Cats of the Day

Via Jeremy Schwab at Catholic Addicts on Facebook

Obedience: The Dirtiest Word in America

So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any incentive of love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.

Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2:1-11

Let's stop for a second and consider the passage above.

Why did God highly exalt Christ Jesus? Why did God bestow on him the name above every name, that at that name every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth? Why shall every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father?

Obedience.

He took the form of a servant, did not count equality with God something to be grasped (even though he could have), and became obedient unto death.

Paul exhorts us to have "this mind" ourselves. In other words, to be like Christ. To love others so much that we are obedient unto death. (As Christ does us and also loves and trusts the Father.)

Christ undid the sin brought about by Adam's and Eve's disobedience and lack of trust in God with his own complete obedience and trust. Even unto death.

Let's all stop. Really stop. And read it again. Slowly, aloud, thinking about it.

=====================

So. If we are to follow in Christ's footsteps, our love is the fruit of the Holy Spirit we should show each other. Our self-giving as a servant should be a complete pouring out of ourselves, an emptying, in complete obedience.

This is what the great saints have done.

Even the ones who were in disagreement with the Church teachings at the time still were obedient. To be less than that, while working for change, is to not trust God or the Holy Spirit. It is to make yourself too important. If Christ's bride is the Church, then shouldn't we also give the Church that respect?

That is why those saints are our models in tempestuous times. They help us walk as Christ did, with obedience.

=====================

Contemplating this over the last year has helped me care immensely when I am disobedient. And I am disobedient, I am sorry to admit. Much more often than I care to say.

Aren't we all?

Beginning with Adam and Eve, disobedience is the original human sin. It is the one that makes us ignore our inner voice of "what is right" and do what we want anyway.

Obedience.

It sounds fine until it interferes with what we'd really like.

Then, in fine American independence we spit the word "obedient" as if it is a curse and defiantly stamp to emphasize our right to do what we like. If we have to stamp on the person next to us who doesn't agree, well then, so be it. That's what they deserve for trying to restrict my right to do whatever I like. I'd better tell everyone while I'm doing it so they may applaud my independence.

That is all very American.

But is it Catholic?

Is it Christ-like?

=====================

This comes to mind with great force as I've been thinking about being Catholic and being American lately. In the last couple of days I've encountered a surprising number of Catholics rejecting pastoral direction* and recommendations. With great vigor and varying levels of rhetoric and skill, they have proudly (and loudly) pointed out their defiance. Some of this has been online and one, to my startlement, was to my face at a most unexpected time.

Interestingly, it has all been a rejection of advice on how to weigh issues' importance when voting.

In every case, people were offended by the manner, rhetoric, or tone with which they were advised. No one, however, stopped long enough to scrape aside the "tone" and look at the actual issues being propounded. "How dare they tell me how to vote!" is reason that needs no response. In America anyway.

I have come across this before and still find it perplexing.

Lest you think I am picking on one "side" or the other, rest assured I am not. I have had the same frigid silence come up when discussing voting for immigration and the death penalty as I have when discussing voting for an end to abortion or contraception.

But I just don't understand the triumphant tone and proud face that I am shown every time this sort of thing comes up. Despite what either "side" thinks, the attitude is identical on the surface.

We count on our pastors to advise us on practically everything in our lives. They are our shepherds. When we are running full tilt for a cliff, we need them to put out their shepherd's staff and turn us from the path of destruction.

Granted, some do a better job than others and we are out of practice after many years of some bishops and priests who have done a lackluster job of counseling.

Do we have to do what they say? No. We, in turn, have our own obligation to use the minds that God gave us and consider the facts and issues carefully.

Facts and issues.

Not tone. Not the "outrage" of being advised of what issues matter more than others.

I began wondering about my concept of priest as shepherd. And I found this wonderful statement from a recent shepherd.

One could say that by his own example Jesus himself, the good shepherd who "calls his own sheep by name" (cf. Jn 10:3-4), has set the standard of individual pastoral care: knowledge and a relationship of friendship with individual persons. The presbyter's task is to help each one to utilize well his own gift, and rightly to exercise the freedom that comes from Christ's salvation, as St. Paul urges (cf. Gal 4:3; 5:1, 13; Jn 8:36).

