personal communion. Alas, this desire is fulfilled in this woman who stands before me. I see immediately stamped upon her body the unrepeatable person which differs from all creation. It is this unique woman whom I love and desire to serve!”

Adam could look at Eve with perfect integrity! This is what is meant in Genesis 2.25 when Scripture speaks of Adam and Eve being naked without shame. Our first two parents were able to unhesitatingly and always see the unique, unrepeatable person in the body of the other.

We also know that such perfect integrity did not last long. Seven verses later we hear after The Fall, “. . .and they knew they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons” (Gen. 3.7). After taking action to serve themselves rather than serve their God, something fundamentally changed within Adam and Eve’s relationship. They could remember the prior integrity of the body revealing the person, but now they felt something very different; enough to the point of clothing themselves due to the new experience of shame. Adam no longer viewed Eve as an unrepeatable subject to prize, but rather a repeatable object to be utilized for his own satisfaction! This is what we have inherited from our first parents. As St. Paul bone-chillingly cries, “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death” (Rom. 7.24).

“Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 7.25)! Notice how St. Paul places these dramatic verses back-to-back. Yes, we are wretched indeed. I want to love perfectly but I fall short. Thinking exclusively in terms of our fallen nature, we are left with only two options: First, we can simply succumb to our distorted desires believing that this will be the best we can ever be. Second, we could just repress the desire. Unfortunately such repression becomes a sleeping giant waiting to be released in terrible ways. But to the Christian there is a third way, and it is a beautiful way! God took on a human body so that the human body may be lifted into and participate in the eternal exchange of divine love which is perfect eros (passion) and agape (will). God has extended us a gift! He has lovingly offered us a way to love the other freely and without distortion; to see the unrepeatable person in the body of another!

An important question remains. How do we tap into this divine gift? The gift is preeminently offered to each and every one of us through the sacramental life of the Church. In the sacrament of baptism we are placed into the perfect body of Christ. Through the Holy Eucharist we receive the body of Christ which strengthens and heals our own bodies. Through frequent confession we rely on the fact that the redemption of our own bodies is not by our own accord! The battle has been fought and won; we need only to receive the gift of redemption. I pray that each of us will be able to find time each day to stand still before the Lord. To open our hearts to Him who is the exclusive healer of our distorted desires. If we can muster the strength to remove that fig leaf from ourselves before God, by the Grace of God we may one day be able to see the unrepeatable of the other with our own eyes as Adam beheld Eve! How beautiful that day will be!

The Power of Testimony

2008-05-15T00:00:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to give a testimony concerning God’s work in my life to nearly 100 students and parishioners from St. Tom’s. Although I knew I would be giving this talk over a month before the event, I did not begin preparing until three days prior. My initial thought was that “testimony preparation” could be something done at the last minute since it requires absolutely no research. While a visit to the local library was clearly not in order (assuming that no one has written a biography of me yet), it did require a prolonged examination of the soul that, after reflection, took much more energy than any long day at the library. It is true that my past encompasses many joys but it is also deeply imbued with sorrows and regrets. I was forced to look at both sides of the introspective coin so as to present an authentic portrayal of my journey to faith in Jesus Christ. Amidst this reflection, two illuminating thoughts came to me that I would like to share with you.

The first revolves around the very nature of my reflection. As the final preparations were made to my testimony I felt an increased sense of “self-existence.” I realized that my past was not a self-enclosed reality, but rather a reality that was and still is intimately tied to who and where I am today. Due to the demands of the present, I have spent little to no time reflecting upon my past over the previous few years. Being confronted with it now, my mind was opened to the reality that who I was is as much a part of who I am now. Only upon death, by the grace of God, will my past, present, and future conflate to one eternal present in heaven. In other words, I will be completely me! All the joys of my life will be re-experienced but on an infinite level. All the sorrows and regrets will be redeemed by the blood of Christ, and transformed into infinite joys.

Of course, these gifts are given to us, barring we do not abandon Christ and His Holy Church. This is why our actions are all the more important to a Christian. To a member of the Body of Christ, every decision made is literally a self-defining moment. It is only by the graces afforded to us by God that we can make good and fruitful decisions, thus expanding our spiritual vessel to receive even more graces. I am much more aware now of the consequences of my actions, and I have become even more dependent on God for His infinite mercy in my life!

