We Catholics look to Holy Mother the Church for nurture, nourishment, protection and Life itself. She provides these in superabundance because of her bridal union with Christ: more than a social institution, she is the Communion of Saints, an eternal personality; even as a historical reality, she is a living, supernatural organism.
A theological liberal may be understood as someone unable to understand and cherish the conjugal, feminine, receptive and maternal essence of the Church (and of Creation itself) who therefore defaults to an ontological model based on the supremacy of the individual: isolated, autonomous, atomic, and homogeneous. (Therefore, woman priests, contraception, and so forth.)
A political liberal may be understood as one who distrusts the Church and looks to the State for redemption, who expects superabundant nurture, protection and Life from the federal government. Within a post-Protestant America dislodged from the Marian/Sacramental/Apostolic Church, the liberal finds his inverse image in the political/fiscal conservative who places his security and trust in unregulated, low-taxed, free markets.
Last night Raymond Arollo interviewed Father Sirico of the Acton Institute on the Obama economic plan. I listened with interest but was disappointed that Arollo and EWTN with their centrist, populist instincts would endorse such extreme, right wing economic views. Father Sirico defended the moral validity of market economics, locating moral goodness/evil in the personal decisions of individuals, thereby shielding capitalism from systematic critique. In this he implicitly ignores or denies the strong papal critique of structural or systemic injustice consistently echoed by our popes and applied to the USA with lucidity and brilliance by David Schindler and his colleagues in the Communio School of theology. Nevertheless, as a Catholic corrective to Obama adulation, Father Sirico was helpful with his comments on subsidiarity, the effect of tax increases upon charitable giving and the non-profit sector, and the expansion of government as a threat to other social actors.
The Obama economic plan has good intentions: stimulate the economy, restore infrastructure, provide adequate health coverage, redistribute wealth back to the poor and working classes, increase federal spending for education, and correct the climate and energy problems. He promises to do all of this by taxing the rich and bringing our troops home and still cut taxes on the middle class. Do you really believe our government will be able to do all of this? If so, you have a most credulous, and possibly delusional, trust in Holy Mother the State.
Aside from the unreality of the vision, consider that this administration is already pouring millions of our dollars (with the backing of “pro-life Catholic" Democrat Bob Casey) into contraception and abortion for poor women overseas; that he has promised to sign FOCA which absolutizes a woman’s right to abortion and would coerce participation in such; that “faith based initiatives” receiving federal funds will have to deny their faith convictions and collaborate with his secular, anti-life agenda. The liberal fantasy of a nurturing Mother State will turn into a smothering, voracious, and destructive Monster: depriving her children of liberties and even of life itself.
The more I read of Obama’s plans, the more eager I am to cling to our true mother, the Church. As Catholic, I look to neither government nor free markets for security and hope; I walk a middle path of subsidiarity and moderation; and I am free of delusional, idolatrous and destructive economic ideologies sanctified by names like Obama or Reagan.
See you in the Eucharist!
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
Lenten Priorities
Happily, I am three days into Lent without hearing the now-standard homily by some liberal priest on “Lent is about doing good, NOT giving something up!”
Of course Lent is about giving something up. It is about going into the desert with Jesus and joining Him more intensely in the three foundational practices of prayer, alms, and fasting.
The Catholic Lenten urge to fast is irrepressible and seems to be coming back with a vengeance this year. Even my 6-year old, kindergarten granddaughter Brigid is enthused about Lent. One of my freshman classes asked if they could share openly what they are doing for Lent. Most of the class said something and it turns out that everybody is “giving something up” but almost none have planned any extra prayer or almsgiving.
So, the lib priests in their campaign against “giving something up” may actually be on to something: there is an imbalance in priorities. Pope Benedict, as usual, is impeccably precise and balanced in his Lenten exhortation. He highlights fasting but places it in the context of reception of the Word of God in prayer.
The three practices together are essential for the observance of Lent; but there is a sequence of priorities. First and foremost is prayer: time spent with the Word, resting therein, actively receiving and ingesting, being absorbed into the One who feeds us so richly. Second is almsgiving: doing good to others, including the poor and those around us; doing the “good that presents itself;” after which our “wound will be healed.” And last, least, but nevertheless essential, is fasting: voluntary acts of sacrifice. These can be very modest and generally should be lest we bloat our ego with our moralistic accomplishments. I have been getting up a little early in the morning so that my prayer time is not rushed and I find that my day seems to unfold so much more gracefully and smoothly, without excess effort and stress.
The goal of Lent is to deeper our communion with our Lord. Prayer is first and foremost in this journey; it feeds, supports and draws from the other two practices.
After posting these thoughts, I am walking to the chapel for a short visit. I will remember anyone who happens to read this post. (I don’t know who you are, but God does.) And maybe you, reader friend, will say a short prayer for me. Thanks!
Of course Lent is about giving something up. It is about going into the desert with Jesus and joining Him more intensely in the three foundational practices of prayer, alms, and fasting.
The Catholic Lenten urge to fast is irrepressible and seems to be coming back with a vengeance this year. Even my 6-year old, kindergarten granddaughter Brigid is enthused about Lent. One of my freshman classes asked if they could share openly what they are doing for Lent. Most of the class said something and it turns out that everybody is “giving something up” but almost none have planned any extra prayer or almsgiving.
So, the lib priests in their campaign against “giving something up” may actually be on to something: there is an imbalance in priorities. Pope Benedict, as usual, is impeccably precise and balanced in his Lenten exhortation. He highlights fasting but places it in the context of reception of the Word of God in prayer.