Everything must be directed toward practicing "a sincere and practical charity." This means that "Christians should be taught that they live not only for themselves, but according to the demands of the new law of charity; as every man has received grace, he must administer the same to others. In this way, all will discharge in a Christian manner their duties in the community of men" (PO 6). Therefore, the priest's mission includes calling to mind the obligations of charity, showing the applications of charity in social life, fostering an atmosphere of unity with respect for differences, encouraging programs and works of charity, by which great opportunities become available to the faithful, especially through the new emphasis on volunteer work, consciously provided as a good use of free time, and in many cases, as a choice of life.

Pope John Paul II, The Priest Is a Shepherd to the Community

General Audience, May 19, 1993

Our bishops and priests have the duty to show us the applications of charity in social life. To me, that includes advice on how to weigh issues when we vote.

They aren't going to follow us into the booth and pull the lever. Just like they don't come into our bedrooms and make sure we are living our marriage well. But it is their duty to advise, even if we don't like it.

Our duty, and we do have one here, is to carefully consider that advice.

Not to give a knee-jerk reaction of the usual sort because that advice may not fit what we want. Or the tone may not be right. We can be angry. We may even say something we regret. But we have to think further, go farther, and carefully consider issues, facts, and the Church's teachings.

If we don’t agree with Church teachings or pastoral advice, treat that disagreement as the important thing it is. Go to source materials, study the Catechism, read the Church Fathers, look at the 2000 years’ worth of discussion on the subject. Dig into it and don’t let go until you understand the logic that led the Church to that teaching.

So, yes, use your brain.

But also keep in mind that simply not “liking” something is not reason to disobey.

In that we also must keep in mind Paul’s counsel from the beginning of that passage. Are we showing the fruit of love, affection, sympathy? Are we humble, counting others better than ourselves, looking to the interests of others?

Can they tell we are Christians by our love?

I know. I have trouble with it too.

In today's Mass readings there was a line that I just can't shake. It echoes round and round in my head. I've learned to pay attention when that happens.

Jesus, speaking of being our good shepherd says:

"I came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly." (John 10:10)

But to do that, we have to be the kinds of people our fellow Americans (and many fellow Catholics) may not understand. We have to follow our good shepherd.

We have to stop treating "obedience" like a dirty word.

* And I'm not talking about the sort of thing that led to the sexual abuse scandal. That's not the sort of thing the Church has ever taught was right and that no one in their right mind would expect to find justified anywhere.

1st Corinthians and the LCWR: Mourning and a Wake Up Call to Repentance

A few thoughts, not necessarily strung together in the best way, but I wanted to get these out there for consideration before my day got away from me.

Frankly, the Vatican's document and reprimand to the LCWR was not really on my radar. Like many Catholics I vaguely knew there were some orders of religious who liked to style themselves "progressive" and skirt Vatican teachings when it didn't suit their ideas of service. In this, I am thinking more of a particular priest I know from another city. He'll never know how much he shocked me (as a fairly new Catholic) when he confided, with a twinkle in his eye about breaking some rules which he didn't think were all that important because he was the best judge of such things. That moment and his attitude always came to mind when I'd hear reports of orders flouting Church teachings. So I may, perhaps, have gotten it wrong a few times when thinking that such flouting was deliberate rather than sheer ignorance. Honestly, I'm not sure which is worse when considering a whole order's behavior. But that is a matter for further pondering, especially with concern to my own life. Where do I leave myself (or those around me) ignorant and where do I ignore what I should obey?

Reading 1st Corinthians this morning was especially enlightening as Paul is dealing with a scandalous situation being tolerated in the church. Chapter 5: 1-5 from the NAB:

It is widely reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of a kind not found even among pagans—a man living with his father’s wife. And you are inflated with pride. Should you not rather have been sorrowful? The one who did this deed should be expelled from your midst. I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed,b in the name of [our] Lord Jesus: when you have gathered together and I am with you in spirit with the power of the Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

Careful reading and the accompanying commentary makes two things very clear. First, the community is so "puffed up" (literal translation of "inflated") that they not only tolerate the immoral situation but either consider themselves spiritually advanced or they think it doesn't affect them as a community. The community should have been sorrowful or, as other translations say, have been "in mourning."

