Category Archives: Ecclesiology

Explicit & implicit faith: who can be saved?

explicit faith

Cardinal_dulles

-by Avery Cardinal Dulles, SJ, (1918 – 2008), Dulles was raised a Presbyterian but had become an agnostic by the time he was a student at Harvard. Subsequent to his conversion to Catholicism, he held the Laurence J. McGinley Chair in Religion and Society at Fordham University. This essay is adapted from the Laurence J. McGinley Lecture delivered on November 7, 2007.

Nothing is more striking in the New Testament than the confidence with which it proclaims the saving power of belief in Christ. Almost every page confronts us with a decision of eternal consequence: Will we follow Christ or the rulers of this world? The gospel is, according to Paul, “the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith” (Rom. 1:16). The apostles and their associates are convinced that in Jesus they have encountered the Lord of Life and that He has brought them into the way that leads to everlasting blessedness. By personal faith in Him and by baptism in His name, Christians have passed from darkness to light, from error to truth, and from sin to holiness.

Paul is the outstanding herald of salvation through faith. To the Romans he writes, “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9). Faith, for him, is inseparable from baptism, the sacrament of faith. By baptism, the Christian is immersed in the death of Christ so as to be raised with Him to newness of life (Rom. 6:3-4).

The Book of Acts shows the apostles preaching faith in Christ as the way to salvation. Those who believe the testimony of Peter on the first Pentecost ask him what they must do to be saved. He replies that they must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins and thereby save themselves from the present crooked generation (Acts 2:37-40). When Peter and John are asked by the Jewish religious authorities by what authority they are preaching and performing miracles, they reply that they are acting in the name of Jesus Christ and that “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Paul and his associates bring the gospel first of all to the Jews because it is the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises. When the Jews in large numbers reject the message, Paul and Barnabas announce that they are turning to the Gentiles in order to bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the earth (Acts 13:46-47).

A few chapters later in Acts, we see Paul and Silas in prison at Philippi. When their jailer asks them, “What must I do to be saved?” they reply, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.” The jailer and his family at once accept baptism and rejoice in their newfound faith (Acts 16:30-34).

The same doctrine of salvation permeates the other books of the New Testament. Mark’s gospel ends with this missionary charge: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole of creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:15-16).

John in his gospel speaks no less clearly. Jesus at one point declares that those who hear His word and believe in Him do not remain in darkness, whereas those who reject Him will be judged on the last day (John 12:44-50). At the Last Supper, Jesus tells the Twelve, “This is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent” (John 17:3). John concludes the body of his gospel with the statement that he has written his account “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31).

From these and many other texts, I draw the conclusion that, according to the primary Christian documents, salvation comes through personal faith in Jesus Christ, followed and signified by sacramental baptism.

The New Testament is almost silent about the eternal fate of those to whom the gospel has not been preached. It seems apparent that those who became believers did not think they had been on the road to salvation before they heard the gospel. In his sermon at Athens, Paul says that in times past God overlooked the ignorance of the pagans, but he does not say that these pagans were saved. In the first chapter of Romans, Paul says that the Gentiles have come to a knowledge of God by reasoning from the created world, but that they are guilty because by their wickedness they have suppressed the truth and fallen into idolatry. In the second chapter of Romans, Paul indicates that Gentiles who are obedient to the biddings of conscience can be excused for their unbelief, but he indicates that they fall into many sins. He concludes that “all have sinned and fall short” of true righteousness (Rom. 3:23). For justification, Paul asserts, both Jews and Gentiles must rely on faith in Jesus Christ, Who expiated the sins of the world on the cross.

Animated by vibrant faith in Christ the Savior, the Christian Church was able to conquer the Roman Empire. The converts were convinced that in embracing Christianity they were escaping from the darkness of sin and superstition and entering into the realm of salvation. For them, Christianity was the true religion, the faith that saves. It would not have occurred to them that any other faith could save them.

Christian theologians, however, soon had to face the question whether anyone could be saved without Christian faith. They did not give a wholly negative answer. They agreed that the patriarchs and prophets of Israel, because they looked forward in faith and hope to the Savior, could be saved by adhering in advance to Him Who was to come.

The apologists of the second and third centuries made similar concessions with regard to certain Greek philosophers. The prologue to John’s gospel taught that the eternal Word enlightens all men who come into the world. Justin Martyr speculated that philosophers such as Socrates and Heraclitus had lived according to the Word of God, the Logos Who was to become incarnate in Christ, and they could therefore be reckoned as being in some way Christians. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen held that the Wisdom of God gave graces to people of every generation, both Greeks and barbarians.

The saving grace of which these theologians were speaking, however, was given only to pagans who lived before the time of Christ. It was given by the Word of God Who was to become incarnate in Jesus Christ. There was no doctrine that pagans could be saved since the promulgation of the gospel without embracing the Christian faith.

Origen and Cyprian, in the third century, formulated the maxim that has come down to us in the words Extra ecclesiam nulla salus ””Outside the Church, no salvation.” They spoke these words with heretics and schismatics primarily in view, but they do not appear to have been any more optimistic about the prospects of salvation for pagans. Assuming that the gospel had been promulgated everywhere, writers of the high patristic age considered that, in the Christian era, Christians alone could be saved. In the East, this view is represented by Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom. The view attributed to Origen that hell would in the end be evacuated and that all the damned would eventually be saved was condemned in the sixth century.

In the West, following Ambrose and others, Augustine taught that, because faith comes by hearing, those who had never heard the gospel would be denied salvation. They would be eternally punished for original sin as well as for any personal sins they had committed. Augustine’s disciple Fulgentius of Ruspe exhorted his readers to “firmly hold and by no means doubt that not only all pagans, but also all Jews, and all heretics and schismatics who are outside the Catholic Church, will go to the eternal fire that was prepared for the devil and his angels.”

The views of Augustine and Fulgentius remained dominant in the Christian West throughout the Middle Ages. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) reaffirmed the formula “Outside the Church, no salvation,” as did Pope Boniface VIII in 1302. At the end of the Middle Ages, the Council of Florence (1442) repeated the formulation of Fulgentius to the effect that no pagan, Jew, schismatic, or heretic could be saved.

On one point the medieval theologians diverged from rigid Augustinianism. On the basis of certain passages in the New Testament, they held that God seriously wills that all may be saved. They could cite the statement of Peter before the household of Cornelius: “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35). The First Letter to Timothy, moreover, declares that God “desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). These assurances made for a certain tension in Catholic teaching on salvation. If faith in Christ was necessary for salvation, how could salvation be within reach of those who had no opportunity to learn about Christ?

Thomas Aquinas, in dealing with this problem, took his departure from the axiom that there was no salvation outside the Church. To be inside the Church, he held, it was not enough to have faith in the existence of God and in divine providence, which would have sufficed before the coming of Christ. God now required explicit faith in the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation. In two of his early works ( De Veritate and Commentary on Romans ), he discusses the hypothetical case of a man brought up in the wilderness, where the gospel was totally unknown. If this man lived an upright life with the help of the graces given him, Thomas reasoned, God would make it possible for him to become a Christian believer, either through an inner illumination or by sending a missionary to him. Thomas referred to the biblical example of the centurion Cornelius, who received the visitation of an angel before being evangelized and baptized by Peter (Acts 10). In his Summa Theologiae , however, Thomas omits any reference to miraculous instruction; he goes back to the Augustinian theory that those who had never heard the gospel would be eternally punished for original sin as well as their personal sins.

A major theological development occurred in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The voyages of discovery had by this time disclosed that there were large populations in North and South America, Africa, and Asia who had lived since the time of Christ and had never had access to the preaching of the gospel. The missionaries found no sign that even the most upright among these peoples had learned the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation by interior inspirations or angelic visitations.

Luther, Calvin, and the Jansenists professed the strict Augustinian doctrine that God did not will to save everyone, but the majority of Catholic theologians rejected the idea that God had consigned all these unevangelized persons to hell without giving them any possibility of salvation. A series of theologians proposed more hopeful theories that they took to be compatible with Scripture and Catholic tradition.

