SEX—WHY IT MATTERS: In the wake of the abuse scandal, there has been a considerable amount of public discussion—evidenced by the recent Newsweek article—about the Church’s sexual teaching. Some Catholics believe that the scandal points up the need for change in Church teaching on a range of issues—celibacy, homosexuality, contraception, divorce—while others believe it was the failure to uphold these teachings that led to the scandal.
To those who don’t have a strong stake in these debates, they can certainly seem mystifying. Why is the Church so ‘hung up’ on sex? Why does it matter so much? Given the pervasiveness of sexual imagery in our culture, the question seems ironic. Can a culture obsessed with Britney Spears and Sex in the City make a serious claim that the Church is ‘hung up’ on sex? But the question still deserves an answer.
Sexuality is the divine fire within us. It is the awareness that we are incomplete, the longing for union that God has placed in our hearts. If received with proper reverence, it becomes a vehicle of grace, something that will lead us to become spiritually whole and life-giving. But if treated casually, sexual energy can be enormously destructive, both to individuals and communities.
Ancient cultures understood this. Whatever their failings, they understood that they were dealing with something very powerful. They surrounded sexuality with rituals and taboos. In many ways, they may have been too fearful and it was often women who bore a disproportionate share of the burden of those taboos. There are many nations of the world where they still do.
But our culture makes the opposite error. We believe that sex can be casual, with no lasting consequences for the individuals involved. The present scandal has highlighted the irony of this position, as it has illustrated just how emotionally devastating it can be to be sexually violated. But isn’t it lack of consent that is the problem? Perhaps. But both a robbery victim and a rape victim fail to consent to the act in question. Who would claim that their emotional trauma is the same?
Sexuality lies very close to the core of our being. To have sex with someone is to give the gift of oneself and to receive the gift of another. It is an act of union. That union cannot be separated without emotional and spiritual consequences. To turn ourselves into people who can have sex without those consequences is to turn ourselves into something less than fully human.
This is why the Catholic Church—like most religious traditions—has sought to manage and control the power of human sexuality. Because of its understanding of intercourse as an act of physical, emotional and spiritual union, it holds that the act is only appropriate for those who have entered the lifelong covenant of sacramental marriage. The Church also goes further than many other traditions in holding that married couples who engage in intercourse should never, through artificial means, seek to separate the unitive aspect of the act from its procreative purpose. Why is this so important to the Church?
To answer that we need to understand something about the ethical component of the Catholic faith. The purpose of our moral norms is not solely to guide decision-making in particular situations. Those norms are also meant to shape us into a certain type of people, a people who are “fit for the Kingdom of Heaven,” to use the language of scripture. What we ought to do is shaped, first and foremost, by what we want to be.
When the Church teaches about sexuality, it is trying to say something like the following: We believe that God is calling us to be a people who are capable of making commitments that we will honor, regardless of circumstance, for better or for worse, in sickness and health, as long as we shall live. We believe that God is calling us to be a people who accept children as a gift and who love them for themselves, not because they serve our needs. We believe that our sexuality is a gift from God that, if accepted with reverence, will lead us to become this kind of people.
How does this occur? In his book, The Holy Longing, Ron Rolheiser gives the example of a young man who, like many of us, has his share of “selfishness, hurt and personal ambition.” He is filled with a sexual energy that, at first, seeks only release. But he falls in love, and that energy now demands not just sex, but intimacy, exclusivity, and commitment. As his relationship with his wife matures, there comes a day when he wants children. He is surprised at how much his children change him and how he is increasingly able to put aside his own needs so as to give more of himself to his wife and children. As his children grow, he finds himself pulled into a wider world: parent-teacher conferences, soccer games, community meetings. “Slowly, imperceptibly, through the years he grows, widens, mellows out, becomes more unselfish, and a gracious, blessing adult father.” Rolheiser concludes:
Sex, followed in fidelity, leads to sanctity. This man’s story is one kind of scenario. There are many, many others that work in the same way, including the dynamics of a healthy celibate sexuality. Desire, working through us, if followed faithfully, keeps opening us up further and further to gracious adulthood.