This says something to me about those orders, true, but it says more to me about those who are triumphant about the reprimand. People have been angry about such laxity but have we been mournful for these, our sisters, who have gone astray? Have we felt sorrowful for the probable outcome to them? Whether as a reprimand or for the ill being done in their lax attitudes, should we not have cared as much as we would for a dear friend or family member? Have we prayed or offered up fasting or some similar sacrifice to God on their behalf, as I myself have done for a beloved atheist family member?

Where is our sense of unity? Where is our response to the great commandment of love that Christ gave us?

You notice I include myself. I can say these things because I am guilty. Paul is talking directly to me on this.

Second, the immoral man is excommunicated from the community by Paul. Note that this is not intended to be permanent but it is "a therapy of privation that hopefully will wake the man up and lead him to repentance and readmission to the community" (from the commentary).

Sometimes we need a spiritual awakening administered through severe action because it is only then that we pay attention. We've all experienced this from time to time. It is when we ignore the increasingly strong reprimands that it becomes necessary to take drastic measures to get our attention. I'm thinking here of the prodigal son.

In 1st Corinthians it is both to save the man and safeguard the community from the bad example that the action is taken.

It seems shocking from the outside but in the end could save them all.

From personal experience, I'd say that a good many problems of the sort we see in the Corinthian community and in this situation come from insularity. We don't go outside our comfortable bubbles enough to get another perspective.

In this case, I would like to offer the LCWR a modern example of someone they could emulate. Not a long-ago saint or far away person from the "other side" but someone who feels their pain and yet will take the hard steps to offer that pain to God and ask for enlightenment and growth.

Joanne McPortland blogs with her whole heart at egregious twaddle. I like her even though she often is approaching Catholic things from the opposite viewpoint than I am. I like her because she is honest, because she is trying, because she is sticking with her recent return to the Catholic church and struggling with the things that don't seem to make sense. But offering herself to God so that she may understand.

As a former agnostic, child of atheists, even more a child of our modern society, I too have had similar struggles that hurt me to the very bone.

Her response the the Vatican reprimand of the LCWR was angry. An honest anger that stormed questions at God on behalf of people she loved. Go read An Uppity Woman Prays for Answers. I believe that God doesn't mind those angry shouts because, like Job's, they are honest and heart-felt. Though they may be filled with pain, they are turning to Him. It is a trust that there is an answer. It is a personal response in a personal relationship with Him.

Joanne helped me see the other side and reminded me of a place I love that can sometimes be outside my own comfort bubble, which is my Catholic women's book club. I absolutely love every woman who comes to it.

And yet. And yet we are a very diverse group. We do our best to stay from controversial topics and yet we can't sometimes. I sometimes mourn for some of my sisters from that group and I always pray that we may all know truth. And they keep me centered. They help me see the heart of those I don't agree with sometimes. Am I right when I disagree with them? I think so, obviously. However, we keep each other close to the middle of the road marker, where we may reach over and hold hands, understanding each other's hearts. Sometimes, we will even step across and be together on either side. And that's the right way to be, after all. Because that's where the Church is. Not on the fringes, but in the middle. But, again, that concept provides enough pondering for another day, so we will move on.

Joanne does that for me. As did that post.

The next day, Joanne wrote Fleeing Babylon: The Old Order(s) Changeth. She'd had time to think, to pray, to listen for answers, to hear what kind friends were not saying (out of kindness) and to know it for a hint of the truth. She has been able to gain clarity and relinquish her anger. She remains sad but also joyful.

This was heartening and also a wonderful look at the spiritual wrestling we must all do with the messengers of God. Like Jacob, we may be left wounded. It may be a wound that, like his, we carry our whole lives. But it changes us.

I so appreciate Joanne sharing her personal struggle because of her honesty and commitment to truth.

It helps me to remember that unity, helps me begin to truly mourn and pray for these sisters of Christ, and to examine myself for blind spots and pride.

I hope and pray that the sisters of the LCWR may go through the same process as we all limp, joyfully (!), toward God together.

NPR Reporter Understands the Church Better Than the Nun They Are Interviewing

Just heard from Hannah, our roving reporter in the DFW Metroplex, who is making the arborist rounds of the Dallas areas. She listens to NPR a lot while driving and called to tell me that she was livid after listening to a particularly unhelpful interview with Sister Simone Campbell.