The Dominican Melchior Cano argued that these populations were in a situation no different from that of the pre-Christian pagans praised by Justin and others. They could be justified in this life (but not saved in the life to come) by implicit faith in the Christian mysteries. Another Dominican, Domingo de Soto, went further, holding that, for the unevangelized, implicit faith in Christ would be sufficient for salvation itself. Their contemporary, Albert Pighius, held that for these unevangelized persons the only faith required would be that mentioned in Hebrews 11:6: “Without faith it is impossible to please Him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him.” They could therefore be saved by general revelation and grace even though no missionary came to evangelize them.

The Jesuit Francisco Suarez, following these pioneers, argued for the sufficiency of implicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation, together with an implicit desire for baptism on the part of the unevangelized. Juan de Lugo agreed, but he added that such persons could not be saved if they had committed serious sins, unless they obtained forgiveness by an act of perfect contrition.

In the mid-nineteenth century, the Jesuits of the Gregorian University followed in the tradition of Suarez and de Lugo, with certain modifications. Pope Pius IX incorporated some of their ideas in two important statements in 1854 and 1863. In the first, he said that, while no one can be saved outside the Church, God would not punish people for their ignorance of the true faith if their ignorance was invincible. In the second statement, Pius went further. He declared that persons invincibly ignorant of the Christian religion who observed the natural law and were ready to obey God would be able to attain eternal life, thanks to the workings of divine grace within them. In the same letter, the pope reaffirmed that no one could be saved outside the Catholic Church. He did not explain in what sense such persons were, or would come to be, in the Church. He could have meant that they would receive the further grace needed to join the Church, but nothing in his language suggests this. More probably he thought that such persons would be joined to the Church by implicit desire, as some theologians were teaching by his time.

In 1943, Pius XII did take this further step. In his encyclical on the Mystical Body, Mystici Corporis, he distinguished between two ways of belonging to the Church: in actual fact ( in re ) or by desire ( in voto ). Those who belonged in voto , however, were not really members. They were ordered to the Church by the dynamism of grace itself, which related them to the Church in such a way that they were in some sense in it. The two kinds of relationship, however, were not equally conducive to salvation. Those adhering to the Church by desire could not have a sure hope of salvation because they lacked many spiritual gifts and helps available only to those visibly incorporated in the true Church.

Mystici Corporis represents a forward step in its doctrine of adherence to the Church through implicit desire. From an ecumenical point of view, that encyclical is deficient, since it does not distinguish between the status of non-Christians and non-Catholic Christians. The next important document came from the Holy Office in its letter to Cardinal Cushing of Boston in 1949. The letter pointed out ”in opposition to Father Leonard Feeney, S.J., and his associates at St. Benedict Center” that, although the Catholic Church was a necessary means for salvation, one could belong to it not only by actual membership but by also desire, even an unconscious desire. If that desire was accompanied by faith and perfect charity, it could lead to eternal salvation.

Neither the encyclical Mystici Corporis nor the letter of the Holy Office specified the nature of the faith required for “in voto” status. Did the authors mean that the virtue of faith or the inclination to believe would suffice, or did they require actual faith in God and divine providence, or actual faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation?

The Second Vatican Council, in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church and its Decree on Ecumenism, made some significant departures from the teaching of Pius XII. It avoided the term member and said nothing of an unconscious desire for incorporation in the Church. It taught that the Catholic Church was the all-embracing organ of salvation and was equipped with the fullness of means of salvation. Other Christian churches and communities possessed certain elements of sanctification and truth that were, however, derived from the one Church of Christ that subsists in the Catholic Church today. For this reason, God could use them as instruments of salvation. God had, however, made the Catholic Church necessary for salvation, and all who were aware of this had a serious obligation to enter the Church in order to be saved. God uses the Catholic Church not only for the redemption of her own members but also as an instrument for the redemption of all. Her witness and prayers, together with the eucharistic sacrifice, have an efficacy that goes out to the whole world.

In several important texts, Vatican II took up the question of the salvation of non-Christians. Although they were related to the Church in various ways, they were not incorporated in her. God’s universal salvific will, it taught, means that he gives non-Christians, including even atheists, sufficient help to be saved. Whoever sincerely seeks God and, with His grace, follows the dictates of conscience is on the path to salvation. The Holy Spirit, in a manner known only to God, makes it possible for each and every person to be associated with the Paschal mystery. “God, in ways known to Himself, can lead those inculpably ignorant of the gospel to that faith without which it is impossible to please Him.” The council did not indicate whether it is necessary for salvation to come to explicit Christian faith before death, but the texts give the impression that implicit faith may suffice.

Vatican II left open the question whether non-Christian religions contain revelation and are means that can lead their adherents to salvation. It did say, however, that other religions contain elements of truth and goodness, that they reflect rays of the truth that enlightens all men, and that they can serve as preparations for the gospel. Christian missionary activity serves to heal, ennoble, and perfect the seeds of truth and goodness that God has sown among non-Christian peoples, to the glory of God and the spiritual benefit of those evangelized.

While repeatedly insisting that Christ is the one mediator of salvation, Vatican II shows forth a generally hopeful view of the prospects of non-Christians for salvation. Its hopefulness, however, is not unqualified: “Rather often, men, deceived by the evil one, have become caught up in futile reasoning and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or, some there are who, living and dying in a world without God, are subject to utter hopelessness.” The missionary activity of the Church is urgent for bringing such persons to salvation.

After the council, Paul VI (in his pastoral exhortation “Evangelization in the Modern World”) and John Paul II (in his encyclical Redemptoris Missio ) interpreted the teaching of Vatican II in relation to certain problems and theological trends arising since the council. Both popes were on guard against political and liberation theology, which would seem to equate salvation with formation of a just society on earth and against certain styles of religious pluralism, which would attribute independent salvific value to non-Christian religions. In 2000, toward the end of John Paul’s pontificate, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the declaration Dominus Iesus , which emphatically taught that all grace and salvation must come through Jesus Christ, the one mediator.

Wisely, in my opinion, the popes and councils have avoided talk about implicit faith, a term that is vague and ambiguous. They do speak of persons who are sincerely seeking for the truth and of others who have found it in Christ. They make it clear that sufficient grace is offered to all and that God will not turn away those who do everything within their power to find God and live according to His law. We may count on Him to lead such persons to the faith needed for salvation.

One of the most interesting developments in post-conciliar theology has been Karl Rahner’s idea of “anonymous Christians.” He taught that God offers his grace to everyone and reveals Himself in the interior offer of grace. Grace, moreover, is always mediated through Christ and tends to bring its recipients into union with Him. Those who accept and live by the grace offered to them, even though they have never heard of Christ and the gospel, may be called anonymous Christians.

Although Rahner denied that his theory undermined the importance of missionary activity, it was widely understood as depriving missions of their salvific importance. Some readers of his works understood him as teaching that the unevangelized could possess the whole of Christianity except the name. Saving faith, thus understood, would be a subjective attitude without any specifiable content. In that case, the message of the gospel would have little to do with salvation.

The history of the doctrine of salvation through faith has gone through a number of stages since the High Middle Ages. Using the New Testament as their basic text, the Church Fathers regarded faith in Christ and baptism as essential for salvation. On the basis of his study of the New Testament and Augustine, Thomas Aquinas held that explicit belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation was necessary for everyone who lived since the time of Christ, but he granted that in earlier times it was sufficient to believe explicitly in the existence and providence of God.

In the sixteenth century, theologians speculated that the unevangelized were in the same condition as pre-Christians and were not held to believe explicitly in Christ until the gospel was credibly preached to them. Pius IX and the Second Vatican Council taught that all who followed their conscience, with the help of the grace given to them, would be led to that faith that was necessary for them to be saved. During and after the council, Karl Rahner maintained that saving faith could be had without any definite belief in Christ or even in God.

We seem to have come full circle from the teaching of Paul and the New Testament that belief in the message of Christ is the source of salvation. Reflecting on this development, one can see certain gains and certain losses. The New Testament and the theology of the first millennium give little hope for the salvation of those who, since the time of Christ, have had no chance of hearing the gospel. If God has a serious salvific will for all, this lacuna needed to be filled, as it has been by theological speculation and church teaching since the sixteenth century. Modern theology, preoccupied with the salvation of non-Christians, has tended to neglect the importance of explicit belief in Christ, so strongly emphasized in the first centuries. It should not be impossible, however, to reconcile the two perspectives.