The second thought elaborates on a truth stated above. Life inevitably throws sorrows and regrets our way. While having hope that such tragedies will ultimately be redeemed in Heaven, what about now? Is God actively involved in healing psychological, emotional, and spiritual wounds at the present moment? If my testimony holds any persuasion, then the answer is yes!

The turning point in my journey of faith revolves around a rather rocky breakup during college. Brook and I had been dating for just over a year when the unexpected breakup occurred. I quickly spiraled into a significant depression. I loathed God for His “indiscretion” regarding my life.

While I would never go back to relive the emotional, psychological, and spiritual pain that occurred during this breakup, I’m incredibly thankful for it. This event ultimately became God’s megaphone to rouse me from my spiritual slumber. If it wasn’t for this valley in my life, I would have never experienced the peaks of freedom in Christ. If it wasn’t for the breakup, I might never have become Christian. If it wasn’t for this breakup, I don’t think I would have become the Catholic I am now. And if it wasn’t for this breakup, my father would not have rededicated himself to the Catholic Church ultimately giving his life in service as a deacon. The joys that rest upon this hurtful event are nearly endless. I must also add that Brook was baptized and received into full communion with the Catholic Church because of this event.

While life is difficult at times, God always remains good. I pray that amidst the valleys in our own lives, we would remain steadfast in God’s love, knowing that He does in fact have a beautiful plan for each and everyone one of our lives (cf. Jer. 29.11-14).

I Pray Thee: A Defense for the Intercession of the Saints

2008-05-10T13:36:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite bands has a song called “All My Heroes.” In this song the chorus goes like this: “You took away all my heroes. You shoved away, you threw away all my heroes, and now I can’t seem to find my way back home. You threw away . . .”. I cannot help but to think of my days as an Evangelical when I hear this song. As I have stated in my previous columns, I’m incredibly grateful for my days as an Evangelical as they prepared me for God’s ultimate call to come home to the Roman Catholic Church. However, as I reflect on those days I am saddened for the lack of devotion I gave to the great saints of the past (and present). It is in the midst of this sadness that the words from this song become my own. I look to the “Evangelical Matt,” and I ask him with quivered voice, “Why did you throw away your heroes?”

I could imagine myself responding boldly in a number of ways: “1) I have only one ‘hero,’ and his name is Jesus Christ. 2) Such veneration of these heroes of yours is spoken of nowhere in Scripture! 3) In fact, going to saints for mediation is anti-biblical because Scripture is clear that there is only ONE mediator and that is Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Tim. 2.5)! 4) Finally, by praying to saints you worship them, and worship is restricted for God alone!”

These four brief arguments can be quite compelling to many Catholics. Unfortunately, their power of persuasion has less to do with the veracity of the claims, and more to do with a lack of proper Catholic catechesis. So then, is it in fact true that Catholics worship the saints when they pray to them, engage in anti-biblical doctrines, and place the saints on par with the saving merits of Jesus Christ? The answer is an obvious no!

One of the most common objections from evangelicals revolves around the belief that praying is equivalent to worship. Such an association is a gross exaggeration of the biblical text. Like English, Greek can have many different words meaning roughly the same thing. Whether I tell you I went running or jogging today, the meaning is nearly identical. Similarly, Greek has at least six different uses for “prayer” which can be found in the New Testament. Some uses are strictly for petitions between men and God (i.e. proseukomai), while other forms are used for petitions between people (i.e. deomai). However, both mean to pray (or petition which is what pray means). The only difference is in the object of the petition: some petitions have as their object other people while some have as their object God. For instance, the eunuch in Acts 8, after hearing on Old Testament prophecy of Jesus from Philip, responds, “About whom, pray, does the prophet say this . . .” (vs. 34, RSV, emphasis mine). Notice how the eunuch “petitions” Philip for an answer and what is the word chosen? Yes, to pray! Prayer is not reduced to a function of worship, but rather its primary use is as an expression of petition which can have as its object both human and divine. Thus, Catholicism has not (nor ever) blurred the line between Creator and creature. She remains in full integrity with Holy Scripture (as always)!