Many Catholics—myself included—wrestle with the teachings of our Church on sexual questions. Contraception, of course, is the paradigmatic example. The Church has spent a great deal of energy over the past 30 years trying to draw a distinction between the use of periodic abstinence to avoid pregnancy and the use of artificial contraception to achieve the same purpose. The practice of the former is said to be morally licit and even helpful in leading a married couple to holiness. The latter is said to be spiritually destructive, an act that by its very nature undermines the union of husband and wife and makes them closed to new life. The problem is that many—perhaps most—married Catholics have not found this to be true in their own lives, either as married couples or as parents.
Homosexuality is another area where many Catholics are experiencing dissonance between what we have been taught and what we experience in our daily lives. I know, for example, an older lesbian couple. They are recovering alcoholics who met many years ago at an AA meeting. Knowing them as I do, there is no doubt in my mind that they are better off together than either would be separately. They keep each other sober and sane. Their relationship is, in that sense, life-giving even if it cannot be so in a biological sense.
Do these observations mean that I have cast my lot with the reformers? I will not deny that I am sympathetic to some of their arguments. But I have yet to be convinced that the liberal narrative, taken as a whole, is capable of disciplining our sexual fire in ways that lead us to the holiness that we are called to seek. “Anything goes between consenting adults” may or may not be a sufficient sexual ethic for a pluralistic society, but it certainly cannot be sufficient for those who call themselves followers of Jesus Christ.
Before the Church can take the liberal critique of its teaching on sexuality seriously, the liberals themselves will need to be significantly more self-critical. As Rolheiser argues:
Contemporary culture considers the overcoming of chastity a moral victory, one that has finally helped set us free sexually. Christians could perhaps take that claim more seriously if this supposed sexual liberation had in fact translated into more respect between the sexes and into sex that actually relieves loneliness, builds lasting community, builds more stable souls, results in less sexual exploitation of others, and helps create a society of less lonely, more loving, more gracious, and happier adults. Sadly, that is not the case and one is reminded of Albert Camus’ lament that there is a time when moving beyond chastity is considered a victory, but this soon turns into a defeat.”
I don’t think it is impossible that the Church’s teaching on certain issues of sexual ethics will change in the future. There have been changes in the past, even if we prefer to call them “doctrinal developments.” I think it’s fair to say that the writings of our current Pope on the holiness of marital sexuality would have seemed rather scandalous to Augustine and Aquinas. The theological arguments for change in some areas seem well founded and the leaders of the Church would do well to take them seriously.
But living as I do in a society where sex has been vulgarized, commercialized, and stripped of much of its beauty and mystery, I am not completely unhappy that the Church is “behind the times.” Our culture believes in progress and improvement, but the Church has lived long enough to know that decadence and decline are also a possibility. We may well need to move forward, but there are truths we need to hold on to as well.
THANKS JOHN!John Leo said very nice things about Sursum Corda and Amy Welborn’s In Between Naps in his U.S. News and World Report column this week. Alas, he failed to include my URL, although I get the impression that some people have found me through Amy’s site, since a link to her was available in a side column. If you are a Leo reader and have made it here, welcome! Sit down, have a cup of Joe and stay a while.
VACATION REMINDER: I will be out of pocket until Thursday. I suspect that those of you who made it through the 1500+ word essay above are in no hurry for me to return.
JOHNSON EXECUTED: Richard Johnson was executed by the state of South Carolina at 6pm EDT. Thanks to all who sent faxes to Governor Jim Hodges urging him to commute Johnson's sentence. Please pray for Mr. Johnson and for his family, and also for NC State Trooper Bruce Smalls--the man Johnson was convicted of murdering--and his family. Pray for all of those on death row, for all victims of homicide, and the families of both. Pray that we find a better way to obtain justice.
CATHOLIC PRESS UPDATE: The National Catholic Register has an interesting article about increasing repression of the Catholic Church in Russia. This is also the subject of an article in the new issue of The Tablet. The Russian Orthodox Church considers Russia to be Orthodox “turf,” notwithstanding the long history of Catholicism in that nation. Protestant churches are running into problems as well and may, in fact, be in an even worse position than the Catholic Church because many lack a strong international organization standing behind them.