Scripture itself assures us that God has never left Himself without a witness to any nation (Acts 14:17). His testimonies are marks of His saving dispensations toward all. The inner testimony of every human conscience bears witness to God as lawgiver, judge, and vindicator. In ancient times, the Jewish Scriptures drew on literature that came from Babylon, Egypt, and Greece. The Book of Wisdom and Paul’s Letter to the Romans speak of God manifesting his power and divinity through his works in nature. The religions generally promote prayer and sacrifice as ways of winning God’s favor. The traditions of all peoples contain elements of truth imbedded in their cultures, myths, and religious practices. These sound elements derive from God, who speaks to all his children through inward testimony and outward signs.

The universal evidences of the divine, under the leading of grace, can give rise to a rudimentary faith that leans forward in hope and expectation to further manifestations of God’s merciful love and of his guidance for our lives. By welcoming the signs already given and placing their hope in God’s redeeming love, persons who have not heard the tidings of the gospel may nevertheless be on the road to salvation. If they are faithful to the grace given them, they may have good hope of receiving the truth and blessedness for which they yearn.

The search, however, is no substitute for finding. To be blessed in this life, one must find the pearl of great price, the treasure hidden in the field, which is worth buying at the cost of everything one possesses. To Christians has been revealed the mystery hidden from past ages, which the patriarchs and prophets longed to know. By entering through baptism into the mystery of the cross and the Resurrection, Christians undergo a radical transformation that sets them unequivocally on the road to salvation. Only after conversion to explicit faith can one join the community that is nourished by the Word of God and the sacraments. These gifts of God, prayerfully received, enable the faithful to grow into ever greater union with Christ.

In Christ’s Church, therefore, we have many aids to salvation and sanctification that are not available elsewhere. Cardinal Newman expressed the situation admirably in one of his early sermons:

“The prerogative of Christians consists in the possession, not of exclusive knowledge and spiritual aid, but of gifts high and peculiar; and though the manifestation of the Divine character in the Incarnation is a singular and inestimable benefit, yet its absence is supplied in a degree, not only in the inspired record of Moses, but even, with more or less strength, in those various traditions concerning Divine Providences and Dispositions which are scattered through the heathen mythologies.

We cannot take it for granted that everyone is seeking the truth and is prepared to submit to it when found. Some, perhaps many, resist the grace of God and reject the signs given to them. They are not on the road to salvation at all. In such cases, the fault is not God’s but theirs. The references to future punishment in the gospels cannot be written off as empty threats. As Paul says, God is not mocked (Gal. 6:7).”

We may conclude with certitude that God makes it possible for the unevangelized to attain the goal of their searching. How that happens is known to God alone, as Vatican II twice declares. We know only that their search is not in vain. “Seek, and you will find,” says the Lord (Matt. 7:7). If non-Christians are praying to an unknown God, it may be for us to help them find the one they worship in ignorance. God wants everyone to come to the truth. Perhaps some will reach the goal of their searching only at the moment of death. Who knows what transpires secretly in their consciousness at that solemn moment? We have no evidence that death is a moment of revelation, but it could be, especially for those in pursuit of the truth of God.

Meanwhile, it is the responsibility of believers to help these seekers by word and by example. Whoever receives the gift of revealed truth has the obligation to share it with others. Christian faith is normally transmitted by testimony. Believers are called to be God’s witnesses to the ends of the earth.

Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think He wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given.”

(CCC 811-870)

(CCC 846) “How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; He is present to us in His body which is the Church.

He Himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door.

Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.”

I have been given an incalculable amount.  I submit myself, wholly, or at least I try to to the Author of ALL that gift, in most profound gratitude possible.  Be merciful to me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man.  cf Lk 18:13.

Love,
Matthew

Growing in holiness…struggling with the Church, growing closer to Him

jesusteacher

If you are a faithful follower of Jesus Christ you will suffer.  I cannot emphasize that enough.  It is it’s definition.  Jn 15:20.  Do you dare accept the terrorizing challenge of baptism?  Do you?  Have you? :/

If you are growing closer to the cross, imho, and a few saints’ opinions, you are doing something right.  The point is not suffering in itself, for its own sake.  That would be a symptom of less emotional health than desirable.  Suffering is a consequence of the Truth in this world, doing the work of the Master, and growing closer to Him in all things, holiness and the crucifixion, being united to Jesus Christ in ALL things.  His love is so great, His conquest so complete, His power so redound, suffering can become joy, for the sake of the beloved, i.e. a parent for their child, in earthly terms, as a practical example, but His goes so far beyond that.

How does the old joke go?  If you want to lose your faith, go to work for the Church?  🙂  Get over your being scandalized, quickly.  Get on with it.  There are lives and souls to be saved.  For me, there is endless comfort in the Gospels, not only in the words of the Lord, but especially in the antics, hi-jinks, lo-jinks, pure and plain sinfulness of the Apostles.  Goofballs.  What a bunch of Keystone Cops!!!?  Endless comfort.  Humans do not change much in history, do they?  Blessed be the God Who saves us, from ourselves, especially!!!  Thank you, Jesus.  Thank you.  Don’t need a Redeemer?  Really?  I do.  I most certainly do.  Praise Him!!!

I relate distinctly with Lauren’s experience, though maybe not in the details, and heartily endorse her prescription.

Ask questions –  it’s the thing I like most about being Catholic.  Never listen to anyone who says Catholics are not supposed to ask questions.  They don’t know what they are talking about and are therefore a bad source.  Asking questions will get you crucified, undoubtedly, but here we have no lasting city.  Heb 13:14.

Find reliables sources – the world is replete with stupidity and ignorance.  Keep pushing.  Find your reliable, faithful, holy resources for those endless questions.  Find good teachers.  Those who can speak to you in the way you can most easily relate.  It is your right, your are entitled to good, relevant, understandable answers as a child of God.  You are.  It just is so.   The Church, as one may hope and pray, has excellent answers.  The Church’s ability to communicate those into digestable, everyday, everyperson answers needs a lot of work.  I kind of think/hope that is the point of the New Evangelization.  Let’s pray.

Pray – Amen!  Jn 15:5.  Prayer is life and breath for the Christian.  ‘Nuff said.  There is a story regarding Mother Teresa and the enthusiastic young women who would come to her, ready to save the world and deal with the worst of the worst of human suffering.  Mother would say to them, “Come and pray.”  They would respond, “But, Mother, there is so much to do.  Let’s get started!!”  Mother would patiently, calmly repeat, “Come and pray.”  Her postulants would insist, persist in wanting action.  Mother would calmly, patiently, repeat “Come and pray.”  Mother finally said to them, “If you don’t pray, you won’t last.”  Wise words for all of us.  Amen.  Amen.  Be creative in your prayer.  Do what works for you, that good spiritual wisdom would advise.  Give Him glory, honor, and praise always in ALL ways!!!  As you can probably tell, blogging and reading are forms of prayer for me.  I also enjoy quiet meditation and reflection, as well as the many other forms of prayer the Church recommends.

Persist!!!!  Be TUFF!!!  No louts, no wimps in Heaven!!!! Rev 7:14 – pray for the grace of final perseverance.  Struggle, fight, work, not that our efforts have any primary merit whatsoever, but out of sheer joy and gratitude for God’s amazing grace and love, we respond, in response to that gift of unmerited grace, in utter, sheer joy, with every gift God has given us in praise of Him and to His glory.  We work, we shout, we rejoice, we suffer, we proclaim Jesus Christ and Him crucified with ALL we have!  1 Cor 2:2.

laurenmeyers

-by Lauren Meyers

“I would like to say that my faith is uncomplicated — to say that I accept and embrace every teaching of our Church with a gleeful smile and without a shred of doubt. There was probably a time when this was the case; maybe in my later teens or early twenties, when the love that I had for the Lord and the excitement and novelty of living in such a counter cultural way filled me with zeal and a promise that the world could be changed and could be a better place.