The reporter was attempting to get her to talk realistically about the Vatican finding that the Leadership Conference of Women Religious had serious doctrinal problems. Here's NPR's blurb and the link if you want to listen (or read) for yourself.

The Vatican has reprimanded the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, saying the group has "serious doctrinal problems." The Vatican assigned an archbishop to reform the conference. The group has taken controversial stances on issues including health care and gender matters. Melissa Block speaks with Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of NETWORK, a national Catholic social justice lobbying group which works closely with the LCWR.

Unfortunately, Sister Simone unhelpfully kept saying that the report simply meant the women in the Church needed to educate the men in the Church on how things work in the real world. Hearing Hannah tell me all this made me happy that I have a discerning daughter who loves her faith and quite sorry for Sister Simone. She is either being disingenuous or really believes what she is saying. And it is to weep. Obedience and charity are integral to us all as Catholics and especially for a religious sister.

We all find ourselves at odd with the Catholic Church sometime or another, sometimes over very big issues. But we are all called to practice obedience, charity, forgiveness, and following Christ's example while we do so. I pray for Sister Simone and those like her who may be smarting, frustrated, and upset by the report.

Hannah gave full props to the reporter who, she said, kept trying to bring Sister Simone back to the real questions and seemed fairly well educated about the issues.

Hannah also wanted me to let any NPR listeners know that Sister Simone was not someone they wanted to trust for their Catholic opinion making.

Job done!

As is so often the case, I turned to GetReligion for their take on the story and the media coverage which looks as if it were quite good actually. I definitely recommend you go there and read it and the linked stories if you want the full picture. Mollie read the 8-page Vatican document and points out that it praises as well as reprimands.

In fact, on the first page alone is this line, “The Holy See acknowledges with gratitude the great contribution of women Religious to the Church in the United States as seen particularly in the many schools, hospitals, and institutions of support for the poor which have been founded and staffed by Religious over the years.”

As I mentioned, she looks at reporting across all media, including bloggers like Whispers in the Loggia (Rocco's always on top of these sorts of stories). I hadn't had a chance to even look at my RSS reader today so was glad Hannah prompted me to look into the story more.

Be sure to read the GetReligion story if you are at all interested in this story.

Two Interesting Pieces of Catholic News

English and Welsh Bishops Reintroduce Meatless Fridays

LONDON (CNS) -- Catholics in England and Wales will be obliged to abstain from meat every Friday under a new rule brought by the bishops.

The "act of common witness" will take effect Sept. 16, the first anniversary of Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Britain.

The rule, announced at a news conference in London in mid-May, reverses a relaxation of the Friday penance regulations introduced in England and Wales in 1984. This allowed Catholics to choose their own form of Friday penance -- such as offering additional prayers, attending Mass or abstaining from alcohol.

The whole story is here. Via A Momentary Taste of Being who calls this a welcome restoration, with which I agree. Though at our house this would be more of "business as usual" as when I read about the requirement for Friday penance many years ago, I had to agree with the comment (in the Catechism maybe?) that giving up meat was one of the easiest to remember to do. And, certainly, it is one that makes one think throughout the day as we realize how much meat there is in our every day diets.

Independent Study Shows That Homosexuality, Celibacy Didn't Cause Abuse Scandal

WASHINGTON — Researchers commissioned by Roman Catholic bishops in the U.S. to analyze the pattern of clergy sex abuse have concluded that homosexuality, celibacy and an all-male priesthood did not cause the scandal.

The study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York instead said that the problem was largely the result of poor seminary training and insufficient emotional support for men ordained in the 1940s and 1950s, who were not able to withstand the social upheaval they confronted as pastors in the 1960s. Crime and other deviant behavior increased overall in the United States during this period, when the rate of abuse by priests was climbing.

"The rise in abuse cases in the 1960s and 1970s was influenced by social factors in society generally," the report's authors said. "Factors that were invariant during the time period addressed, such as celibacy, were not responsible for the increase or decline in abuse cases over this time."

Read the entire story here. This by no means excuses such behavior or more especially the behavior of many bishops who protected the guilty at the expense of the innocent. However, it is interesting and I like the fact that it was an independent study.

Update: Whispers in the Loggia has links to the full report pdf and more.

Tradition and Revolution V

In the final part of this thought provoking essay, Merton discusses true contemplation, God's grace, and theology. Just when we think we can see where he is headed, he throws in a twist at the end which takes us right back to the Church. (Part I is here.)