The new Tidings has been posted and has an absolutely must-read column by Fr. Ron Rolheiser. Okay, I say that every week, but this one is really good, I promise. It’s entitled “Envying the Amoral,” and it talks about how easy it is for people who are faithful to their commitments to start feeling that they are missing out on something. Here’s a sample:
It's one thing to be responsible and dutiful; it's quite another to be grateful for living that way. The danger is that, like the older brother of the prodigal son, we end up doing the right thing and then becoming bitter about having to do it. What happens then is that we stand outside the circle of the dance, angry, secretly jealous of the amoral, protesting that life isn't fair, that God isn't fair: "I've stayed home, done my duty, never seriously strayed, and now the fuss is all about others who have had a fling and haven't been as faithful as I!"
The new America has also been posted (subscription to the print edition required for access). Lots of good stuff here. Those who don’t subscribe to the print edition should really consider doing so (click here). The cover story, by Rev. Michael L. Papesh, is entitled “Farewell to ‘the Club’” and talks about how the culture of the priesthood has had a difficult time wrestling with issues of sexuality:
Many healthy priests exercise their ministry nobly and faithfully. Yet the terrible reluctance of the clerical culture as a whole to engage matters of sexuality forthrightly and constructively is a grave impediment to ministry. It is intensified by Catholic moral teaching, fear and anxiety, undergirded by concerns for institutional preservation and self-protection. Consequently, realistic, wholesome and candid discussions of sexuality are silenced. Healthy, balanced formation of ordained ministers is hobbled. Sexuality, for many priests, becomes privatized, solemnized and darkened. Public and private accountability is thwarted. Many live in confusion and anguish about sexuality.
There also an interesting article by sociologist Paul Sullens that questions whether there is truly a shortage of priests. He notes that while there has been a decline in vocations to the priesthood since the 1960s, there has been an even steeper decline in the “demand” for services provided by priests (e.g. masses, weddings, baptisms, weddings, confessions, etc.).
VACATION ALERT: I will be traveling with my family for the few days (to Disneyland if you must know) and will be taking a break from Sursum Corda. To tide you over until I return, I will be posting a rather lengthy essay on sexual ethics (now I’ve got your attention) in response to the recent Newsweek article. Check back on Sunday. By the time you finish reading it, I should be back. See you then!
Lining up in the “boycott” column are a number of Catholic Bloggers. Michael Dubruiel suggests that a national withholding a week before the Bishop’s June meeting might spur the bishops to action:
One might even make a proviso that if the bishops act forthrightly (which would entail a number of bishops resigning, taking a strong stand for the truth, taking charge of Catholic Education, social care, the training of priests, and weeding out heretics), that the laity would give three times as much the week after the meeting.
Louder Fenn calls for “limited revolution,” although his "revolution" seems in some ways more limited than the "action" that Michael is proposing:
I think that it is sound policy to hold back every single dime from the diocese and every parish around. This is our chance for a limited revolution: not to change the rule of celibacy or rewrite the liturgy, but to tell bishops simply one thing: Stop the molesters. Certainly more faithfulness would cure this problem, but it is also amenable to worldly solutions like strict policies regarding molesters and seminaries.
Amy Wellborn argued that there are ways to express your displeasure with the diocese without making your parish suffer:
Don't pledge. Most of these diocesan appeals involve a pledge to give. Don't do it. Send in the envelope, but include a note explaining why you're not pledging. Then go ahead and give your regular contribution plus what you would have given to the diocese straight to the parish. That way you'll be sending your message, but the parish won't suffer.
But there are a number of naysayers as well, including Christian Conscience, Veni Sanctus Spiritus, Summa Contra Mundum (keep those Latin dictionaries handy, folks) and others. Most prominent among these (not surprisingly since he actually has to run a parish) is Blog Chaplain Father Shawn O’Neal. However, in a spirit of compromise, he offers this suggestion for those who want an alternative:
If you do not want your money to go into a parish's "general fund" out of fear that the diocese will use it in a payout, then consult your pastor about how you can give a restricted donation. Such donations can only be used for goods and not for services, but many churches need anything from tables to kitchen equipment to a sound system upgrade. By consulting the pastor and thereby giving a restricted gift to be used for the upkeep of specific parish infrastructure, you can be assured that the money stays on a parochial level AND you can free up the parish's budget so it can more easily pay utility bills and other such local charges.