Ten years later, I still love the Lord, I still desire to draw close to Jesus, and I still have hope and joy, I still love the Catholic Church, but it’s not as easy as it once was. It was easier to accept the Church’s teaching on contraception before I was married and had to face that temptation. It was easier to go to Mass when I was in college and had more free time than I ever realized. It was easier to trust the Magisterium before I read beyond John Paul II and into history, and it was easier to hope before I had experienced any significant, personal loss. Over time, I have grappled with the Church and with God, and in that struggle I have found that there are a few ways to enter into that interior conflict and emerge closer to Jesus and His Church.

Don’t be afraid to ask difficult questions. The greater threat to our faith is not that we ask difficult questions, but that we become too indifferent to even consider them. Ask questions. St. Augustine was correct when he said that, “The truth it like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.” Take time. Ask questions. Seek truth, because the Truth can handle it.

Seek reliable counsel and documents. I hate to say it, but I really like “sound bite” information. I’m not one for reading long books or encyclicals, and so this is a difficult thing for me, but it is essential. When we are able to ask those difficult questions about the Eucharist, about morality, about the clergy, the sacraments, the abuses, or anything else, we have to seek out real and reliable information and anwers. Seek the advice and guidance of a few, diverse people. Ask for answers from individuals without twisted agendas, who are more experienced and more knowledgable, and who can give new insights. Ask for books, articles, encyclicals, and scripture commentary to delve into. It will take time, and that’s OK. You can’t cover thousads of years of history, theology, and philosophy in a sound bite.

Pray. Whenever I’m strugging with the Church’s teaching on something, I always remember playing that childhood hide and seek game. The one where someone had hidden something and, as you search, they tell you if you’re getting “hot” or “cold” on your search. That’s sort of the prayer that I pray as I am questioning and seeking. Lord, open my heart to your truth. Is this leading me toward peace? Am I being motivated by selfishness or by sincerity? Am I seeking Your Truth or my own will? Lord, reveal Yourself to me in this search. When we seek God, we ought to ask for His guidance. Take time to pray, to ask the Lord to guide your steps. He isn’t trying to hide from us, He wants us to find Him and He can help us, if we ask.

Do not give up and do not let go. This is so difficult, because it’s the easiest thing to do. It is so easy to tire and become indifferent in the journey toward Truth, and I feel like indifference has just made a cozy little home in this place called relativism. So many times I have thought it would just be easier to forget about seeking truth and instead, to do whatever I think feels right. Where did we come from? Why are we here? Is there objective moral truth? Do our private choices have communal ramifications? Does what I believe really matter? All of these questions demand real thought, and work, and change within ourselves. And although giving up on it all and choosing indifference and relativism seems like the easy way out, I beg you, do not give up and do not let go.

First, do not give up the search for truth. Do not give up on these questions as though they were unanswerable. The answers may be hard to find, and we may seek those anwers for our lifetime, but that does not make the search meaningless. In fact, the search for Truth may be the most noble of pursuits that we can take up. Second, do not let go of Jesus and the Church. Leaving the Church, the community, and the sacraments is not the way to reconcile yourself with the teachings of the Church. Keep praying. Keep going to Mass. Keep serving the poor in the community. Keep receiving the Sacraments as your conscince allows. Seek the Lord in his Church. There are times of conflict and struggle in all of our relationships, but it is when we are faithful and steady and don’t give up that those relationships and shared love grow strong. Let your love for the Lord and his Church become strengthened and solidified in your struggles and questions. Stick with it, expect great things, and don’t be afraid.”

Love,
Matthew

“to live in loneliness…” – US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, Obergefell v Hodges

longing

jordan zajac

-by Br Jordan Zajac, OP (prior to joining the Order, Br Jordan earned an MA at the University of Virginia and his PhD from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, both in English Literature)

“In anticipation of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges, and reflecting on what that decision might hold for the future of the Church in America, I thought about reading Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” or a monograph on the persecutions of Catholics during the French Revolution. But instead, I picked up “Faith and the Future”, a thin volume containing five addresses given in 1969-1970 by a priest and professor named Joseph Ratzinger.

Those familiar with a better-known title published fifteen years later, The Ratzinger Report, can appreciate how well the man who would become Pope Benedict XVI has been able throughout his life to read the signs of the times and anticipate cultural and ecclesiastical shifts and trends that have since become clear for the rest of us. So I closely read and re-read the final pages of Faith and the Future, appreciating that our country was likely about to take another definitive step in the direction he foresaw Western society moving close to a half-century ago. When in 1970 Fr. Ratzinger considered the Church’s future, he envisioned that “terrific upheavals” in the secular world would result in a socially marginalized Church—a Church made small, but in her smallness, made stronger:

“From the crisis of today the Church of tomorrow will emerge—a Church that has lost much. She will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning. She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. As the number of her adherents diminishes, so will she lose many of her social privileges…. But in all of the changes at which one might guess, the Church will find her essence afresh and with full conviction in that which was always at her center: faith in the triune God, in Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man, in the presence of the Spirit until the end of the world.”

I was bolstered by these words when I checked the news on the morning of Friday, June 26. Already the proponents celebrating the Supreme Court’s decision were heralding the final paragraph of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion. As I read that paragraph, there was one line in particular that gave me goosebumps (though not for the reason those praising it were getting them). Speaking about those with same-sex attraction, Justice Kennedy wrote,

“Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions.”

To live in loneliness. Loneliness certainly catalyzes our search for companionship. We were made to find happiness in Another. Justice Kennedy recognizes this. The people he is writing in support of recognize this. But loneliness—especially fear of loneliness—can also cause us to compromise and confuse our true home with a false refuge. We coax ourselves into believing a certain desire or person will make us happy, when by happiness all we really mean is distraction from our deeper, existential loneliness—an interior emptiness that’s frightening to confront.  (Fact: people would rather endure electric shock than be alone with their thoughts.  Jul 3 2014.)

Kennedy perceives the malady at work, but misidentifies the cure. I got goosebumps because Fr. Ratzinger identifies precisely the same affliction and even frames his discussion in the same terms: loneliness, hope, and finding a home (Kennedy speaks of homemaking earlier in his opinion). Yet Fr. Ratzinger also understands how the Church alone can—and will—offer the true remedy for empty hearts. In his closing paragraphs he explains that when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church. Men in a totally human-only engineered world will find themselves unspeakably lonely. (Ed. my experience on social media bespeaks of such.  I often find digital media socialites Orwellian double-speak of being “bored”.  This thinly veiled code means “lonely”.  Six billion people and you’re lonely?)

If they have completely lost sight of God, they will feel the whole horror of their poverty.  (Ed. Heaven is often alternatively described as perfect union with God; hell as perfect separation.  God honors free will.   There is no actual love without free will. You will get what want, what you desire.  Careful what you wish for.  Mt 6:21) Then they will discover the little flock of believers as something wholly new. They will discover it [the Church] as a hope that is meant for them, an answer for which they have always been searching in secret…. [The Church] will enjoy a fresh blossoming and be seen as man’s home, where he will find life and hope beyond death.

Loneliness serves a different function in Fr. Ratzinger’s final analysis. It has the potential to awaken in man his need not for another but for Another. The “totally human-only engineered world” is one in which individuals construct the edifice of their lives according to their own, subjective blueprints. The Master Craftsman goes unconsulted. The “horror of their poverty” is the existential angst described above, which refuses to be smothered or numbed by fleeting pleasures and arrangements made with false gods. Such pursuits may offer temporary housing, but they are not homes. As St. Thomas observes,

“Homes are not beautiful if they are empty. Things are beautiful by the presence of God.”

The men and women Justice Kennedy writes in support of have always been searching—and will continue to search—for a transcendent foundation and grounding for life; for a true home.

This court decision may seem to alleviate their burden, and the deep fear we all share of being alone. But no human institution, no human relationship, can, in and of itself, offer a true, lasting antidote to loneliness. It takes a divine relationship to do that. (Ed. Christians understand no material, no earthly thing, no person, no possession, no power, endures, and therefore all will, ultimately disappoint.  They must.  It is their nature.  Only Christ remains.  Mt 24:35)  And because it is a divinely inspired and sustained institution, the Church will endure all opposition—including the assaults of those who may someday benefit from the refuge only she can offer them.

All men hope to not be condemned to live in loneliness. That is why God sent His only Son; that is why Christ founded the Church.”