The three practices together are essential for the observance of Lent; but there is a sequence of priorities. First and foremost is prayer: time spent with the Word, resting therein, actively receiving and ingesting, being absorbed into the One who feeds us so richly. Second is almsgiving: doing good to others, including the poor and those around us; doing the “good that presents itself;” after which our “wound will be healed.” And last, least, but nevertheless essential, is fasting: voluntary acts of sacrifice. These can be very modest and generally should be lest we bloat our ego with our moralistic accomplishments. I have been getting up a little early in the morning so that my prayer time is not rushed and I find that my day seems to unfold so much more gracefully and smoothly, without excess effort and stress.
The goal of Lent is to deeper our communion with our Lord. Prayer is first and foremost in this journey; it feeds, supports and draws from the other two practices.
After posting these thoughts, I am walking to the chapel for a short visit. I will remember anyone who happens to read this post. (I don’t know who you are, but God does.) And maybe you, reader friend, will say a short prayer for me. Thanks!
Thursday, February 26, 2009
What’s Up With Our Bishops?
This week I signed a statement petitioning the US bishops to deny Holy Communion to political leaders who persist, 36 years after Roe, in advocating for the destruction of innocent, powerless human lives. The intent here is not primarily to change our political landscape; and it is certainly not to judge the soul of another person. The intent is to protect and communicate our Catholic faith, specifically the sacraments in their integrity in relation to our moral ethos of respect for life. That prominent, prestigious and powerful personalities like our Vice President and Speaker persist and prevail in their agenda of death through many decades, with majority support of Catholics, and remain in good standing in the Church is an injustice to them, to the Church, and especially to the “little ones” who deserve clear, inspiring teaching.
Our bishops have been a grave disappointment in recent decades: first we had the cover-up of the priest sex scandal; that was followed by the unhappy Dallas response in which priests were denied rights but the bishops accepted no responsibility. But worst by far is the continued failure of the bishops to speak and act with clarity, courage and force on powerless life.
How striking is the contrast between our lukewarm, indecisive, assimilative and “let’s-all-just-get-along-and-not-ruffle-any-feathers” bishops and the last half-dozen of our popes in their intellectual brilliance, inspirational courage, and Holy-Spirit-inspired leadership. Imagine the US Church without a strong papacy! It would be very close to the calamity that is the Episcopal Church.
Why are the bishops so weak? One part of the problem, I believe, is the job description. Each bishop is CEO of a major corporation and this task demands that they protect, maintain and build the organization. In our society, such a job requires financial, legal and political skills. These skills and mind habits are not always coherent with the Gospel. So we have a pious and talented cleric like Cardinal McCarrick who accomplished so much for the American Church but is so irenic and diplomatic that he was unable to confront pro-choice politicians in a virile, forceful, authoritative, challenging and genuinely paternal manner.
Decades ago, Ivan Illich called for the de-institutionalization of the Church. Perhaps he was right. If the hierarchy did not have to worry about so many schools, hospitals, cemeteries, buildings, property and organizations of all kinds, perhaps they would be able to proclaim more freely and clearly the Good News. This does not mean that the Church would give up organized corporal and spiritual works of mercy; rather, these tasks would not be directed by the hierarchy, but by the laity. An analogue would be the decision of the early Church to delegate serving of food to a distinct class of deacons so that the apostles were freed up for prayer, study and preaching of the Word.
Such an amiable separation (not a divorce) in many cases will also benefit the works of mercy. For example, Mother Angelica spun EWTN off as an independent group, free from the episcopacy, in a brilliant maneuver, so that it might present Catholic truth unhindered by a hierarchy bound up with institutional anxieties, liberal orthodoxies, and political correctness. That network presents an orthodox, challenging, and fascinating symphony of catecheses (Father Groeschel, Marcus Grodi, Ralph Martin, Raymond Arollo, and Scott Hahn, to name a few) in a manner the bishops’ conference never could.
We are desperately in need of virile, authoritative, paternal guidance from our bishops. We need more men like the late Cardinal O’Connor who ran the Archdiocese down financially but spoke the truth in season and out of season.
For lent, let’s all pray for our bishops!
Our bishops have been a grave disappointment in recent decades: first we had the cover-up of the priest sex scandal; that was followed by the unhappy Dallas response in which priests were denied rights but the bishops accepted no responsibility. But worst by far is the continued failure of the bishops to speak and act with clarity, courage and force on powerless life.
How striking is the contrast between our lukewarm, indecisive, assimilative and “let’s-all-just-get-along-and-not-ruffle-any-feathers” bishops and the last half-dozen of our popes in their intellectual brilliance, inspirational courage, and Holy-Spirit-inspired leadership. Imagine the US Church without a strong papacy! It would be very close to the calamity that is the Episcopal Church.
Why are the bishops so weak? One part of the problem, I believe, is the job description. Each bishop is CEO of a major corporation and this task demands that they protect, maintain and build the organization. In our society, such a job requires financial, legal and political skills. These skills and mind habits are not always coherent with the Gospel. So we have a pious and talented cleric like Cardinal McCarrick who accomplished so much for the American Church but is so irenic and diplomatic that he was unable to confront pro-choice politicians in a virile, forceful, authoritative, challenging and genuinely paternal manner.
Decades ago, Ivan Illich called for the de-institutionalization of the Church. Perhaps he was right. If the hierarchy did not have to worry about so many schools, hospitals, cemeteries, buildings, property and organizations of all kinds, perhaps they would be able to proclaim more freely and clearly the Good News. This does not mean that the Church would give up organized corporal and spiritual works of mercy; rather, these tasks would not be directed by the hierarchy, but by the laity. An analogue would be the decision of the early Church to delegate serving of food to a distinct class of deacons so that the apostles were freed up for prayer, study and preaching of the Word.
Such an amiable separation (not a divorce) in many cases will also benefit the works of mercy. For example, Mother Angelica spun EWTN off as an independent group, free from the episcopacy, in a brilliant maneuver, so that it might present Catholic truth unhindered by a hierarchy bound up with institutional anxieties, liberal orthodoxies, and political correctness. That network presents an orthodox, challenging, and fascinating symphony of catecheses (Father Groeschel, Marcus Grodi, Ralph Martin, Raymond Arollo, and Scott Hahn, to name a few) in a manner the bishops’ conference never could.