Another objection stated above deals with the primacy of Jesus Christ for salvation and how the intercession of saints allegedly compromises that primacy. Many non-Catholics will quote 1 Tim. 2.5 as their “proof” for this argument. After all, the verse is clear that Jesus Christ is the sole mediator between God and man. How do we Catholics make sense of such a “threatening” scriptural text? That answer is quite simple really. First, if Jesus Christ is truly the sole mediator in all respects between God and man then what do we make of such scriptural texts as Mt. 5.44, Lk. 6.28, and Acts 8.15 when we are called to pray for others? Isn’t praying for others precisely a function of being a mediator between a particular person and God? Do not both Catholics and Protestants alike ask others to pray for them? What then is 1 Timothy speaking of when the text speaks of Christ’s exclusive role as mediator? To answer this we must make the distinction between a mediator for salvation and a mediator of salvation. There is only one mediator for salvation, and that is Jesus Christ. There is no other name in which man can be saved (cf. Acts. 4.12). However, there are many mediators of salvation. In other words, while there is only one name in which humanity can be saved, there are many names that can bring “other names” to the “one name” who is Christ our Lord. Again, intercessory prayer does not diminish the primacy of Christ. Yes, we have one “Hero” for our salvation, but we have many heroes who have lived the life in the One Hero and who have become our witnesses to hope!

Finally, we come to the objection that the veneration of and praying to saints is nowhere to be found in Scripture. It is good to begin such a contentious topic as this with a definition of terms. Equivocation, using a word with two or more definitions with an implicit intent to deceive, is at the center of most failed arguments. For the sake of this column, we only need to clarify ‘veneration.’ Webster’s definition of ‘veneration’ is “respect or awe inspired by the dignity, wisdom, dedication, or talent of a person.” Knowing that all dignity, wisdom, and talent have for their origin in God, I find it an unthinkable travesty to deny or diminish the fruits of God’s work in human lives through a rejection of devotion to the great saints of the past and present.

As for a Scriptural example of veneration, did not St. Paul exhort the Philippian community to imitate himself (cf. Php. 3.15)? This exhortation is all the more shocking when one realizes that the apostle had only verses earlier wrote a beautiful Christological hymn (cf. Php. 2.5-11). Such a poetic masterpiece would have been the ideal opportunity to exhort the community to imitate Christ. Instead, St. Paul continues to write about himself in light of the Christological hymn, only after that does he call for an imitation; an imitation of himself (cf. Php. 3.1-16). Did St. Paul usurp the glory and honor due only to God through a self-aggrandizement? By no means! Imitating Christ is the ideal, but Christ’s perfection is due to his own person, not by grace. On the other hand, St. Paul’s spiritual mastery is due to grace. By imitating the saints we do not threaten God’s glory, but rather concretize or ground it existentially in human life.

We must now look at the Biblical evidence for the saints being alive, very near to use, able to actually hear us, and a powerful intercessory advocate for salvation.

The Sadducees were a Jewish sect that did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. One day, the sect challenged Christ’s teaching on the resurrection (cf. Mt. 22.23-33). In response, Jesus quoted Exodus 3:6 which spoke of Yahweh being the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (cf. vs. 32). The apologetic force of this quotation was due to God’s use of the present tense when referring to the three greatly venerated figures. God is still (not was) the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob even centuries after their death. Thus, they are still very much alive! How much more are the saints of Christ alive since Christ has destroyed death.

The author of the Letter to the Hebrews takes the life of the deceased saints a step further. In chapter eleven, the faith of the great Old Testament “saints” is praised, drawn out for encouragement to the community. Exactly how these righteous men and women are to be an encouragement is not explained until chapter twelve. Here we see that we are never alone. Yes, God is always with us, but it is never simply “He and I.” Rather, the saints surround us continuously as a “cloud of witness”, supporting and encouraging us as we finish strong in the name of our Lord (cf. Heb. 12.1).

Can these saints hear us? The answer to that lay in chapters four and five of the Book of Revelation. These chapters paint two beautiful but very different portraits of liturgical worship, and what divides these two liturgical settings is the Christ event. Chapter four is rich in Temple imagery. Worship is given to God but in a way that may appear awkward to some readers. The angels of heaven are singing with only silence coming from earth below (cf. Rev. 4.8-11). There is a divide between heaven and earth. However, in chapter five, liturgical worship takes an enormous leap forward. The great chasm between heaven and earth has been destroyed through the cross of Jesus Christ. The worship of God continues. Now, however, heaven and earth sing glory to God in unison (cf. Rev. 5.13-14)! The saints in heaven can hear us clearly so we ought to ask them to intercede on our behalf.

Why ought we ask them to intercede for us? Because the righteous person’s prayer has incredible power (cf. Jms. 5.18). Who is more righteous than the saints in heaven? Pray and pray hard. Pray to these holy men and women who have fought the good fight and have come out victorious! Pray to the great saints of the Church for intercession, and pray with confidence that your prayer will be received before the throne of God with purity and persuasion!