Ps 63

Love,
Matthew

“God rather than men.” -Acts 5:29

rowlandlockeystthomasmorefamily

Thomas More & family, 1592, Rowland Lockey, Nostell Priory, nr. Wakefield, West Yorkshire, England (please click on the image for greater detail.)

fr brian

-by Rev Brian Chrzastek, OP

“The fact of the matter is that most of the Founding Fathers were Deists. While they believed that the universe had a creator, they did not accept that this entity concerns himself with the lives of ordinary human beings. They did not believe that the Bible is true. They insisted that reason, not religion or faith, is what saves us. By ‘saves’ they would understand that to mean ‘makes the world a better place,’ a world that is more comfortable, more convenient, more malleable to the human hand and whatever we would do with it. One of the clearest examples of this is Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, who took it upon himself to expunge any references to the miraculous or to the divinity of Christ. Jesus, Jefferson would have us believe, was an enlightened rationalist teacher, not the Son of God and not a Savior in any traditional sense of the word.

As far as any sympathy for Catholics – this is harder to defend. Among avowed Christians in the early history of this country, most were staunch Protestants. They were almost universally convinced that Catholics are ‘the enemy.’ They were convinced that our acceptance of the Papacy makes us agents of a foreign power.

Anti-Catholic_octopus_cartoon400

bishop_crocodiles

They saw the Mass as rife with undue superstition, ceremony, and ritual, muttered in a foreign language, Mass universally celebrated in Latin. ‘Hocus pocus’ is a deliberate mockery the words of institution ‘hoc est corpus meum’ (‘this is my body’).

So there were repeated incidents of legislative persecutions of Roman Catholics, who were outlawed, unduly taxed or excluded from various offices or even common recognition. Violent measures were carried out by various local governments and even individual citizens: plundering of Church property and even execution. This widespread animosity remained in place and even grew especially with the waves of Catholic immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries: the increasing numbers being perceived as a greater threat.

To some extent, this prejudice only began to subside after the second World War with a begrudging recognition of the many Catholic soldiers who died in service of their country (Ed. my father and uncle were two who served in the South Pacific, but did not die, although my uncle was wounded and my father never understood how he didn’t die, my nephew now is a Marine, and my father-in-law was in the US Army in West Germany during the Korean War).

To be sure this was not in admiration for Catholic faith or devotion or piety, but because they shed their blood for a recognized political cause. Catholics were given their due, not because of their religious faith, but because of their sacrifices for their country.

Of late there has been a growing sense of unease and even consternation among Catholics in this country. The concern is that we, because of our religious convictions, because of our faith in Christ as found in the Gospels, handed down to us from the Apostles and the teaching of the Church, are more and more at odds with the customs and laws of this country. The recent Supreme Court ruling on marriage comes readily to mind.

The worry, arguably well placed, is that the Church will increasingly find Herself at odds with our culture and our government for not acceding to the expectations our country. As there have been businesses that have been penalized or forced to close for not offering services to same-­sex weddings, so the concern is that the Church will be similarly liable for not recognizing marriage in the way it has now been defined.

One point which seems so easily obscured in the tumultuous rhetoric that engulfs such debates is not the Church’s alleged hatred or dislike or exclusion of those with same­-sex attractions but that the Church, established by Christ, is not allowed to recognize civil marriage as now understood in this country. – According to that book, the one that Jefferson would rewrite, the one by which we swear when we take solemn oaths – The Bible.

The Church’s understanding of Herself is that she is not at liberty to change that with which she has been entrusted simply because society or the government or popular sentiment has decided differently. We cannot, we shall not, we do not, we dare not, we will not rebel against the commandments of God in the Bible. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom.” – Prvb 9:10 & etc.

So now it has happened that marriage is understood differently by our government and by the Church. For the government, it is largely a legal contract regardless of length between two consenting adults whatever their gender, with no moral dimension whatsoever. For the Church, it is a sacrament instituted by Christ necessarily between a man and a woman, a manner of living out our salvation; to defy Scripture is to invite our condemnation, we are assured, repeatedly. These, of course, are two very different things. The worry is what will come of this.

It is not necessarily surprising that there should be such a parting of ways between the Church and the State. (Ed. It’s inevitability, frankly, based on the lack of a moral framework in the country’s founding, was and is predictable,  and likely will be the American Empire’s great downfall.)  Christ himself forewarned us of this as a real possibility. As we find in John’s Gospel ‘If the world hates you, realize that it has hated Me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own. But because you do not belong to the world and I have chosen you out of this world, the world hates you’ (Jn. 15, 18).

But before we rush to count ourselves among those who are hated or harshly persecuted by the world we might first consider the plight of other believers, say, the previous generations of Catholics in this country who have preceded us.  (Ed.  it was repeated to me often by my father that even into the early part of the twentieth century, to be Irish Catholic was worse than any other ethnicity you could imagine in the country.  What modern President other than Kennedy was so directly and publicly questioned with regards to his fitness for the highest office in regards to his religion?  When emancipation came for slaves in this country, the Irish knew former slaves would be preferred to Irish immigrants for employment.)

We might ponder those Christians who are publicly beheaded simply because they identify themselves as Christians. We might think of Christians in poorer countries who are denied decent jobs, for which they are certainly qualified, because those jobs are so few and because those believers are such a minority. The plight of such people is certainly worse than anything we have had to endure. Recalling the letter to the Hebrews, we may note that we have not ‘resisted to the point of shedding our blood’ (Hb 12, 4).

This raises a fair question. Do we expect some recompense for our practice of the faith, whether by way of comfort or recognition or acclaim? Let us consider that such are the terms of the world’s counting. The reward of faith, by contrast, is that which is yet to come. Our reward comes from His Grace and is that toward which we are to strive by growing in holiness and holiness is a ‘commodity’ that tends to be quite unknown to the world.

In the Gospel of St. Mark, our Lord Jesus himself, while having a reputation for curing the sick and casting out demons, is unable to perform such deeds among his own people, in his own native place because he is too familiar to them (Mk 6, 1­6). This reminds us of the Book of Ezekiel, of the prophet sent to a people who rebel against the Lord, a people who are hard of face and obstinate of heart (Ez 2, 2­5). Ought we to expect or demand an easier audience or a friendlier reception?

Matthew’s Gospel contains a version of the beatitudes which concludes: ‘Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you falsely because of me. Rejoice and be glad for your reward will be great in heaven’ (Mt 5,11). Whether or not the world persecutes us, there are bound to be significant differences between it and the Church. The world judges by its own standards, by what is familiar to it. It judges by what it sees, the flashy and alluring; by what it hears, the comfortable and the reassuring; by what it tastes, the luxurious and sweet – whether or not such things are as they seem. The Church and those who are in the Church are not to be so easily swayed. Judgment is not always ours to make, it comes from God who tends to remain unseen and whose ways we must discern. The judgments we are able to make are not so obvious by the world’s reckoning.

We live in a great country. Arguably the best country, as attested to by the thousands, if not the millions, who would come here by any means available to them. We are the beneficiaries of innumerable gifts: of privilege, of possibility, and of promise. We owe this country much by what we have received from her and simply because we are her citizens. The first letter from St. Peter urges us to be good citizens, ‘we are to accept the authority of every human institution’ (1 Pt 2,13).

However, that obedience cannot extend to all things. To recall the last words of St. Thomas More, ‘I am the king’s good servant, but God’s first.’ Whatever the world, whatever our country, has to offer, we must understand that this pales in comparison to the assurance of Christ, that we are citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven: sons and daughters of the Most High, destined for an Everlasting Glory!”

Love,
Matthew

Jul 9 – St John of Cologne, OP, (d.1572), Priest, Martyr of Gorkum, “Great Athlete of Christ”

st_john_of_cologne

st john of cologne

In his Decree of Canonization, St. John of Cologne was praised as a “great athlete of Christ.” As his title suggests, this Dominican priest is best known for the victory of his martyrdom, but it was his lifelong training in fidelity, lived through the Dominican charism, which prepared him for this final conquest.