We are desperately in need of virile, authoritative, paternal guidance from our bishops. We need more men like the late Cardinal O’Connor who ran the Archdiocese down financially but spoke the truth in season and out of season.
For lent, let’s all pray for our bishops!
Monday, February 23, 2009
True Confessions
On the short list of quality cinematic treatments of the Catholic priesthood, I offer 1981’s True Confessions with typically stellar performances by Roberts DeNiro and Duvall. Set in L.A., immediately after WWII, DeNiro plays a bright and ambitious monsignor who is ascending within the hierarchy due to his financial and political prowess; Duvall is his kid brother, a hard-nosed homicide detective with personal familiarity with the seamier side of life. The two worlds collide into each other due to the double lives of prominent Catholic leaders. The film is interesting and engaging on several levels.
The two stars play off each other as brothers very well and the explosive combination of love, competition and resentment between them is very realistic.
The movie also offers a perspective on a darker side of the phenomenal growth of the Church in those post-war years, especially the growth in Church buildings, schools and plants. The DeNiro character personalizes the cost in moral integrity incurred by this expansion in property, power, status and glamour. Combined with Philip Lawler’s insightful book The Faithful Departed, the movie illuminates the secularization and corruption quietly at work in those decades leading up to the deconstruction of the late 60s.
The sacrament of confession becomes a pivotal point in the movie as protagonists confess to the compromised monsignor who himself, interestingly, confesses to an older and holier cleric who happens to be his enemy within ecclesiastical politics. Generally, the portrayal of the sacrament is fair and true although some sequences raise serious questions for a Catholic. (Example: towards the end, the villain confesses with an indignant and wrathful disposition blatantly lacking in contrition and purpose of amendment and yet receives absolution.)
The movie portrays the distasteful sexual violence and the intriguing moral ambiguity of the film noir genre. However the radiance of redemptive grace does, in the end, prevail to dispel the heavy darkness that dominates throughout. This conclusion suggests the operation of an (at least implicitly) Catholic imagination in its sensitivity to genuine contrition and conversion.
Truthful treatment of the priesthood is a rarity in the movies; even rarer are quality presentations of the sacraments in their simplicity, efficacy and mystery. This movie qualifies for that short list. The sacrament of penance seems to be the one most congenial for cinematic drama. Hitchcock’s I Confess and the riveting confessional confrontation between the DeNiro conquistador and Irons’ Jesuit in The Mission are surely at the top of the list. A scene of Eucharistic desecration and personal heroism by the sainted Archbishop in Romero is also unforgettable and inspirational.
The dark nature of True Confessions leaves it less than ideal for devotional viewing during lent. But for Saturday night entertainment, it might serve as remote preparation for Sunday morning Eucharist due to its subtle sense of the workings of Grace even in the corruption of sin
The two stars play off each other as brothers very well and the explosive combination of love, competition and resentment between them is very realistic.
The movie also offers a perspective on a darker side of the phenomenal growth of the Church in those post-war years, especially the growth in Church buildings, schools and plants. The DeNiro character personalizes the cost in moral integrity incurred by this expansion in property, power, status and glamour. Combined with Philip Lawler’s insightful book The Faithful Departed, the movie illuminates the secularization and corruption quietly at work in those decades leading up to the deconstruction of the late 60s.
The sacrament of confession becomes a pivotal point in the movie as protagonists confess to the compromised monsignor who himself, interestingly, confesses to an older and holier cleric who happens to be his enemy within ecclesiastical politics. Generally, the portrayal of the sacrament is fair and true although some sequences raise serious questions for a Catholic. (Example: towards the end, the villain confesses with an indignant and wrathful disposition blatantly lacking in contrition and purpose of amendment and yet receives absolution.)
The movie portrays the distasteful sexual violence and the intriguing moral ambiguity of the film noir genre. However the radiance of redemptive grace does, in the end, prevail to dispel the heavy darkness that dominates throughout. This conclusion suggests the operation of an (at least implicitly) Catholic imagination in its sensitivity to genuine contrition and conversion.
Truthful treatment of the priesthood is a rarity in the movies; even rarer are quality presentations of the sacraments in their simplicity, efficacy and mystery. This movie qualifies for that short list. The sacrament of penance seems to be the one most congenial for cinematic drama. Hitchcock’s I Confess and the riveting confessional confrontation between the DeNiro conquistador and Irons’ Jesuit in The Mission are surely at the top of the list. A scene of Eucharistic desecration and personal heroism by the sainted Archbishop in Romero is also unforgettable and inspirational.
The dark nature of True Confessions leaves it less than ideal for devotional viewing during lent. But for Saturday night entertainment, it might serve as remote preparation for Sunday morning Eucharist due to its subtle sense of the workings of Grace even in the corruption of sin
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Lenten Stimulus Program
Lent is a stimulus program in which we invigorate and intensify our faith, hope and love.
It draws upon the infinite merits and graces already deposited by Our Lord, Mary and the saints. It does not borrow from the future, with anxiety and forebodings; it gratefully receives from what has been accomplished 2000 years ago and since.
It does not stimulate consumption, but simplicity, austerity and gratitude. Aware of the infinite abundance of God’s Kingdom, it draws us into stark desert vulnerability and poverty where we luxuriate in the gratuity and exuberance of Love.
It provides us with work in the way of multiple opportunities for deeds of kindness and generosity; there is a surplus of such employment; not lack of jobs.
It is an economy of abundance and surplus and hope: as we open ourselves to receive more, we are able to give more; as we give, we are opened up to receive more. There is no anxiety, worry, sadness or resentment here; there is joy after joy, love after love, hope building upon hope, and gratitude issuing perpetually into praise and adoration.