I would like to end with a brief story from my own life regarding a saintly hero who had found me long before I had found him. Whether this event happened weeks preceding or proceeding my reversion is unknown to me nor does it matter. What I do know is that my heart was burning for Christ and his Church at the time.

It was midway through the spring semester of 2000. I had finished classes for the day so I headed home for some downtime. Like most students, downtime means TV. I threw my bag on my bed and proceeded to the living room for some mindless amusement. Unfortunately, afternoon viewing is filled with Soap Operas and Court TV. I found myself peddling through the channels over and over again, clicking the remote endlessly so as to “beat some time.” Just before falling into a mind-numbing trance, an image caught my eye on the TV. The image was of a man, but not any ordinary man. I recognized him, but how since I had never seen him in my life? I remember distinctly hearing in my head, “Oh, I know him. He is responsible for me reversion.” The thought came to me entirely void of emotion and as a simple “matter of fact.” Intrigued by this thought of mine, I decided to find out who this man was. Less than a minute into the show I hear the words, “Blessed Padre Pio was . . .”. I had no idea what blessed meant nor was I formally acquainted with a Padre Pio. The only thing I was convinced of was that Padre Pio knew me quite well, and it was time for me to get formally acquainted with my long ignored spiritual father.

It was a year after this event before I began reading about Padre Pio, and it was then that I first learned that this heroic saint had chosen “spiritual sons” to dedicate his life to in prayer. In fact this has always been a unique charism of his. I’m incredibly humbled by St. Padre Pio’s dedication to me. I know not why, for I am truly unworthy. Maybe that is the reason why. I simply need his prayers otherwise I will fade away into the bankrupt temptations of this world. After all, I am here today because of St. Pio. I pray that each of us discovers the saints who are pursuing us intensely for the greater Glory of God. St. Padre Pio, Pray for Us!

Memory of Tiffany

2007-09-04T21:06:00.000-07:00

Dear Tiffany,

You know my life has been different ever since you left, right? I do owe you an enormous apology though! I ignore you often and I'm sorry Tiffany! I really am! I'm sitting here looking at your picture from your memorial and I'm crying. See, this is why I ignore you! It hurts! In less than two days it will have been four years since the night that changed my life. Since then I have wrestled with keeping people at a distance so as to make them disposable. I honestly do not want to hurt like that again! I have other apologies! I'm sorry for never visiting the last piece of earth you touched while you were still alive! I guess I'm just scared! I'm scared of missing you, I'm scared of having feelings I cannot control, I'm scared of wanting you back to the point that I have contention with God, I'm scared . . . I'm just scared. I'm sorry for not answering the phone at 11:30 am the day you died only because I knew what you wanted; you wanted me to take your shift at Starbucks and I knew it. We both know my answering that phone call would have most likely changed the outcome. My consolation is in the providential hand of our Lord! Without such Truth I would not have been able to handle the weight of being the remote cause of your death! I'm sorry!

Things have changed since I last spoke to you Tiffany. I know how excited you were about a few things that were happening in my life at the time. I don't think I have ever met anyone who was so excited for me regarding potential dating relationships! :-) You longed for me to be so happy and every part of your being reflected that; you genuinely wanted me to be so happy! I miss your smile which was so full of hope and encouragement! Every girl I meet I always think of whether you'd approve Tiffany! Where are you when I need you the most!!!?? God have mercy on me because I'm such a selfish fool! You are happy now and all I ever I wanted was for you to be happy! Why do I desire to take you away from that?

This letter is utterly futile and I'm sorry (yes, again)! I can't explain in words how much I miss you, how much my life would have been blessed by your friendship to this day! I hope you don't mind but I think I may try and write you tomorrow as well. I just need to talk to you and I feel this is my only way at the moment. I'm sure you are aware of the struggles in my life so just pray for me! Help me to see the beauty in the ambiguities in life. With all my heart, I miss you Tiffany Phillips!

Stop with the Metaphors!

2007-07-25T23:15:00.000-07:00

I admit it, I'm a sucker for those Papa John's promotions that are sticky-taped to the top of those fabulous pizza boxes! After three temptations to "receive one free month of Blockbuster online access" with purchase of a large pizza, I caved in! I peeled off the coupon, played with the sticky-tape substance thingy for about three minutes, and then proceeded to my Dell Inspiron E1705 with Windows Vista Ultimate to insert the invaluable e-coupon code for a month of entertainment bliss!! Five minutes later I was up and running with a queue of about twenty five movies waiting to find my home address!!