St. John attended the University of Cologne in the middle of the sixteenth century. Although we don’t know much about his early life, we can learn something about it from John’s cultural setting. At this time, western Germany, Belgium, and Holland were dominated by Calvinist teaching, which viewed human nature as completely corrupt and denied the healing action of grace. As a result, even many Catholics had lost a sense of the reality of the sacramental life. Not unlike today, many in John’s age found moral absolutes hard to identify, and faith had become relegated to the private sphere.

Amid these uncertain cultural currents, John discovered the solid foundation of truth when he began his studies at the University of Cologne, then recognized as one of the best educational institutions in Europe. Not only did John acknowledge intellectual truth, but he also came to know the Person of Truth, Jesus Christ, and followed His call to the Dominican Order. He entered the Order at Cologne and received his formation there.

After completing his education, John was assigned to a parish in the Netherlands village of Horner, where he served for twenty years. Although we do not have records of the sermons of John of Cologne, his final actions give the most eloquent testimony about what he considered the purpose of his priestly vocation. In the spring of 1571, a group of militant Calvinists along with a band of pirates began raiding Dutch villages, particularly focusing on the arrest and capture of the Catholic clergy. In June of that year, the neighboring town of Gorkum was attacked, and the clergy were captured. Fifteen priests, the majority of them Franciscans, had been imprisoned.

Upon hearing of their arrest, John immediately disguised himself and sought to bring these priests the consolation of the sacraments. For several days he was successful, but was eventually captured along with three other priests. These nineteen were imprisoned in Gorkum from June 26 until July 6, undergoing much abuse as they were asked to deny the tenets of the Catholic faith.

On July 6, the nineteen martyrs were transferred to the prison at Dortrecht. Along the way, villagers were charged admission for viewing the torture of the priests. Once in Dortecht, each of them was asked to deny belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and in the primacy of the Pope. Each one remained steadfast in his profession of faith. Despite an order from the Dutch ruler William of Orange that the priests not be harmed, they were cruelly mutilated and hanged on the night of July 9, 1572. The Dominican John of Cologne, great athlete of Christ, had won his final victory of martyrdom. Along with his companions, he was beatified on November 14, 1675 and canonized on June 29, 1865.

stjohnofcologne

richard-steenvoorde

-by Br Richard Steenvoorde, OP, English Province

“The story of saint John of Cologne O.P. (+1572) proves that you can become a saint by doing the right thing at the right time.

John of Cologne was a 17th century Dominican in what is now the Netherlands, near the city of Gorinchem. He was a parish priest. In 1572 John is caught up in the Dutch Wars of Independence from Spain, which, confusingly, at the same time were also civil wars over religion. A band of Calvinist rebels had captured one city near Rotterdam, and introduced the strictest form of Calvinism possible. From there they undertook their raids in aid of the rebellion led by the protestant prince William of Orange (not to be confused by the later English King).

The rebels captured the town of Gorkum (present day: Gorinchem) and imprisoned all of the Franciscans, and some secular priests. They would be released if they would swear allegiance to the new Calvinist faith. Now John heard of this, and -in disguise- went out to visit the prisoners in order to give them Holy Communion. However, he was betrayed, and was added to the prisoners.

Soon after that, the group was shipped off to the centre of a Calvinist stronghold: Den Briel (Brielle). Upon arriving, they were forced to process around the gallows near the harbor.

“Sing”; the people shouted mockingly: “Sing something about Mary”. And one young friar finds the courage to sing. And the others join in. And suddenly the people are moved by the dignity of these men. Tears well up, and a deep silence comes over the crowd when the men stop. Quickly the pirates move the men to another pair of gallows in the town’s centre and force them to sing again, and they sing the Te Deum.

A mock trial follows, a late intervention by the Prince of Orange to save the men goes horribly wrong. The men are hanged in an old stable, part of a ruined monastic complex.

How must our brother John have felt in all this? We don’t know. No words of his were preserved. But I think his life is a sermon for us. He went out to bring Christ to others in need. He joined them in their suffering. Staying dignified, impressing their executioners, praying to God, finding courage through their deepest fears.

By this testimony, I think, the Martyrs of Gorkum, including friar John, have given us a testimony of what it means to be blessed in times of great adversity. Between how people treat us, and how we respond, there is a choice. John chose to respond as he had probably preached many times before. To witness that evil has not the last word. That through Christ’s redemptive work, we are truly blessed.”

Love,
Matthew

Sodomy vs divorce: lesser of two evils?

fultonsheen

fultonsheen2

frleggearchive

-by Rev Dominic Legge, OP

“Thomas Reese, writing about gay marriage in the National Catholic Reporter, argues that the Catholic bishops of the United States should “admit defeat and move on.” They’ve done this before, he claims: Think of “their predecessors who opposed legalizing divorce but lost,” and who then “accepted divorce” in practice if not in theory—for example, by hiring divorcées. “Today, Catholic institutions rarely fire people when they get divorced and remarried,” and the divorced and remarried “get spousal benefits.” “No one is scandalized by this,” he writes.

This is like saying: “The patient has been taking this poison for years, getting sicker and weaker—so let’s triple the dose.” The argument is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Further, there are manifold reasons why gay marriage is a different and greater threat than divorce, and why acquiescing in it would gravely damage the Church. Here are four.

1.  First, virtually no one celebrates divorce or regards it as a positive good. There is no “Divorced Pride” parade. At most, some think of it like abortion rights: a tragedy and an evil when it happens, but a necessary escape hatch. No one is clamoring for prelates to praise divorce. In contrast, gay marriage is trumpeted as a positive good, and the Church will be shown no mercy by its advocates until bishops, too, march in the parade. We should have no illusions about the way cultural forces (and, soon, legal coercion) will aim to compel the Church not only to be silent on gay marriage, but to praise it and to integrate it into the Church’s life—or else.

2.  Second, while divorce negates an important element of marriage, it doesn’t change the kind of relationship we’re speaking about. With divorce, we recognize that the old bond should have endured, but didn’t. A new legal act is needed to sunder what was joined. But even in this, we still grasp the nature of the bond itself: between a man and a woman, of a kind that generates children, implying permanence, if only for the good of the kids. Gay marriage undermines true marriage in a different and much more dangerous way: It hollows out its very essence, applying the word to something else entirely, a relationship that itself has no potential to generate children, and so cannot itself (without help from the law or from outsiders) form a family. Gay marriage makes it increasingly hard even to talk about what is essential to true marriage. To accept gay marriage as a genuine expression of marriage—and to treat it as such in the parish office, even if we could then keep it out of the parish church—would be vastly more destructive than accepting divorce (which has been bad). It changes the very essence of the institution.

3.  Third, divorce and remarriage is often hidden from view. One often doesn’t know if someone was divorced years ago—and it’s even more rare to know whether there was an annulment. Gay marriage is obviously different, and the threat of scandal is much greater.

4.  Fourth, it is not true that no one is scandalized when church institutions hire divorced and remarried people. Reese’s argument implies that no one will be shocked if we have divorced sacristans (or gay-married parish receptionists), since everyone understands that it’s just the world we live in. But scandal, as Jesus spoke about it, is not a psychological shock. It is rather a skandalon, a stumbling block to others who will then be tempted to sin. “It is impossible that stumbling blocks should not come, but woe to him through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck . . .” (Luke 17:1–2). Is it plausible to claim that widespread acceptance of divorce has not contributed to more divorce? The effect will be even more powerful with gay marriage. If the Church accepts the new cultural and legal norms on gay marriage in its institutional life, even if not in its worship, it will say (especially to the “little ones” Jesus was talking about) that gay marriage is no big deal. Even today, it is a grave scandal when a Catholic teacher gets divorced and shows up at school with a new last name. Every kid in the school knows it. It teaches a lesson more powerful than any textbook. Accepting gay marriage would do much more damage.  (Ed.  I realize Fr Legge is speaking in hypotheticals as a form of intellectual charity as if the option were real for Catholics.  It is not.)

Yes, we may have lost the battle in civil law about the civil definition of marriage. That is all the more reason that the Church must now speak ever more clearly and firmly about the truth of marriage, or her “little ones” will soon weaken and fall. That would be the true scandal.”

Faith of our fathers, living still,
In spite of dungeon, fire, and sword;
Oh, how our hearts beat high with joy
Whene’er we hear that glorious Word!