This is a stimulus program that will do more than rebuild the global economy; it will redeem the entire creation.
Our God is good!
It draws upon the infinite merits and graces already deposited by Our Lord, Mary and the saints. It does not borrow from the future, with anxiety and forebodings; it gratefully receives from what has been accomplished 2000 years ago and since.
It does not stimulate consumption, but simplicity, austerity and gratitude. Aware of the infinite abundance of God’s Kingdom, it draws us into stark desert vulnerability and poverty where we luxuriate in the gratuity and exuberance of Love.
It provides us with work in the way of multiple opportunities for deeds of kindness and generosity; there is a surplus of such employment; not lack of jobs.
It is an economy of abundance and surplus and hope: as we open ourselves to receive more, we are able to give more; as we give, we are opened up to receive more. There is no anxiety, worry, sadness or resentment here; there is joy after joy, love after love, hope building upon hope, and gratitude issuing perpetually into praise and adoration.
This is a stimulus program that will do more than rebuild the global economy; it will redeem the entire creation.
Our God is good!
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Spiritual Synergies and Undervalued All-Stars
The film version of Capote’s In Cold Blood has the voice-over commentator towards the end pointing out that neither of the two murders (who were eventually executed by hanging) would have been capable of the brutal slaying of the family of four (for a few dollars) without the other. It makes sense: one was cold-hearted, calculating and manipulative but not violent; the other was sensitive and tender but explosively violent. The first planned and engineered the crime and the second actually did the bloody act.
This heinous crime is a case study of synergistic energies by which two or three of us united can produce a far greater effect, for good or for evil, than the sum of our individual capabilities. In the doing of evil, there is a mimetic contagion by which we excite each other into an escalation of malice and destruction beyond the capacity of the individual: Nazis, Rwanda, and Iraq. Clearly, there is also a supernatural, Satanic dynamic that intrudes as well. This is very scary stuff: “Deliver us from evil!”
The Good News is that this explosive, synergistic dynamism is even more powerful in the doing of good: Where two or more are gathered in my name, there am I in your midst. How often are we energized, encouraged, inspired by even trivial exchanges with others?
Sunday’s NY Time’s Magazine had a front cover article on Shane Battier as an unsung and undervalued but most valuable all-star. His personal statistics are not in the least impressive but he does a range of barely visible things that make his team win consistently. He will tip a rebound to a teammate, move off his own man to box out a stronger rebounder, and force offensive all-stars like Bryant to take lower percentage shots. His athletic ability is unexceptional by NBA standards but his basketball IQ is off the charts. He is the quintessential selfless player: calls no attention to himself but does everything to make his team and teammates better and his opponents worse.
These two concrete cases lead to a thrilling insight: those of us who are not all-stars in our personal stats are nevertheless all part of a team and intelligent, selfless performance of miniscule tasks at the right time and in the right manner contribute to a synergistic, mimetic, socially contagious and explosive dynamic that far transcends our wildest individual fantasies. Only Kobe can be Kobe, but each of us can be like a Shane Battier in his given task and mission.
This heinous crime is a case study of synergistic energies by which two or three of us united can produce a far greater effect, for good or for evil, than the sum of our individual capabilities. In the doing of evil, there is a mimetic contagion by which we excite each other into an escalation of malice and destruction beyond the capacity of the individual: Nazis, Rwanda, and Iraq. Clearly, there is also a supernatural, Satanic dynamic that intrudes as well. This is very scary stuff: “Deliver us from evil!”
The Good News is that this explosive, synergistic dynamism is even more powerful in the doing of good: Where two or more are gathered in my name, there am I in your midst. How often are we energized, encouraged, inspired by even trivial exchanges with others?
Sunday’s NY Time’s Magazine had a front cover article on Shane Battier as an unsung and undervalued but most valuable all-star. His personal statistics are not in the least impressive but he does a range of barely visible things that make his team win consistently. He will tip a rebound to a teammate, move off his own man to box out a stronger rebounder, and force offensive all-stars like Bryant to take lower percentage shots. His athletic ability is unexceptional by NBA standards but his basketball IQ is off the charts. He is the quintessential selfless player: calls no attention to himself but does everything to make his team and teammates better and his opponents worse.
These two concrete cases lead to a thrilling insight: those of us who are not all-stars in our personal stats are nevertheless all part of a team and intelligent, selfless performance of miniscule tasks at the right time and in the right manner contribute to a synergistic, mimetic, socially contagious and explosive dynamic that far transcends our wildest individual fantasies. Only Kobe can be Kobe, but each of us can be like a Shane Battier in his given task and mission.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Scrutiny
Thursday’s gospel, the healing of the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter (Mark 7:24-30), is remarkable for the initial response of Jesus. The gentile woman, asking for the deliverance of her daughter from an unclean spirit, is clearly motivated by love (for her daughter) and faith (in Jesus). His response is shocking: “Let the children be fed first. For it is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.” This is NOT the sweet, nice, saccharine, girly Jesus of love and mercy we have been introducing to our young for the last 40 years or so. This is a harsh, insulting, confrontational, challenging and candid Jesus. For the Jews, dogs were unclean and not allowed into their houses. This woman, as a gentile, is unclean to a Jew. It is most probably a historical incident by use of the "embarassment criterion:" it is unlikely the apostolic Church would have fabricated such a negative incident about their Lord.
Apparently the Greek language has a connection in the root words for woman and dog so there may even have been a negative insinuation of the woman as dog-like. Even today, our most derogatory expressions for the feminine refer to the canine in a way that profanes both. The fact that the woman’s daughter has an “unclean spirit” brings another suggestion of impurity to the situation. Clearly, Jesus’ words to the woman imply an insult: you are unclean, associated with dogs, and unworthy of the work of God occurring in my mission to my (not your) people.