One of the first movies that came to my doorstep was "The Nativity." I was intending to see it when it came out in the theaters last Christmas but for some reason I never found the time. Well, now it was in my living room beckoning me to insert it into my Xbox (FYI, I don't use it for video games oddly enough!). Feeling bored out of my mind I thought, "What the heck?" Lying on the couch, I committed to half a sit up (which was half too many), pivoted, stood up, inserted the DVD, and like water I took the path of least resistance back to the couch (it was a lazy evening)! All along I did not realize that God had predestined this evening to be one of the most memorable nights of my life. This evening would end with me dropping to my knees while crying to the point of convulsion! Herein lies, as Paul eloquently states, "the rest of the story."

To begin, "The Nativity" is clearly not a big budget film! This is no "Passion of the Christ." The angel Gabriel looked as if he had just come from "Saturday Night Fever" while clearly not having enough time to grab a quick 21st century haircut before delivering a rather important message to Mary. Furthermore, those of you who are faithful Catholics may find the portrayal of Mary as less than satisfying at times. However, all-in-all this was a great film that I recommend it to everyone.

One such commendation regards the portrayal of Joseph! ALL men MUST watch this movie if only for the portrayal of Joseph! I'm convinced that every woman who watches this movie will have their heart melted by Joseph. I'm also convinced that the majority of men will watch Joseph in utter admiration all-the-while shuttering deep within themselves, grieving their emasculated self! I shall save this topic for another blog! For now, I'm sorry to all the women who cannot find a real man! I simply ask for your prayers and encouragement that we may one day take the call seriously to become courageous, risky, determined, fearless, and holy men of God!

At this point in time you may begin to wonder if I'm ever going to get to the "good part" of the evening. Well, you need not wait any longer! Everything up to the last thirty minutes of the movie was great, but I had not shed a tear. However, the last ten minutes changed everything!

It is rather simple, really. When I saw the birth of our Lord my eyes immediately began to glaze over. I was initially absolutely speechless and motionless. Then, IT happened. Again, like water I somehow found myself taking the path of least resistance to my knees. Something had "unlocked" deep in my soul; a wall had been broken, a dam had been shattered and years of built up tears hemorrhaged from my eyes! The TV was no longer visible as it was like viewing a film from behind a waterfall. I hid my face in the cushions of my couch! Why? After all, no one was around! I hid my face in utter shame! I had never felt this vulnerable in front of "no one." Thoughts began surfacing as fast as my tears were running down my face. "What have I done to you? Why have I confined you to abstraction for so many years? Please forgive me! I have wasted so much time pursuing you exclusively as a thought! You were child! You were really a child? This is unbelievable!! You were actually a baby? I don't understand!" Thoughts like these continued for what felt like hours! I would have been fully content with this intimate encounter with the humanity of Christ, but our Lord wanted me to go deeper! I was still thinking objectively. I believe Christ wanted to meet me in the inner most sanctum of my heart. He did so and with aggression!

As I mentioned above, thoughts kept pouring through my mind as all this was happening. At one point in time (the analytical side of me) I tried processing my emotions. I was moved to my knees with a deluge of tears and I wanted to know why. I tried rationalizing my emotions. As I tried to activate my mind so as to grasp the origin of this emotional state my mind felt as if it was trapped under a freight train! It could not move! It was like trying to bench press a thousand pounds; the effort was futile leading only to exhaustion. Returning to a quote from a previous posting, I'm reminded of what Chesterton once said about the logician: "The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.” My head was on the verge of splitting so I submitted to the ecstatic power of God.

I had been holding on too tightly to my mind which was preventing me to go to my heart. As soon as I cut that last intellectually dependent thread I fell rapidly to the inner most dwelling place of my heart. I honestly do not know how it happened but it happened. As if the tears could not flow more quickly from my face, when I reached my own heart my entire body collapsed into futility! This is when my own most intimate and deepest longing was revealed to me! I had realized that the yearning in my heart was not to be forgiven, nor to be called a son, nor to be justified, nor to have a free ticket to heaven. My longest desire was to be touched by God!!! I NEED that. However, any kind of metaphoric touching will not do. I NEED God to physically touch me. Then it came to me! Before our Lord's mysterious incarnation, such desires could only be met through metaphor. It was only in 4/3 BC that my deepest desires could finally be met. This is when I cried to the point of convulsion. Someday, Jesus will reach out his hand toward me and He will touch me! Really touch me! I'm crying as I type this. I need no words from Him. I just want Him to touch me! Man, I want that so badly it hurts.