Faith of our fathers, holy faith!
We will be true to thee till death.

Faith of our fathers, we will strive
To win all nations unto Thee;
And through the truth that comes from God,
We all shall then be truly free.

Faith of our fathers, holy faith!
We will be true to thee till death.

Faith of our fathers, we will love
Both friend and foe in all our strife;
And preach Thee, too, as love knows how
By kindly words and virtuous life.

Faith of our fathers, holy faith!
We will be true to thee till death.

Love,
Matthew

Coming Out as Catholic

“TOO MANY CHRISTIANS, NOT ENOUGH LIONS!” -the (In)Tolerati

CV-Love-Wins-Email-580x350

AdWeek, a widely-read secular industry journal slammed the video with an article entitled “Gay Marriage Opponents Act Like an Oppressed Minority in Catholic Group’s Despicable Ad.”

In the midst of vile, hate-filled comments (ironically tagged #LoveWins) many readers rose up in defense of the ad, accusing AdWeek of the very intolerance the video warns against. Once their hypocrisy was revealed, AdWeek removed “Despicable” from the title and changed much of the copy.

See below for a running list of sites that have posted the video:

MSNBC wrote about the viral ad with commendable neutrality, saying “Many point to last year’s ouster of Mozilla CEO Brandon Eich as a sign of an increasingly intolerant climate for those with traditional views about marriage.” “Same-sex marriage opponents ‘come out’ in new video.

Slate writes: “Here are some Catholics who feel oppressed by same-sex marriage

GQ Magazine reports: “Absurd Catholic Video Presents Bigots as the Victims of Marriage Equality

BuzzFeed contacted CV President Brian Burch for comments, says: “This Video is Letting Catholics Know That It Gets Better Now That the US Has Marriage Equality

PerezHilton.com says: “These Brave Souls Came Out As Anti-Gay ON VIDEO — You Won’t Believe What Brings Tears To Their Eyes!

Legal Insurrection comes to the ad’s defense: Ad Week has “a hilariously self-awareless fit….Without realizing it Ad Week proved Catholic Vote’s point. Well done, Ad Week. Well done.”

Fast Company reports: “Least Creative Thing of the Day: Catholic Group Plays the Victim in Anti-Gay Marriage Ad

Blue Nation Review writes: “Ridiculous Video Shows Americans ‘Coming Out’ As Anti-Gay

Chicks on the Right blog exposes the hypocrisy in the comments posted on the video: “The Love In #LoveWins Doesn’t Extend To Christians Voicing Their Religious Beliefs. As If We Thought It Would.

Next Magazine reports: “Don’t Feel Sorry for These Anti-Gay Douches

Patheos’ Friendly Atheist channel posted: “A Hilarious Response to CatholicVote’s Anti-Gay Marriage Video

Refinery 29 described video: “Insane Anti-Marriage-Equality Ad Parodies Coming-Out Videos

The Young Turks devoted an entire segment of their show to mocking the ad here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFt9WuseoJo&feature=youtu.be

Gawker struggled to find a creative way to bash the ad, but they tried anyway with article and hokey video entitled “We Fixed That Awful Homophobic Coming Out Video.”

Huffington Post covered the ad under the crude title: “B*got vs. F@ggot

Huffington Post thought it so egregious, they tried another article: “Why I Can’t Stop Watching that Absurd Anti-Gay Marriage PSA.

Love,
Matthew

Come, My Way

Come, my Way, my Truth, my Life:
such a way as gives us breath,
such a Truth as ends all strife,
such a life as killeth death.

Come, my Light, my Feast, my Strength:
such a light as shows a feast,
such a feast as mends in length,
such a strength as makes his guest.

Come, my Joy, my Love, my Heart:
such a joy as none can move,
such a love as none can part,
such a heart as joys in love.

Love,
Matthew

Extemporaneous Prayer & The Joy of Ritual

Ritual, contrary to naive impressions, is not oppressive.  It is freeing.  Praying the rosary, responding at Mass, I used to know the words, and I liked them more.  The current language, more literal to the Latin, as if that were good translation technique, or, why not just put it back in Latin instead of bastardize it? Beautiful North American English, or beautiful Ecclesial Latin, pick one! The pomp and bluster we have now IS oppressive.  I can barely stand to listen.  The simplicity of the original English translations were moving and beautiful.  I knew it by heart, and as a technologist whose world was constantly changing and in motion, it was the one weekly constant I deeply counted on.  It steadied me.

Ritual, for those versed in its blessings, is not oppressive.  It frees one, one’s mind, one’s tongue, one’s body, one’s prayerful soul from having to fret, “OK!!!  Now what do we do next?  How do we top that one!  How do we continue to escalate this never ending spiritual arms race!”, as if breathtaking or moving were the ultimate or only good measures of devotion.

I find extemporaneous prayer exceedingly well intentioned and heartfelt, but perhaps not as brilliant or as articulate as could be hoped for.  Sigh.  I know.  Sigh.  But, fear not!!!  Ritual comes to the rescue when we know not what to say!!!  Are too mad to say it, or can only say it poorly, either when emotion is too painful or nonexistent, or the person leading is not the best.  Either way, on any end, ritual saves the day!!!  Let’s hear it for ritual!!!!  Ancient quality control & ego saver!!!  🙂  My parents, when visiting Paris & Rome, could still participate in Mass said in Latin.  They always appreciated that, and mentioned it to their children.

Missa_tridentina_002

-by Michael, blogger @WhiskeyCatholic, a Pittsburgh attorney with a lovely wife and newborn daughter.

“Perhaps more than any other religion, Catholicism is a belief system based on informed ritual. This is particularly prevalent with younger Catholics, many of whom have a desire to rediscover the rituals that have been lost in the past 100 years. While others deride these rituals as “antiquated” or “relics of a more ignorant age,” the Catholic Gentleman seeks to understand the importance of ritual and helps recapture its former beauty and grace.

Ritual is an action or actions, performed in a prescribed order, which give greater reverence to worship. Some rituals, such as kneeling at communion rails, reverencing a bishop’s ring, or wearing mantillas, have generally fallen into disuse in the United States while others, such as genuflecting, making the sign of the cross, and lighting candles to remember the dead are still strong in today’s Catholic culture.

Not all rituals are created equal. Some rituals, like Lebron James’ chalk throw before every game are designed to excite a crowd, and others, like the rally-cap in baseball, are just plain silly. The Catholic Church’s rituals, evolving over a period of two thousand years, are designed to augment and improve worship. Some simply add to the atmosphere of reverence, while others are a form of worship in and of themselves. The Catholic Gentleman should gravitate to those rituals which aid in creating a certain sense of gravity, reverence, and wonderment befitting the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

The Sacrifice of the Mass, it might be said, is the ultimate ritual. In the Mass, the words of Christ are recited as He gave them to the apostles in order to replicate the perfect prayer of the Last Supper. A loving God instructs His people how to worship and please Him, and Christ instructed His Church not on the basis of abstract principles but on the concrete example of the first Mass. We have been saved, in a manner of speaking, through a divine ritual.

Ritual often gives the laity an opportunity to participate in an authentic way in worship. Ritual gives the Catholic Gentleman an opportunity to self-express reverence for the divine while uniting him with the larger Sacrifice. For example, a simple genuflection is an authentic participation because it expresses reverence for the real presence of Christ in the tabernacle while uniting the Catholic to the sacrifice on the altar.

The laity can also seek out ritual as a common cultural thread through time and space. There is something inherently unifying in the fact that a Mass said in South Carolina is conducted through the identical rituals of a Mass said in Tokyo. Similarly, there is something unquestionably comforting in knowing that the rosary we pray today is nearly identical to the rosary prayed by our ancestors in faith nearly one thousand years ago. Ritual forms a common culture which connects Catholics from all parts of the world and gives identity to successive generations of Catholics throughout the history of the Church. In a single instant the ritual allows us to draw a cultural connection to fellow believers separated by time or space.

Ritual is also part of what makes Catholicism unique. Whereas others might decry ritual as nothing more than an attempt to muddle a clear understanding of the divine, the Catholic Gentleman knows that ritual informs Catholics of the divine; it is an acknowledgement that something spectacular and extraordinary is taking place.