The woman’s response is even more surprising. She is not offended, but persists in her petition: “Lord, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s scraps.” Indifferent to the insult, she is remarkably humble: free of pretense or arrogance. Recall that she has already cast herself at his feet in the posture of a beggar or even of a dog. Clearly, she has no ego, reputation, image or social status to defend: she only wants her daughter free and she is convinced that Jesus can do this for her. Jesus is completely disarmed by her “littleness” and responds affirmatively and succinctly: “For saying this, you may go. The demon has gone out of your daughter.”
On the one hand, the passage indicates that Jesus’ mission was clearly to the Jews. He understood the limitations and boundaries of his work and did not overextend himself to solve all of mankind’s woes. He initially resists the request in the manner he rebuked his own mother at Cana. His rebuke here, like that at Cana, seems to be a scrutiny, a challenge, a provocation. He sees the evident love and faith of the woman; but that is not enough. He scrutinizes more deeply and surgically for the presence of pride and arrogance and he dramatically elicits the fundamental humility of the beautiful woman. “Insult me all you want,” she seems to say, “but I love my daughter and I will persist in the face of your rebuke because I believe in you.”
What an exhilarating word! This marvelous woman invites us to emulate her love and faith, but even more so her humility and persistence. Furthermore, we are invited to be faithful to our given task and no more: to know, with Jesus, the boundaries and parameters of our mission and not to overextend; to say NO with the same decisiveness with which we say YES. And we are called to welcome those who refuse to flatter us but honor us with the candor, precision and challenge of such a scrutiny that unveil our hidden pride and beckons us to humility. This unclean woman with an unclean daughter models for us the way to real freedom (for ourselves and for those we love): love, faith, humility and persistance.
Apparently the Greek language has a connection in the root words for woman and dog so there may even have been a negative insinuation of the woman as dog-like. Even today, our most derogatory expressions for the feminine refer to the canine in a way that profanes both. The fact that the woman’s daughter has an “unclean spirit” brings another suggestion of impurity to the situation. Clearly, Jesus’ words to the woman imply an insult: you are unclean, associated with dogs, and unworthy of the work of God occurring in my mission to my (not your) people.
The woman’s response is even more surprising. She is not offended, but persists in her petition: “Lord, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s scraps.” Indifferent to the insult, she is remarkably humble: free of pretense or arrogance. Recall that she has already cast herself at his feet in the posture of a beggar or even of a dog. Clearly, she has no ego, reputation, image or social status to defend: she only wants her daughter free and she is convinced that Jesus can do this for her. Jesus is completely disarmed by her “littleness” and responds affirmatively and succinctly: “For saying this, you may go. The demon has gone out of your daughter.”
On the one hand, the passage indicates that Jesus’ mission was clearly to the Jews. He understood the limitations and boundaries of his work and did not overextend himself to solve all of mankind’s woes. He initially resists the request in the manner he rebuked his own mother at Cana. His rebuke here, like that at Cana, seems to be a scrutiny, a challenge, a provocation. He sees the evident love and faith of the woman; but that is not enough. He scrutinizes more deeply and surgically for the presence of pride and arrogance and he dramatically elicits the fundamental humility of the beautiful woman. “Insult me all you want,” she seems to say, “but I love my daughter and I will persist in the face of your rebuke because I believe in you.”
What an exhilarating word! This marvelous woman invites us to emulate her love and faith, but even more so her humility and persistence. Furthermore, we are invited to be faithful to our given task and no more: to know, with Jesus, the boundaries and parameters of our mission and not to overextend; to say NO with the same decisiveness with which we say YES. And we are called to welcome those who refuse to flatter us but honor us with the candor, precision and challenge of such a scrutiny that unveil our hidden pride and beckons us to humility. This unclean woman with an unclean daughter models for us the way to real freedom (for ourselves and for those we love): love, faith, humility and persistance.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Where's Mom?
With the recession impacting mostly male jobs (only 18% of jobs lost are to women), the NY Times reports that women hold just slightly less full time jobs than men and may pass them soon for a historical first. In 1965, men held about 70% of the full time jobs with women holding 30%. The gap has now closed and men are losing jobs at a rate quadruple that of women since construction and factory jobs are more vulnerable than those in fields like medicine or education.
This is a milestone in the drive for woman’s equality. Women are now earning more college and graduate degrees than men and are about to surpass them in the job market. You Go Girl! Equality at last!
But if we move beyond the rights and equalities of the individual, let us ask if this is good for everyone: For the family? For the little ones? For men? For the elderly? For the Home? No! It is terrible for everyone, especially for women.
In 1965, most families lived on the “family wage” of the male provider and most homes and families were rooted in and supported by the homemaker mother. This was especially good for younger children, the elderly and other sick or needy family members. It is the particular genius of the woman to create a home, not a just a dwelling or residence, but a womb-like, life-giving ecology of beauty, nurture, safety, inspiration and attention.
In general,masculine self-esteem is highly invested in achievement and performance while the female’s sense of self worth is less preoccupied with career success and more involved with relationships, family, and nurture. The loss of a job for a man oftentimes, beyond the financial stress, is more costly in terms of morale and mental health. The Great Depression saw many male suicides. Our own Grandfather suffered a severe nervous breakdown from which he never recovered; while his wife went on to raise three children in dire conditions and remained mentally and emotionally resilient beyond her 100th year. This case is quite typical and paradigmatic. The loss of so many jobs by men is a deep concern beyond the obvious economic distress.
With women surpassing men in the workplace, the big loser is the home and the family. The home has been greatly deflated as an environment of life. The care and attention formerly rendered there has been delegated to impersonal, bureaucratic institutions: day care, nursing homes, summer camps, and specialized group homes. Children are the biggest losers as they grow up in a “latch-key” environment.
Meanwhile, the stress on Supermom continues to increase. Women still do most of the domestic work. When women lose a job, their time devoted to domestic chores doubles; when men lose a job, their time devoted to this remains the same. They either devote themselves full time to finding a job or they use the time for TV and golf. The brave new feminist world places inordinate expectations upon women.