Tradition and Revolution (cont'd.)

Yet true contemplation is not arrived at by an effort of the mind. On the contrary, a man could easily lose his way in the forest of technical details which concern a professional theologian. But God gives true theologians a hunger born of humility, which cannot be satisfied with formulas and arguments, and which looks for something closer to God than analogy can bring you.

This serene hunger of the spirit penetrates the surface of words and goes beyond the human formulation of mysteries and seeks, in the humiliation of silence, intellectual solitude and interior poverty, the gift of a supernatural apprehension which words cannot truly signify.

Beyond the labor of argument it finds rest in faith and beneath the noise of discourse it apprehends the Truth, not in distinct and clear-cut definitions but in the limpid obscurity of a single intuition that unites all dogmas in one simple Light, shining into the soul directly from God's eternity, without the medium of created concept, without the intervention of symbols or of language or the likenesses of material things.

Here the Truth is One Whom we not only know and possess but by Whom we are known and possessed. Here theology ceases to be a body of abstractions and becomes a Living Reality Who is God Himself. And He reveals Himself to us in our total gift of our lives to Him. Here the light of truth is not something that exists for our intellect but One in Whom and for Whom all minds and spirits exist, and theology does not truly begin to be theology until we have transcended the language and separate concepts of theologians.

That is why St. Thomas put the Summa Theologica aside in weariness before it was finished, saying that it was "all straw."

And yet when the contemplative returns from the depths of his simple experience of God and attempts to communicate it to men, he necessarily comes once again under the control of the theologian and his language is bound to strive after the clarity and distinctness and accuracy that canalize Catholic tradition.

Therefore beware of the contemplative who says that theology is all straw before he has ever bothered to read any.

New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton

Tradition and Revolution IV

Continuing his discussion of Catholic dogma, Merton now looks at it's true benefit to those who have the grace to explore it to the fullest. (Part I is here.)

Tradition and Revolution (cont'd.)

The first step to contemplation is faith; and faith begins with an assent to Christ teaching through His Church; fides ex auditu, qui vos ausit, me audit. "He that heareth you, heareth Me." And "faith cometh by hearing."

It is not the dry formula of a dogmatic definition by itself that pours light into the mind of a Catholic contemplative, but the assent to the content of that definition deepens and broadens into a vital, personal and incommunicable penetration of the supernatural truth which it expresses -- an understanding that is a gift of the Holy Ghost and which merges into the Wisdom of love, to possess Truth in its infinite Substance, God Himself.

The dogmas of the Catholic faith are not merely symbols or vague rationalizations which we accept as arbitrary points of stimulation around which good moral actions many form or develop -- still less is it true that any idea would serve just as well as those that have been defined, any old pious thought would foment this vague moral life in our souls. The dogmas defined and taught by the Church have a very precise, positive and definite meaning which those who have the grace to do so must explore and penetrate if they would live an integral spiritual life. For the understanding of dogma is the proximate and ordinary way to contemplation.

Everybody who can do so ought to acquire something of a theologians' accuracy and sharpness in appreciating a true sense of dogma. Every Christian ought to have as deep a comprehension of his belief as his state will allow him. And this means that every one ought to breathe the clean atmosphere of orthodox tradition and be able to explain his belief in correct terminology -- and terminology with a content of genuine ideas.

New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton

So I'm thinkin' we're looking at more catechesis, whether done through our reading, scripture studies as a group, seeking guidance of spiritual directors, or more along those lines. There are many ways to learn to appreciate and understand the Church's teachings. It is incumbent upon us to pursue them.

We will hear more about where faithful adherence to the Church's dogma takes us in contemplation in Part IV.

Tradition and Revolution III

Continuing the essay, Merton takes on the issue of dogma, both in what men think it to be and what it actually is. What he says was doubtless true when the book was written in 1961 but we see his insight even more from the distance of where relativism has moved us almost 50 years hence. (Part I is here.)

Tradition and Revolution (cont'd.)