Of course, ritual is dead and meaningless if it is not an expression of love for Christ. Love is the essence of what drives and perfects rituals. Love is the very thing that gives them reason for existing in the first place. The root of all Catholic ritual should be the authentic love of Christ. The Catholic Gentleman embraces the opportunity ritual provides to show Christ reverence and in doing so provides an example to others.”

Love,
Matthew

eMANgelize!!!!!! – Male Catholic Spirituality

Before the liturgical changes of the Second Vatican Council, Catholics received the Eucharist by approaching and kneeling at the Communion rail. This photo was taken during Mass at the Paulist Center in Boston in 1955. (CNS photo from The Pilot) (Oct. 17, 2005) See VATICANII-OVERVIEW Oct. 12, 2005. (b/w only)

In You, Lord my God,
I put my trust.
I trust in You;
do not let me be put to shame,
nor let my enemies triumph over me.
No one who hopes in You
will ever be put to shame,
but shame will come on those
who are treacherous without cause.
Show me Your ways, Lord,
teach me Your paths.
Guide me in Your truth and teach me,
for You are God my Savior,
and my hope is in You all day long.
Remember, Lord, Your great mercy and love,
for they are from of old.
Do not remember the sins of my youth
and my rebellious ways;
according to Your love remember me,
for you, Lord, are good.
-Psalm 25: 1-7

Drake_Tim122x189

-by Tim Drake

“Is it true that men generally don’t like to attend religious services and don’t get involved in church? Consider the evidence:

— Citing dismal statistics, researcher David Morrow’s book Why Men Hate Going to Church (Thomas Nelson, 2005) concludes that men “are the world’s largest unreached people group.”

— A 2011 Christian Century article, “Why Do Men Stay Away?” notes how men are “famously outnumbered” by women at worship and “often are not particularly happy about it” when they do attend.

— A Barna study published that same year found that over the preceding two decades church attendance had declined by six percentage points among men, that the percentage of men who had volunteered at church had suffered a similar statistical drop over the same period, and that an estimated 39 percent of all men could be considered “unchurched” — meaning that they haven’t attended a church event (outside of an event such as a wedding or funeral) in the previous six months.

— A December Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article on men’s participation at church cited a statistic that 64 percent of parish life is comprised of women. The perception — or misperception rather — is that men are less involved in church than women.

The reality, however, is that there also is evidence of a resurgence in male involvement in church, at least as far as Catholic men in the United States are concerned. For the past two decades, a Catholic men’s movement has been steadily expanding in size and strength to the point where it is having a huge impact on male spirituality and involvement in Catholic communities. On both a national and local level, the Catholic men’s movement has come of age, as an increasing number of Catholic men are seriously embracing the faith and their roles as husbands and fathers in leading their families to Christ.

Many may recall the multi-denominational Promise Keepers movement of the mid-1990s that held large stadium events across the country. The Catholic men’s movement is not like that: It’s less flashy, more consistent, and growing.

“Promise Keepers conferences were designed to be spectacles,” writes John P. Bartkowski, sociology professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio in his book about the movement. “And the problem with a spectacle is it needs to be outdone by something more spectacular and more stimulating the next time around.”

My own diocese hosted its annual Catholic men’s conference during the second weekend of Lent. The first of these conferences, held 17 years ago, was attended by approximately 300 men. Over the past five years, the event has consistently drawn more than 500.

Chris Codden, director of the Office of Marriage and Family for the Diocese of St. Cloud, said that she’s seen a growth in the younger base among attendees.

“From the evaluations from the men, they want good solid Catholic speakers that challenge them and give them ‘meat and potatoes,’ not ‘fluff,’ ” said Codden.

Many other dioceses also sponsor annual Catholic men’s conferences. In 2002, there were just 16 Catholic men’s conferences. According to Dan Spencer, executive director for the National Fellowship of Catholic Men, there are now approximately 75 diocesan-sponsored Catholic men’s conferences each year.

“There have been six or seven new conferences just within the last eighteen months, in places such as Omaha and Des Moines,” said Spencer. New York is currently organizing a conference, he added.

Typically, men’s conferences feature a prominent priest or Catholic leader who provides one or two inspiring talks, the opportunity for the Sacrament of Reconciliation, prayer, and the celebration of Mass. They also often feature workshop or breakout sessions focused on topics of particular interest to men, or small-group sessions where men spend time with one another talking about issues that face them and their families.

What’s more startling, however, is what comes out of such conferences. Men often are inspired to meet more regularly to hold each other accountable and for support in living out their faith in daily life. As a result, thousands of men across the country remain active in local men’s groups that meet quite regularly.

Here I can speak from experience. Nearly 10 years ago, three other men and I began a morning men’s prayer and book-discussion group. Once a week, we gathered for prayer, support, dialogue, and accountability. I told the men at our first meeting that I had no intention of the group lasting forever. I said that we would work through a couple of books, and that would be it.

Yet here we are, 10 years later, having read and discussed countless books. We have expanded our group, and about a dozen of us continue to gather every Tuesday morning at a local restaurant. Over the years, more than 100 different men, including priests and seminarians, have participated. Some have driven more than 90 miles to see what we’re doing.

Not only that, but God has multiplied the effort. Some men who originally were part of our group have moved and started men’s groups elsewhere. At least four men have established separate weekly men’s groups within their own local parishes. We’ve also been told stories about the impact our gatherings have had on other restaurant patrons who have seen our group joined in prayer.

This phenomenon is being replicated across the country. Spencer said that parish-based groups have “exploded.” He cites that Milwaukee has approximately 130 men’s groups, Cincinnati has 75, and Kansas City has 60.

“Some are Bible-study groups, others are accountability groups, some study the weekly Sunday Scripture readings,” explained Spencer. “Some involve the Knights of Columbus. Others begin with a study or a book, while others create their own materials. Approximately 105 dioceses participate in the three-year ‘That Man is You’ program.”

The local efforts bear fruit for parishes and beyond. Some parish-based men’s groups have mentorship programs for boys in high schools. Others have started parish retreat-based programs like Christ Renews His Parish or Cursillo, weekend experiences of spiritual renewal that lead directly to the formation of ongoing small faith-sharing groups. The fruit of many of these efforts is that it motivates men to be more involved at all levels within the parish — in liturgical ministries, in religious education, in volunteerism, in charitable works, and much more. As examples, Spencer noted that men in Kansas City have been working on an anti-pornography initiative, and a group in Columbus, Ohio, recently participated in promoting Home Enthronement to the Sacred Heart.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that men’s participation in such groups strengthens their families and marriages, deepens their faith, and leads them to a greater participation in the sacraments. According to a Gallup Poll study of “That Man is You,” men entering the program tended to place in the bottom 25 percent of Gallup’s Spiritual Commitment Index, but finished the program in the top 25 percent.

Jesus Christ continues to call men — as he did the Twelve — to follow Him, and they are responding.

If we are to be conformed to Christ, then we need to conform ourselves “to the Gospel precept of fraternal love,” as the Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us (#2488). Christ and the apostles demonstrate properly ordered fraternal love among men. It stands in stark contrast to the disordered love that our contemporary culture tends to celebrate and model.

Just as men on the battlefield band together under the leadership of their general to protect freedom, so evangelical Catholic men are being arrayed in a spiritual formation as a band of spiritual brothers centered around Christ to do battle against the cultural forces set on destroying our families.

Make no mistake. We are on a battlefield, and the choice is stark. Either we are for Christ or we are against Him. There is no middle ground.

“There is a hunger,” Kevin O’Brien, former professional football player and co-founder of the Catholic men’s conference Men of Christ, told me. “Men feel an emptiness inside and want to see faith presented in a masculine modality. They want to be challenged. When faith is presented in its proper form, men are attracted to it.”

Many of our brethren have been seriously wounded through the bullets and the shrapnel that the culture is hurling at us. Men’s groups offer a tremendous opportunity to strengthen men in virtue. Iron sharpens iron, the saying goes. As men, we must avail ourselves frequently of the life-giving and grace-giving Sacraments the Church offers us. We must find ways to strengthen and embolden one another for the task ahead. The time is now. Are you spiritually ready?”

Love,
Matthew