We live in a world of careerism in which the bourgeois parent’s biggest nightmare is that her child not attend college; a world of individualism where few renounce their own private ambitions for the good of the family; a world of materialism where safety and security are located in insurance policies, retirement accounts and equity statements; and a world of bureaucracies which structure life from infancy to senility.
The current economic crisis will go away soon enough. The destruction of the family is a deeper and far more ominous reality.
This is a milestone in the drive for woman’s equality. Women are now earning more college and graduate degrees than men and are about to surpass them in the job market. You Go Girl! Equality at last!
But if we move beyond the rights and equalities of the individual, let us ask if this is good for everyone: For the family? For the little ones? For men? For the elderly? For the Home? No! It is terrible for everyone, especially for women.
In 1965, most families lived on the “family wage” of the male provider and most homes and families were rooted in and supported by the homemaker mother. This was especially good for younger children, the elderly and other sick or needy family members. It is the particular genius of the woman to create a home, not a just a dwelling or residence, but a womb-like, life-giving ecology of beauty, nurture, safety, inspiration and attention.
In general,masculine self-esteem is highly invested in achievement and performance while the female’s sense of self worth is less preoccupied with career success and more involved with relationships, family, and nurture. The loss of a job for a man oftentimes, beyond the financial stress, is more costly in terms of morale and mental health. The Great Depression saw many male suicides. Our own Grandfather suffered a severe nervous breakdown from which he never recovered; while his wife went on to raise three children in dire conditions and remained mentally and emotionally resilient beyond her 100th year. This case is quite typical and paradigmatic. The loss of so many jobs by men is a deep concern beyond the obvious economic distress.
With women surpassing men in the workplace, the big loser is the home and the family. The home has been greatly deflated as an environment of life. The care and attention formerly rendered there has been delegated to impersonal, bureaucratic institutions: day care, nursing homes, summer camps, and specialized group homes. Children are the biggest losers as they grow up in a “latch-key” environment.
Meanwhile, the stress on Supermom continues to increase. Women still do most of the domestic work. When women lose a job, their time devoted to domestic chores doubles; when men lose a job, their time devoted to this remains the same. They either devote themselves full time to finding a job or they use the time for TV and golf. The brave new feminist world places inordinate expectations upon women.
We live in a world of careerism in which the bourgeois parent’s biggest nightmare is that her child not attend college; a world of individualism where few renounce their own private ambitions for the good of the family; a world of materialism where safety and security are located in insurance policies, retirement accounts and equity statements; and a world of bureaucracies which structure life from infancy to senility.
The current economic crisis will go away soon enough. The destruction of the family is a deeper and far more ominous reality.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Presentism: Loss of Memory, Denial of Hope
“Catholic” Grandma Nancy Pelosi fervently defended the use of stimulus funds for contraceptive services: fewer kids = less expense = more for us here and now. This unveils the inner economic logic of liberalism: borrow against the future to enjoy the present; the debt will be repaid by our children and grandchildren; contracept and abort and therefore destroy the generation intended to repay or debt. The culture of sterility (contraception, abortion, gay sex) is at the same time an ethos of Presentism or indulgence in the present. Economically, it is praxis of debt and consumption. Spiritually, it is a religion of despair. The gay lifestyle is paradigmatic for liberal policy: indulge in the present because there is no fruitfulness or next generation to sacrifice for; borrow against the future since there really is no future beyond the immediate present.
Consider the society we boomers entered in the post-WWII era: large families, sharp gender roles, austere and frugal financial habits learned in the depression (“neither a lender nor a borrower be.”) Tested and chastened by the Depression and War, our country experienced a revival of religious faith led by Billy Graham, Bishop Sheen and Father (of the family rosary) Peyton.
The Cultural Liberalism of the 60s inverted all of these values and exalted: economics of debt, credit cards and consumption; sexuality of sterility and recreation; a rejection of authority; and preference for indulgence over sacrifice.
The various currents of liberalism generally share a renunciation of past orthodoxies, traditions and beliefs in favor of a “change we can believe in.” So, Hans Kung just wrote wistfully about what an “Obama papacy” would represent in contrast to Pope Benedict who is “looking backwards.” Post Vatican II progressivism identified that council as a radical break from the past in contrast to John Paul and Benedict who insist on seeing it in continuity with the past. Liberalism is fundamentally a break with the past, a rejection of tradition, and therefore a loss of memory in preference for a euphoric present and an immanent and utopian future. At the deeper level, however, contemporary liberalism is abandonment to the present because of despair about the future: there is no transcendent hope and therefore a retreat from fruitfulness and the sacrifices it requires. So, a culture of sterility produces negative population growth and trillions of dollars of deficit spending and national debt. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide become fundamental rights because pain carries no seed of future glory.
Obama’s entrustment of the stimulus plan to Pelosi and her lieutenants shows that he remains in bondage to the thought patterns of cultural liberalism. Last week, while encouraging inter-religious dialogue and harmony, he solemnly declared: “Remember,” pausing to bring additional gravity to his words, “there is no religion that advocates killing of the innocent.” The man who repeatedly resisted the Baby Born Alive Act said this with a sincerity greater than that of Bernie Madoff, Father Marciel Maciel and Rod Blagojevich combined. Our President demonstrates a complete disconnect between his rhetoric and the brutal realities his policies impose.
Our prayers for President Obama need to be joined to a realism that demons like these will not be exorcised without fasting and extended spiritual combat.
Consider the society we boomers entered in the post-WWII era: large families, sharp gender roles, austere and frugal financial habits learned in the depression (“neither a lender nor a borrower be.”) Tested and chastened by the Depression and War, our country experienced a revival of religious faith led by Billy Graham, Bishop Sheen and Father (of the family rosary) Peyton.