I have spoken about the "narrative of life" in previous entries of my blog. I want to make it clear that such a longing to be physically touched by God can only be fulfilled as a Christian. No other religion adequately fulfills the natural and human desires of a human being as does Christianity! I implore any of you who are reading this and not currently Christian to take seriously the call to become a disciple of Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church! He is real and He desperately wants to embrace you in NO equivocal terms!

As for the men reading this! I firmly believe you share this same longing if only you'd be willing to reside in the depths of your own heart for more than a second. Why do you constantly struggle with sexual purity? You have bought into a counterfeit that will never satiate your true desire to be physically touched by God! You go from one woman to the next all-the-while never finding fulfillment. You intensify your sexual adventures which ultimately lead to disappointment. Don't get me wrong, women are beautiful and they profoundly point to the Eternal Beauty who is God! However, it is simply unfair to place responsibilities on a woman that only God can fulfill!

Why do you demand perfection from the one your dating all-the-while excusing yourself from every selfish action? Do you recognize that there is someone who is perfect out there that you long to be physically touched by? Yes!! There is! He is the incarnate Son of God who wants to fulfill your most human desires (and super-human desires)! Until you are able to reorder your spiritual life toward God, your human life will be bankrupt, shallow, and full of contradictions which will poison any future (and existing) relationships.

This posting has become much longer than expected! I think it's time to get to bed! May God Bless You!

A Reflection on Suffering

2007-04-01T19:55:00.000-07:00

Given that we are entering into Holy Week I thought I would share with you a reflection on suffering I sent to my father nearly a year ago. He was working on a homily and humbly reached out to his children regarding any insights we could share about the mystery of suffering in light of the tension between God's sovereignty and human responsibility. I cannot share all of the email with you since some of it is personal! May God Bless You this Holy Week!

Dad,

You ask a very difficult question. No answer will ultimately be sufficient. This is where we tap into the lives of our great suffering saints, and allow them to paint for us a picture (although opaque at times) of redemptive suffering (see Salvifici Doloris by John Paul II).

I begin with Tiffany’s life. I met with Missy (Tiffany’s twin sister) the night after the funeral. She was distraught because many of her friends were telling her that “God was not in this tragedy; it was a mistake.” This did not comfort Missy! Truth of the matter is that God is sovereign, and He is in control of everything. He either wills things for Himself or He allows things to happen due to the gift of free will and the effects of the fall (which did not only affect humanity but the entire cosmos: "For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body." (Romans 8:22-23, NASB95)). To make a long story short I sat down with Missy and explained my perception of Tiffany’s life. Tiffany was an incredible woman. Her life really represented the Psalms of David. Like David, she did not hesitate to express her anger, confusion, and even disappointment to God! All that to say, no matter how she was feeling at the moment, she remained steadfast to God’s promises!! Truly an inspiration. You have no idea the life she led; it was a difficult one stained by familial disappointment and abandonment, and many other terrible things! Nevertheless, she remained faithful to her Heavenly Father!

I would talk with Tiffany often, and I would ask her what she thought God wanted her to do with her life. Tiffany had no answer and that frustrated her. She continuously asked God for direction, but the only direction she received was to come to Denver Seminary; after that, God was silent!!! Now, in hindsight, I see that God’s silence was much more telling than previous thought. Silence is communication, and silence is directive. Why else would we give someone the “silent treatment?” It is effective even if that is a juvenile use of silence.

....

...

I have not told very many people, but Tiffany called me at 11:05am (about four hours before her death). She wanted me to take her shift at Starbucks so she could finish the hike. They could see the summit ahead but Tiffany would not have enough time to summit it and get back down in time for work. I saw her call but I did not answer because I knew what she wanted! Because I did not answer the phone, she was forced to turn back when they were already lost! If she would have made it to the summit, she could have pinpointed the trail from the summit to make it home SAFELY. Why am I saying all this? If I would have answered, Tiffany would be here today. Do I feel any guilt for that? No! I could have easily allowed this to eat me up alive, but due to my belief in God’s GREAT benevolent sovereignty, I knew that this was God’s plan!