As for me, well, I love my parish, and my pastor, and I’m actually quite fond of my bishop, who I think was doing a good job in dealing with clerical sexual abuse before it became a national issue. So I will continue to give.
But for those of you committed to boycott, I’ve got a better idea. Why not send those checks directly to Blog Chaplain Father O’Neal’s parish? Come on, Shawn, what do you say? Give us the parish address and we’ll all send a big fat check in your honor.
In today’s reading, Philip asks Jesus “Master, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.” Jesus rebukes him—gently—saying “Have I been with you for so long a time and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”
Most of us, I think, are a little like Philip. We’re looking for the big miracle, the theophany, to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God is here. Although we claim to believe in an incarnate God, a God who is present in every believer, our image of Him is often a being who is remote and far from us.
When tragedy strikes, we wonder where that God is. Where was God during the Nazi Holocaust, or the killing fields of Rwanda, or the attacks on the World Trade Center?
He was there. He was there in the person of the young Karol Wojtyla, who worked with the Polish underground to save Jews from the Nazis while he studied secretly for the priesthood. He was there in the person of the Hutu hotel owner in Kigali, Rwanda who protected the Tutsis hiding in his hotel from those who wanted to kill them. He was there among the firefighters and police officers of the City of New York who laid down their lives for the people they had sworn to serve and protect.
These people all showed the Father to others. And so can you.
SHAME: I wanted to close tonight by commenting on the story about the American hockey fans who burned a Canadian flag after a Leafs-Islanders playoff games. I feel a deep sense of shame over this incident, especially in light of the fact that four Canadian soldiers were recently killed in a "friendly-fire" incident while supporting allied anti-terrorism efforts in Afghanistan. My father also worked as a senior executive of the National Hockey League for several years, and worked hard to ensure that incidents of this nature were not the public face of the sport. I know that he, too, is shocked and saddened by it.
In commenting on the incident, Kathy Shaidle (Relapsed Catholic) wrote "I don't know if my American readers really understand how much guts it took for many of us to come out as 'pro-U.S.' and 'pro-New York' after September 11. Being anti-American is considered a sign of intelligence and sophistication up here in 'Europe North."
I lived for four years in Canada as a university student and I can vouch for the truth of Kathy's statement. Our neighbors to the north often do not feel warmly about us. Part of that is the inevitable problem of "sleeping with the Elephant," as Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau used to say. I do not hold it against them. I thoroughly enjoyed my time in Canada and continue to hold its people in highest regard.
There are many on the web, myself included, who have been quite critical of the anti-American sentiments that could be heard around the world in the wake of September 11th. That makes it all the more imperative that when some of our own citizens do something as gratuitously offensive and insulting as this that our voices are heard--loudly--in condemnation. We are a better nation than that.
[When] the hair shirt starts to feel good, it’s probably time to trade it in for a wedding garment. A wedding garment, you’ll remember, is what you had to wear to a wedding feast. But it wasn’t meant to exclude anyone, since it was easily obtained. To me it’s a good symbol of a willingness to drop our private agenda and enter into a spirit of community with people who may not share our zeal for their conversion.
That’s something that’s hard for prophets to do. Prophets often think, “If I’m not saving the world, what am I doing?” which is a question a good party can answer. How? By giving them an experience of life that is not a contest between good and evil.
By all means, let’s keep those hair shirts handy. Let’s continue to challenge each other. But let’s dance with each other every once in a while too.
THE DEFINITIVE LIST?Martin Roth has done an amazing job in compiling a semi-definitive list of Christian Bloggers. But I hope he has engraved it in ice, not stone, because new ones keep popping up. Extend a warm welcome to Kairos.
HAS ORTHODOXY BEEN VINDICATED? In an NRO column posted on May 1st, Michael Novak argues that, rather than empowering “progressives” within the Church, the clerical abuse scandal will lead to their decisive defeat. Novak defines “progressives” as those support greater decentralization of Church authority and/or those who believe that certain aspects of the Church’s sexual teaching should be changed.