The notion of dogma terrifies men who do not understand the Church. They cannot conceive that a religious doctrine may be clothed in a clear, definite and authoritative statement without at once becoming static, rigid and inert and losing all its vitality. In their frantic anxiety to escape from any such conception they take refuge in a system of beliefs that is vague and fluid, a system in which truths pass like mists and waver and vary like shadows. They make their own personal selection of ghosts, in this pale, indefinite twilight of the mind. They take good care never to bring these abstractions out into the full brightness of the sun for fear of a full view of their unsubstantiality.

They favor the Catholic mystics with a sort of sympathetic regard, for they believe that these rare men somehow reached the summit of contemplation in defiance of Catholic dogma. Their deep union with God is supposed to have been an escape from the teaching authority of the Church, and an implicit protest against it.

But the truth is that the saints arrived at the deepest and most vital and also the most individual and personal knowledge of God precisely because of the church's teaching authority, precisely through the tradition that it is guarded and fostered by that authority.

New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton

We will hear more about where faithful adherence to the Church's dogma takes us in contemplation in Part IV.

Loving Christ and Loving the Church

I probably have had my In Conversation with God books for seven or eight years. Although each entry has three sections and is around 6 (small) pages you would think that I would have absorbed a good bit of it by now so that it is, if not predictable, at least devoid of surprises. Still, on Monday, this paragraph hit me as something brand new. Not that I didn't already understand the sentiment. Just that I hadn't thought of it from this point of view. So I'm sharing it.

Those people who claim to approach Christ whilst leaving his Church to one side, and even causing her harm, may one day get the same surprise as Saint Paul did when he was on his way to Damascus; I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. (Acts 9:5). And, the Venerable Bede reflects that He does not say "why are you persecuting my members, but why are you persecuting me?" For He is still affronted in his Body, which is the Church. Paul did not know until that moment that to persecute the Church was to persecute Jesus himself. when he speaks about the Church later on, he does so in words that describe her as the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27), or simply as Christ (1 Cor 1:13); and he describes the faithful as members of Christ's Body (Rom 12:5). It is not possible to love, follow or listen to Christ, without loving, following or listening to the Church, because she is the presence, at once sacramental and mysterious, of Our Lord, who prolongs his saving mission in the world to the very end of time.

In Conversation with God - Vol. 4 - Ordinary Time, Weeks 13-23

Tradition and Revolution II

Continuing from yesterday, Merton goes on examining the popular concept of revolution as opposed to the revolutionary concept of Christian truth.

Tradition and Revolution (cont'd.)

A revolution is supposed to be a change that turns everything completely around. But the ideology of political revolution will never change anything except appearances. There will be violence, and power will pass from one party to another, but when the smoke clears and the bodies of all the dead men are underground, the situation will be essentially the same as it was before: there will be a minority of strong men in power exploiting all the others for their own ends. There will be the same greed and cruelty and lust and ambition and avarice and hypocrisy as before.

For the revolutions of men change nothing. The only influence that can really upset the injustice and iniquity of men is the power that breathes in Christian tradition, renewing our participation in the Life that is the Light of men.

To those who have no personal experience of this revolutionary aspect of Christian truth, but who see only the outer crust of dead, human conservatism that tends to form around the Church the way barnacles gather on the hull of a ship, all this talk of dynamism sounds foolish.

Each individual Christian and each new age of the Church has to make this rediscovery, this return to the source of Christian life.

It demands a fundamental act of renunciation that accepts the necessity of starting out on the way to God under the guidance of other men. This acceptance can be paid for only by sacrifice, and ultimately only a gift of God can teach us the difference between the dry outer crust of formality which the Church sometimes acquires from the human natures that compose it, and the living inner current of Divine Life which is the only real Catholic tradition.

New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton

In Part III Merton will move on to discussing Catholic dogma.

Tradition and Revolution I

Our Catholic women's book club read New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton over Lent. Obviously I am very late in sharing some of it with you. Overall, the book was interesting because I'd never been able to get through one of Merton's books before. This one, a series of essays, which Merton wrote for himself as much as anything, contemplates what holiness means for each of us. Oh, as well as contemplation. That too.

I did not always agree with everything Merton said. Although many tend to view him as a saint, I remind us all that he was not. An interesting writer, yes. Striving for holiness, yes. A saint, no. Infallible, no.

That said, I really enjoyed the way that he was able to set examples forth in defense of Catholicism much of the time. This is something that I believe some who enjoy reading Merton may not realize, considering that when I see him quoted it is often to make an edgy point about orthodoxy in the Church.