The Cultural Liberalism of the 60s inverted all of these values and exalted: economics of debt, credit cards and consumption; sexuality of sterility and recreation; a rejection of authority; and preference for indulgence over sacrifice.
The various currents of liberalism generally share a renunciation of past orthodoxies, traditions and beliefs in favor of a “change we can believe in.” So, Hans Kung just wrote wistfully about what an “Obama papacy” would represent in contrast to Pope Benedict who is “looking backwards.” Post Vatican II progressivism identified that council as a radical break from the past in contrast to John Paul and Benedict who insist on seeing it in continuity with the past. Liberalism is fundamentally a break with the past, a rejection of tradition, and therefore a loss of memory in preference for a euphoric present and an immanent and utopian future. At the deeper level, however, contemporary liberalism is abandonment to the present because of despair about the future: there is no transcendent hope and therefore a retreat from fruitfulness and the sacrifices it requires. So, a culture of sterility produces negative population growth and trillions of dollars of deficit spending and national debt. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide become fundamental rights because pain carries no seed of future glory.
Obama’s entrustment of the stimulus plan to Pelosi and her lieutenants shows that he remains in bondage to the thought patterns of cultural liberalism. Last week, while encouraging inter-religious dialogue and harmony, he solemnly declared: “Remember,” pausing to bring additional gravity to his words, “there is no religion that advocates killing of the innocent.” The man who repeatedly resisted the Baby Born Alive Act said this with a sincerity greater than that of Bernie Madoff, Father Marciel Maciel and Rod Blagojevich combined. Our President demonstrates a complete disconnect between his rhetoric and the brutal realities his policies impose.
Our prayers for President Obama need to be joined to a realism that demons like these will not be exorcised without fasting and extended spiritual combat.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
No Intelligence Required
Good movie alert for your Netflix queue: Ben Stein’s “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” The movie is serious and yet lighthearted, entertaining and informational, funny and significant. Stein himself is quite a trip: brilliant lawyer, economist, Yale valedictorian and journalist; both pro-life and pro-animal (not that most pro-lifers are anti-animal, we are just not particularly pro-animal, except for the Franciscan Felicians I work with); a celebrity actor and a Republican speech writer; owner of multiple-cats-and-dogs and adoptive father; and Ferris Beuller’s boring high school teacher! If you have time to kill, do a Google and read some of his writings and interviews. They are precious!
In the movie, he interviews top-shelf scientists who have serious intellectual problems with Darwinian evolution as a comprehensive explanation for the “origin of species.” It is clear that Intelligent Design has roots in legitimate scientific thought and research and is not merely fundamentalist creationism in a more sophisticated outfit. He interviews a string of outstanding scientists who were immediately blackballed for mentioning the
I-word and the D-word sequentially or hinting the slightest doubt about the infallible dogma of evolution. As a Jew, he taps into his own heritage and shows the roots of eugenics and Nazi genocide in Social Darwinism.
Clearly, there is a strong community of scientific dissent against Darwinism as a comprehensive scientific theory. There are holes and gaps in the theory; but apparently the establishment does not tolerate such disagreement.
Mainstream evolutionists have a valid point that Intelligent Design is itself not a scientific concept in that it is not verifiable or measurable. It does not operate within the realms of efficient and material causality that the natural sciences have adopted as their parameters. The concept is not really theological either because, unlike Creationism, it does not come from revelation. Rather, it is a philosophical concept and belongs in the curriculum under something like Philosophy of Science. This area is an important one today because science is increasingly determining how the broader culture understands reality. Catholic education on the secondary and college level is the ideal place to treat these important topics. I can’t imagine that public schooling is equipped to address them with any depth and nuance (so I am not boycotting the teaching of evolution in public schools!)
The broader cultural problem, beyond science class, is that evolution in widely accepted as a meta-narrative or Grand Theory that can explain all of life. Popular literature, news articles and magazines are filled with bio-babble: men are promiscuous because they want to enhance chances of their genes surviving; men play golf because hunting patterns of shoot and pursue were functional for survival in the jungle; and so forth.
In a post-modern academy that boasts of deconstructing every arrogant meta-theory, evolution flourishes as the unacknowledged grand paradigm that is credulously accepted even as it prides itself on thoroughgoing skepticism and criticism. Stein masterfully demonstrates that in such circles, intelligence is neither required nor allowed.
In the movie, he interviews top-shelf scientists who have serious intellectual problems with Darwinian evolution as a comprehensive explanation for the “origin of species.” It is clear that Intelligent Design has roots in legitimate scientific thought and research and is not merely fundamentalist creationism in a more sophisticated outfit. He interviews a string of outstanding scientists who were immediately blackballed for mentioning the
I-word and the D-word sequentially or hinting the slightest doubt about the infallible dogma of evolution. As a Jew, he taps into his own heritage and shows the roots of eugenics and Nazi genocide in Social Darwinism.
Clearly, there is a strong community of scientific dissent against Darwinism as a comprehensive scientific theory. There are holes and gaps in the theory; but apparently the establishment does not tolerate such disagreement.
Mainstream evolutionists have a valid point that Intelligent Design is itself not a scientific concept in that it is not verifiable or measurable. It does not operate within the realms of efficient and material causality that the natural sciences have adopted as their parameters. The concept is not really theological either because, unlike Creationism, it does not come from revelation. Rather, it is a philosophical concept and belongs in the curriculum under something like Philosophy of Science. This area is an important one today because science is increasingly determining how the broader culture understands reality. Catholic education on the secondary and college level is the ideal place to treat these important topics. I can’t imagine that public schooling is equipped to address them with any depth and nuance (so I am not boycotting the teaching of evolution in public schools!)
The broader cultural problem, beyond science class, is that evolution in widely accepted as a meta-narrative or Grand Theory that can explain all of life. Popular literature, news articles and magazines are filled with bio-babble: men are promiscuous because they want to enhance chances of their genes surviving; men play golf because hunting patterns of shoot and pursue were functional for survival in the jungle; and so forth.