Novak may well be right that the current scandal will not result in the kind of changes desired by progressives. His criticism of attempts by progressives to use the scandal to advance their own agenda seems reasonable. But he overreaches—badly—on a number of points. Consider the following paragraph:
First of all, in the current scandals, orthodoxy has been vindicated and progressivism found utterly bankrupt. No priests faithful to the traditional sexual teaching of the Church, and to their own maturely and voluntarily taken vows, caused any of the scandals aired in 2002. Traditional teaching did not fail. Had it been followed to the letter and in a full loving spirit, there would have been no scandals. Far from it.
Well I can think of at least one priest faithful to the traditional teaching of the Church on sexual matters who has been a source of scandal: Bernard Cardinal Law. What is scandalous about the current situation is not merely that priests violated their vows or committed terrible acts. It is that their superiors, who in many cases had significant knowledge of these acts, failed to take action. Cardinal Law is as orthodox as they come, but for some reason this orthodoxy did not compel him to remove a priest who seems to have been a founding member of the National Man Boy Love Association.
But Novak also overreaches on the question of the priests themselves. We know, in fact, little or nothing about the doctrinal orthodoxy of a large number of the priests who have been accused. Certainly there have been a few like the aforementioned Father Shanley. But in the celebrated case of Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legion of Christ, we have a man of apparently impeccable orthodoxy who has been accused by no less than eight individuals of having abused them while they were seminarians. Surely no one has ever accused Polish Archbishop Juliusz Paetz—who resigned from his post after allegations of abuse came to light—of doctrinal laxity. History is replete with examples of individuals whose public pronouncements were not in accord with their private acts.
I’m not sure that any particular faction of the Church—liberal, conservative, orthodox, or progressive—has been in any way vindicated by the current scandal. Liberals may well need to be called to account for their stewardship of the nation’s seminaries during the late 1960s and early 1970s, when so many of the priests who have been accused received their formation. But conservatives have spent many years defending the prerogatives of the Church authorities whose failure in this matter has been so spectacular. It’s time to stop pointing fingers at one another and work collectively to repair the damage that has been done.
BLOG BABY! Blog Chaplain Fr. Shawn O'Neal reports that the wife of Sean Gallagher, author of Nota Bene, gave birth to a baby boy at 4:24pm EST on May 1st. No name yet, but the little critter weighed in 6 pounds 13 ounces and was 19 inches long.
JOY: Today’s gospel reading from John is short but it highlights an important aspect of Christian life. Jesus tells his disciples to keep his commandments so that they might remain in his love. Then he continues: “I have told you this so that my joy might be in you and your joy might be complete.”
The French theologian and anthropologist Teilhard de Chardin, S.J. once said that “joy is an infallible proof of the presence of God.” The word “joy” appears almost 200 times in the Bible. Clearly, it is meant to be an important part of our life of faith.
Joy can be a powerful witness to the presence of Christ within us. I know an older man in my parish whose wife died of cancer a few years ago. Two of his sons have spent time in prison and are in recovery for substance abuse problems. You might think he would have good reason to “curse God,” as Job’s wife urged him to do. Yet this man is one of the most joyful people I know. He is intimate with his God and it shines from his very face.
How many of us can say as much? We may be dutiful and keep the commandments, but we do so like the prodigal son’s elder brother, in anticipation of our reward. We are quick to judge others who do not measure up to our standards. Instead of faces radiant with joy, we show the world a grimace and a wagging finger.
Jesus did not command us to condemn the world, but to love it, even when it fails to love us. We hold on and will not let go, because we know it is the Father’s will that none should be lost and all should experience the joy that He has placed in our hearts.