I love to hike! I do! However, many times (usually half way through the hike) I begin cursing myself for thinking I like to hike! I’m panting like a dog, bugs are eating me alive, I have an elevation headache the size of Asia, and my heels are burning from blisters. To top it all off, I honestly do not know where I’m going half the time because I’m consumed by so many trees I cannot see fifty feet in front of me! I rely only on my compass and faith that there is an end to this madness! Then, amidst the trees of confusion, disorientation, doubt, and regret, and the steep inclines and switchbacks of pain, agony and despair, I FINALLY remember what this was all for. Reaching the summit, my senses become literally overwhelmed with beauty!!!

Life is like a 14er! We are sometimes confronted with tragedy in life; so much so that we oftentimes can’t even determine what to do or where to go with it. We MUST rely on our compass who is God. We must trust in his benevolence!! He did not cause that tragedy, for God is LOVE!!! However, He simply waits for us to trust Him and move forward with Him so that He may redeem that evil for the good! There is beauty at the end of suffering if only we continue our journey with God as our faithful guide!

Why is there suffering? Because we are a fallen humanity. Did God intend there to be suffering? No! Why then does it exist? Because of human free will! Love is much more beautiful when it is freely given, but that requires the willful alternative to do evil!! Why does it happen to some people so often? There are as many answers to that question as there are political excuses!! Why does God miraculously remove tragedy in some circumstances rather than others? Because God is merciful! He has no obligation to prevent anything, but he does so due to his graciousness. It is like accusing your spouse of not loving you because after receiving a gift one day you realize these gifts have not been an every day occurrence! The silliness of such an accusation! Whether God miraculously prevents a tragedy or allows it to happen, we can be assured of two things: 1) God does not give us anything we cannot handle; 2) God works out ALL things (even tragedies) for the ultimate good for those who love Him (cf. Rom. 8:28)!

Reason and Madness

2007-03-21T21:38:00.000-07:00

This is actually a blog posting from nearly a year ago, but the reflections of this blog have always been close to my heart and mind so I am choosing to post it here as well. Yes, it has been way too long since I last posted anything. I simply get too distracted with life (or is it intellectual laziness, I'm not sure). Well here it is; short put to the point!

“The heart may freeze or it can burn
The pain will ease if I can learn
There is no future
There is no past
I live this moment as my last
There's only us
There's only this
Forget regret
Or life is yours to miss
No other road
No other way
No day but today”

I have regrets. I do. I wish I could say I live every moment as if it was the last, but I do not. I take for granted the life that was handed to me and sometimes, just sometimes the life I take for granted includes relationships. It is all too easy to hide behind a number of well defined and air-tight syllogisms, and to filter every aspect of the world through these narrow lenses. Unfortunately, life does not gift us with trite, syllogistic realities. Rather, the world in which we live in sends its messages in broad, colorful strokes. A life consumed by reason and “proper methodology” MUST crop the picture of reality so as to fit it into a “fitting hermeneutical framework.” All this does is distort reality to the point where reality is no longer real. At this point, the “reasoned man” begins to lose his identity, and function in reality. It is only time before this educated man becomes a madman. I am reminded of a quote by Chesterton:

“Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason . . . Poetry is sane because it floats easily in an infinite sea; reason seeks to cross the infinite sea, and so make it finite. The result is mental exhaustion, like the physical exhaustion of Mr. Holbein . . . The poet only desires exaltation and expansion, a world to stretch himself in. The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.”

I want to write more, but I honestly do not know what to say. For some reason this thought keeps going through my mind: A dull man is simply a reflection of his conception of reality. It is precisely in the ambiguities of life that a person finds identity, meaning, and excitement! Admitting mystery is not “cowardess” but rather an expression of intellectual stewardship.

______________________________

Thus ends my blog from nearly a year ago. Man, as I read it back I'm struck by the applicable force it has for my life right now. My life is full of ambiguities. So much so that at times I feel anxiety bubbling up from the deepest parts of my being. I'm not sure where my life is going right now, but I must trust in the providential hand of God knowing that as long as I remain a faithful son, my heavenly Father will reveal His will to me! I simply ask all those who are most likely not reading my blog anymore since I haven't updated it in months to please keep me in your prayers. Fortunately, as of today, I have begun to receive a glimpse of direction but it is only that; a glimpse.

Blessings this Lenten Season!