In a post-modern academy that boasts of deconstructing every arrogant meta-theory, evolution flourishes as the unacknowledged grand paradigm that is credulously accepted even as it prides itself on thoroughgoing skepticism and criticism. Stein masterfully demonstrates that in such circles, intelligence is neither required nor allowed.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Catholics Become Evangelicals: Devert or Convert? Loss or Gain for the Church?
The Catholic Church has been suffering a steady loss of members, especially Hispanics, to the Evangelical and Pentecostal churches. What are we to make of this?
As an Evangelical, Charismatic Catholic (substantive noun is Catholic), I see this flow as primarily a positive development for many reasons. The majority who make this move were lax, non-practicing, non-evangelized Catholics. Oftentimes, they have found in their new congregation a living relationship with Jesus as Lord and Savior and a supportive, bible-believing community. Their change is, in other words, a move closer to Christ in faith and love and implicitly a deeper immersion in the Church (understood in a broad, ecumenical sense.) They do distance themselves from constitutive elements of the Church: authoritative magisterium, living tradition, sacramental life, priestly ministry, devotional communion with our Lady and the saints. However they probably do not make a conscious, deliberate rejection of the Church in these elements. While they are diverted from full communion with the Church, the underlying movement usually is an authentic conversion from sloth, indifference and disbelief to faith in Christ and the Christian life.
The Catholic Church in America has largely failed to evangelize and catechize her own and to create strong communities capable of resisting an increasingly anti-Christian culture. Our clergy are largely committed to the maintenance of parochial structures that served the immigrants but are feeble and impotent in the current climate. The answer to this dilemma lies in the intensive ecclesial movements; but while these develop in their sure and gradual fashion, many are finding real Gospel truth with the evangelicals.
In our culture war over innocent life, sexuality and family, the evangelicals are our primary allies. Neuhaus, Dulles and Colson realized this and have engaged in dialogue at the high-brow, intellectual level. Huckabee and Palin have defended these values in the political arena. In the local battles from sex education to the neighborhood abortion clinics, Evangelicals and Catholics are best friends.
Not so with the liberal, mainstream Protestant churches. These have drifted in the direction of relativism, subjectivism, liberalism and secularism. They are collaborative with the regime of “choice” and sexual liberation. The loss of our young Catholics to these denominations or even to a non-practicing, liberal, cultural Catholicism is a real loss and a deep sadness.
Another sign of hope is the smaller but steady flow of high-quality converts and reverts back into the Catholic Church. EWTN’s “The Journey Home” with Marcus Grodi showcases the exceptional intellectual and spiritual quality of so many clergymen and intellectuals whose evangelical love for Christ and His word eventually led them back to the authoritative Church. Their stories carry many common threads: appreciation for Tradition and authority; sense of Mary and the saints; longing for sacramental union with their Lord; and deeper appreciation for the more Catholic sense of scriptures, especially those involving the Eucharist.
And so we detect the underlying currents: Many lax Catholics are finding an authentic and living faith in Evangelical circles; the deeper and wiser of the Evangelicals are slowly finding their way back to the bridal, sacramental, Marian Church. It is all Good!
As an Evangelical, Charismatic Catholic (substantive noun is Catholic), I see this flow as primarily a positive development for many reasons. The majority who make this move were lax, non-practicing, non-evangelized Catholics. Oftentimes, they have found in their new congregation a living relationship with Jesus as Lord and Savior and a supportive, bible-believing community. Their change is, in other words, a move closer to Christ in faith and love and implicitly a deeper immersion in the Church (understood in a broad, ecumenical sense.) They do distance themselves from constitutive elements of the Church: authoritative magisterium, living tradition, sacramental life, priestly ministry, devotional communion with our Lady and the saints. However they probably do not make a conscious, deliberate rejection of the Church in these elements. While they are diverted from full communion with the Church, the underlying movement usually is an authentic conversion from sloth, indifference and disbelief to faith in Christ and the Christian life.
The Catholic Church in America has largely failed to evangelize and catechize her own and to create strong communities capable of resisting an increasingly anti-Christian culture. Our clergy are largely committed to the maintenance of parochial structures that served the immigrants but are feeble and impotent in the current climate. The answer to this dilemma lies in the intensive ecclesial movements; but while these develop in their sure and gradual fashion, many are finding real Gospel truth with the evangelicals.
In our culture war over innocent life, sexuality and family, the evangelicals are our primary allies. Neuhaus, Dulles and Colson realized this and have engaged in dialogue at the high-brow, intellectual level. Huckabee and Palin have defended these values in the political arena. In the local battles from sex education to the neighborhood abortion clinics, Evangelicals and Catholics are best friends.
Not so with the liberal, mainstream Protestant churches. These have drifted in the direction of relativism, subjectivism, liberalism and secularism. They are collaborative with the regime of “choice” and sexual liberation. The loss of our young Catholics to these denominations or even to a non-practicing, liberal, cultural Catholicism is a real loss and a deep sadness.
Another sign of hope is the smaller but steady flow of high-quality converts and reverts back into the Catholic Church. EWTN’s “The Journey Home” with Marcus Grodi showcases the exceptional intellectual and spiritual quality of so many clergymen and intellectuals whose evangelical love for Christ and His word eventually led them back to the authoritative Church. Their stories carry many common threads: appreciation for Tradition and authority; sense of Mary and the saints; longing for sacramental union with their Lord; and deeper appreciation for the more Catholic sense of scriptures, especially those involving the Eucharist.
And so we detect the underlying currents: Many lax Catholics are finding an authentic and living faith in Evangelical circles; the deeper and wiser of the Evangelicals are slowly finding their way back to the bridal, sacramental, Marian Church. It is all Good!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)