Since Leo XIII issued his pioneering encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891, the Church has defended the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively with their employers. Our current Pope, John Paul II, may well be the most pro-labor Pope ever to hold the office. This is partly due to his experiences with the Solidarity trade union in Poland, which played such an important role in the collapse of communism there. In his 1981 encyclical Laborem Exercens, John Paul clarified the difference between a Catholic understanding of labor unions, and the more adversarial approach taken by Marxism:
Catholic social teaching does not hold that unions are no more than a reflection of the “class” structure of society and that they are a mouthpiece for a class struggle which inevitably governs social life. They are indeed a mouthpiece for the struggle for social justice, for the just rights of working people in accordance with their individual professions. However, this struggle should be seen as a normal endeavor “for” the just good: in the present case, for the good which corresponds to the needs and merits of working people associated by profession; but it is not a struggle “against” others. Even if in controversial questions the struggle takes on a character of opposition toward others, this is because it aims at the good of social justice, not for the sake of “struggle” or in order to eliminate the opponent. (20.1)
Many Catholics (and many non-Catholics as well) wonder why the Church concerns itself with these kind of “temporal” matters. Shouldn’t the Church stay focused on religious issues and stay out of economics?
There are a number of reasons why the Church has involved itself in this issue. One is that work has a profound power to shape—or misshape—the worker. Work that is degrading will eventually degrade us, making us less than what God is calling us to be. This is not a matter of high-paying jobs being “good jobs” and low-paying jobs being “bad jobs.” Any job can be degrading if employees are treated merely as expendable factors of production.
Another reason for the Church’s involvement in labor issues is its interest in questions of distributive justice. While it has always defended private property, the Church also holds that there is a “social mortgage” on private property. The social surplus generated by our collective labor should be distributed in such a way that the basic needs of all human beings are met. Labor unions can provide a counterweight to the power of investors and managers and ensure that the needs of those on the bottom end of the wage spectrum are not ignored.
None of this is to say that a Catholic must always take the side of labor in any industrial dispute. For the last few years I have worked in management at a large corporation that has collective bargaining agreements with a number of unions. There are some with whom we have a very good, productive relationship. There are also a few who I believe are needlessly adversarial and are not doing their members any favors by taking such a stance. I will admit there have been times when I wished they would just disappear.
But in the end, I am glad our employees are represented by unions. It would be nice to believe that every decision made by management was a good one, made in the best long-term interest of the organization and its stakeholders. But I know this is not the case. In an organization of this size, well-organized interests often trump good arguments and even with the best of intentions, sometimes we just screw up badly. It’s all too easy for folks at headquarters to see our front-line employees in terms of “labor costs” instead of the people who interact with our customers every day and actually deliver the “product” that we claim to be selling. Personally, I’m glad our employees have someone watching their backs. It helps me sleep better at night.
There are a lot of people in the United States who wonder if we need unions anymore. They tend to work in well-lit offices with other well-educated, and well-dressed people and think that what they experience is universal. I have a different view. Over the years, I’ve talked to a lot of janitors, nursing assistants, food-processing workers and others and I know there are still far too many workplaces out there where the conditions are degrading and exploitative. I’m glad that unions are still trying to help these people get a fair shake, and I’m proud that my Church continues to stand by them.
MSGR. GEORGE HIGGINS 1916-2002: I was saddened to discover this morning (from Michael Dubruiel’s site) that Msgr. George Higgins, America’s foremost labor priest for half a century, had died. Higgins was a tireless advocate for the rights of working people in the United States and around the world. He played an important role in the U.S. Bishops 1969 decision to try and mediate the dispute between grape growers and the United Farm Workers union. Among those who worked with him on that issue was a young priest named Roger Mahony, who as most of you know has now gone on to bigger things. Upon hearing of Higgins death, Mahony said: "Msgr. Higgins' legacy as the champion of workers, especially the poorest of workers, will be recorded in history as nothing but phenomenal -- and, I am certain, never to be duplicated." For the full CNS story on Msgr Higgins, click here.
I had the good fortune to meet Msgr. Higgins in 1996 when he spoke at the national convention of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). It was a brief conversation, but he told me it was good to see young people like myself involved in the labor movement. I remembered that conversation this morning, and although I am no longer employed in the labor movement, it is the example of people like Mgsr. Higgins that has kept me involved on the fringes, offering my expertise to friends in the movement from time to time.
May 1st is the Feast of Saint Joseph the Worker and is also celebrated in most countries around the world as International Workers Day. I have a feeling that it is not a coincidence that the Lord chose this day to call Brother Higgins home. Requiescat in pace.
PRUNING: In today’s reading from the Gospel of John, we continue reading through the “farewell discourses” from the Last Supper. Jesus describes the relationship between Himself and His followers to be akin to the relationship between a grapevine and its branches: “I am the vine, you the branches.” He warns that branches that fail to bear fruit will be cut off and thrown into fire.
One can certainly read this passage as a stern warning of future judgment. But if you live in wine country, as I do, another interpretation begins to suggest itself. If you drive through the rolling hills of California’s wine country, you can see the men working in the fields all through the growing season, tending the vines with loving care. After planting, a grapevine needs at least two or three seasons of growth before it is able to produce fruit suitable for making wine. Pruning is a necessary part of the growing process. A vine with too many branches cannot produce good fruit because its energy is being diverted in too many different directions.
Most of us could do with a bit of pruning. In our chronically busy society, most of us are putting our energy into too many different things, with the result that none of them grow very well or produce good fruit. We need to take a hard look at our lives. Maybe we should spend a little less time watching television or (God forbid) surfing the Internet, and a little more time at prayer. Maybe we should find a way to spend a little less time at the office and a little more time with our families. We need to understand which aspects of our lives bear fruit, and which are barren. If we prune some of the latter, the former will become even more abundant.
GROWTH: And while we’re on the subject of growth, Sursum Corda received 305 “hits” yesterday, a new record (I’m excluding the two days after Andrew Sullivan linked to my site—it skews the statistics). If you like what you are reading, please share it with friends.
ADVISORY: This week’s commentary will be posted at 1pm PDT. Check back then.
A number of articles from the May issue of U.S. Catholic have also been posted. Gen-X writer Michael Kelly asks if “progressive” Catholics are too old-fashioned for younger Catholics. Mary Catt wonders about the meaning of the upsurge in Marian apparitions. Robert Kaiser, a contributing editor of Newsweek, vents his frustrations with the shroud of secrecy that covers Vatican decision-making. Click here to read any or all of these.
If you are looking for something a little more intellectually meaty than the above fare, the April issue of First Things is now available on-line. FT generally puts its content up on the web a month after its print issue hits the stands. The April issue has a fascinating article about Purgatory written by a Methodist theologian. Christian unity may be closer than we think. There is also a rather acerbic, if civil, debate between George Weigel and Paul Griffiths about the Catholic “just war” teaching and its application to the use of military force in Afghanistan. Those of you who don’t get enough of Father Neuhaus by reading his monthly “The Public Square” column may enjoy the “bonus” article that describes his conversion to Catholicism.
SHALOM: Jesus’ first words in today’s gospel should be very familiar to us. During the Mass, they are used to introduce the Rite of Peace, which comes after the Lord’s Prayer. We are asked to share a sign of peace with one another, and in North America this generally means that we shake hands with those sitting around us and say “peace be with you” or some variant.
Given the context of the rite, it would be easy to conclude that the “peace of Christ” refers to a psychological state, something akin to well-being or inner peace. This is part of it, to be sure, but not the whole.
The Greek word that John uses for “peace” is the word used to translate the Hebrew word “shalom.” Shalom does not refer primarily to one’s interior disposition, but to harmony in one’s relationships with the community as a whole. To wish someone Shalom is to wish that they may live in a community that is rightly ordered according to God’s justice.
So it is not surprising that Jesus says of His Shalom, “not as the world gives do I give to you.” The peace and justice of our world are always contingent. We create institutions to hold the power of evil in check, but those institutions often fail us. The call to Shalom, rather than being a call to a passive quietude, is rather a prophetic call to replace the “order” of this world with the true justice of God. In his book, The Peaceable Kingdom, Stanley Hauerwas observes:
All social orders and institutions to a greater or lesser extent, are built on the lie that we, not God, are the masters of our existence. In effect, we enter into conspiracies of illusion to secure order because we rightly fear the anarchy and violence of disorder. We desire normalcy and safety, even if that normalcy and safety are obtained at the expense of others. That is why there can finally be no separation of justice from truthfulness, for often demands for the former are challenges to our assumptions about the “way things are.”
THEY KEEP COMING: Two new Catholic Blogs have emerged recently. Progressive Catholic (a.k.a. Veni Sancte Spiritu) bills itself as the weblog of a "slightly caustic, progressive and always hopeful Catholic." Blog Chaplain Fr. Sean O'Neal was the best man at the wedding of Sean Gallagher, author of the new Nota Bene. Sean and his wife are expecting a baby any day now, so send him nice e-mail and tell him to get all the sleep he can now.
CATHOLIC PRESS UPDATE: The new Tidings has been posted. Fr. Ron Rolheiser talks about how the Catholic devotional tradition can help keep the fire of faith burning inside of us. He notes that in recent years the Church has focused heavily on the biblical and theological aspects of faith. “Well-intentioned as this is, it's been reductionistic. Afraid of food poisoning, we've put ourselves on a diet of antiseptics. Now we will never die of impurities, but we might well die of malnutrition.”
The cover story of this week’s National Catholic Reporter focuses on how Catholic laypeople in Boston have been organizing to demand greater accountability and more lay involvement in Church decisionmaking. NCR also reports that the Vatican’s Congregation on Divine Worship is posed to issue a stinging critique of an English translation of the Roman Missal prepared by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy. The translation is of the previous edition of the Missal, not the new one released in March, so a new translation will have to prepared in any case.
NCR’s Vatican correspondent John Allen files a weekly column from Rome that is a must read. Allen detects a change in the way that American bishops in particular are dealing with the press. As he notes with respect to one bishop:
Once again, I was struck by the open way he answered questions about supposedly secret proceedings. Normally I’d have to work hard, dancing around such a question a number of times, before I got the answer. This time, the bishops seemed to realize that the only way out of their fix is honesty.
Once that genie’s out of the bottle, it’s awfully hard to put it back in.
The Tablet has an interesting article on the English Reformation. Those who enjoyed my review of Eamon Duffy’s The Stripping of the Altars should probably check it out; others may find it a bit dry. Our Sunday Visitor takes a pretty evenhanded look at the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
This week’s issue of America(subscription to the print edition required for access) focuses on the liturgy, and there are the predictable array of articles on music, architecture, and how to get your kids to behave during mass. They are all good, solid, readable articles but little is said that hasn’t already been said elsewhere. One exception to this was an interesting article by theologian Christopher Ruddy on the issue of intercommunion. Proving that liturgical debates do not have to put one to sleep, Ruddy compares intercommunion between separated churches to premarital sex (now I've got your attention, right?) Check out this paragraph:
Just as with premarital sex, however, intercommunion apart from true unity in faith diminishes the desire for full unity and eventually corrodes the real unity that already exists. The ecumenical movement often speaks of the mutually necessary dialogues of truth and of love. Truth without love leads to harshness and violence, love without truth to sentimentality and compromise. Only together can each be brought to fullness of life. If in the past the churches often neglected the dialogue of love for monologues of polemic, it now seems that the dialogue of truth has been exchanged for a well-intentioned but misguided indifferentism toward the content of our faith. We effectively refuse to take our differences seriously. A Eucharist celebrated between churches divided on essential matters of faith and sacraments is inherently self-contradictory: how can we truthfully and lovingly share the sacrament of unity when we are divided over the truth of our faith in Christ?
In today’s reading, Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit, “whom the Father will send in my name—he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” The other word Jesus uses to describe the action of the Spirit is translated here as “Advocate.” The Greek word is parakletos, and has been translated as “advocate,” “intercessor,” “counselor,” “teacher,” “helper,” and “comforter.” Clearly the Holy Spirit has a lot of work to do!
Jesus assures the disciples that while He is leaving them to return to the Father, He will continue to be with them through the action of the Spirit: "Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him.” The word “dwelling” is important, because it is the same word used in the Book of Exodus (Chapter 40) to describe the tent that the wandering Israelites created to house the Ark of the Covenant. Through the coming of the Spirit, we become living tabernacles of the Most High, with God dwelling within us.
At its very beginnings—before we had priests, bishops, buildings, or even a Bible—the Church was simply the people in whom the Spirit dwelt. That’s an idea we need to hold on to right now. Those other things are important, but they won’t sustain us through dark times if we can’t hold on to the presence of God that is in our very hearts. Now would be a good time for all of us to pray a traditional prayer of the Church: “Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful, and enkindle in them the fire of your love.”