I have wanted to share this with y'all for some time and perhaps now is the right time since I am finally getting around to it. I think it is definitely an essay that needs to be read in the times in which we are living.

Tradition and Revolution

The biggest paradox about the Church is that she is at the same time essentially traditional and essentially revolutionary. But that is not as much of a paradox as it seems, because Christian tradition, unlike all others, is a living and perpetual revolution.

Human traditions all tend toward stagnation and decay. They try to perpetuate things that cannot be perpetuated. They cling to objects and values which time destroys without mercy. They are bound up with a contingent and material order of things -- customs, fashions, styles and attitudes -- which inevitably change and give way to something else.

The presence of a strong element of human conservatism in the church should not obscure the fact that Christian tradition, supernatural in its source, is something absolutely opposed to human traditionalism.

The living tradition of Catholicism is like the breath of a physical body. It renews life by repelling stagnation. It is a constant, quiet, peaceful revolution against death.

As the physical act of breathing keeps the spiritual soul united to a material body whose very matter ends always to corrupt and decay, so Catholic tradition keeps the Church alive under the material and social and human elements which will be encrusted upon as long as it is in the world.

The reason why Catholic tradition is a tradition is because there is only one living doctrine in Christianity. The whole truth of Christianity has been fully revealed. It has not yet been fully understood or fully lived. The life of the Church is the Truth of God Himself, breathed out into the Church by His Spirit, and there cannot be any other truth to supersede and replace it.

The only thing that can replace such intense life is a lesser life, a kind of death. The constant human tendency away from God and away from this living tradition can only be counteracted by a return to tradition, a renewal and a deepening of the one unchanging life that was infused into the Church at the beginning.

And yet this tradition must always be a revolution because by its very nature it denies the values and standards to which human passion is so powerfully attached. To those who love money and pleasure and reputation and power this tradition says: "Be poor, go down into the far end of society, take the last place among men, live with those who are despised, love other men and serve them instead of making them serve you. Do not fight them when they push you around, but pray for those that hurt you. Do not look for pleasure, but turn away from things that satisfy your senses and your mind and look for God in hunger and thirst and darkness, through deserts of the spirit in which it seems to be madness to travel. Take upon yourself the burden of Christ's Cross, that is, Christ's humility and poverty and obedience and renunciation, and you will find peace for your souls.

This is the most complete revolution that has ever been preached; in fact, it is the only true revolution, because all the others demand the extermination of somebody else, but this one means the death of the man who, for all practical purposes, you have come to think of as your own self.

New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton

Part II is here.

On Being a Convert and Believing Church Truths

It's no secret that I'm a convert and a fairly new one at that ... Easter Vigil 2000, thank you very much! When I come across dissenting Catholics of what I call the "militant" sort (whether they are called cafeteria, liberal or whatever), my conversion tends to get thrown in my face. "Oh, that explains it! You converts are always so gung ho! Well, you'll figure it out." ... or variations, thereof. What does it explain? Don't you know? We converts are such simpletons that we actually believe Church teachings ... all of them ... !

Depending on my mood of the moment I either am amused or annoyed by this attitude. It assumes that converts are innocents who were just looking for the "right" match and then ... lo and behold! ... there was the Catholic church beckoning and we jumped happily into her arms. They don't take into account the fact that most converts have come from a much more cynical view of the Church than these partial dissenters will ever have. After all, all we had to go on in the first place is what the world and other Christian denominations say about the Church and that isn't very complimentary. Most converts have had to be coaxed by God, step by unwilling step, into accepting that the Church holds the deposit of faith. We have fought that internal fight against accepting whatever truth we didn't like most when confronted with evidence that the Church is abiding by Scripture ... whether it be abortion, contraception, the male priesthood, priestly celibacy, Mary (a real biggie), or any other reason that pops up. That is why we are educated in what the Church teaches. A lot of the time we've been looking and looking for reasons not to agree. We didn't find them. Instead we found Truth.

Yes, we're passionate, probably embarrassingly so. But once we gave in, we gave in all the way and that's when we jumped into Holy Mother Church's arms. As for not going along with everything the Church believes, it is up to each person to inform their conscience. That's the other thing that a lot of converts have had to do. We had to inform ourselves about why we agree with the Church. Often, we've had to do it while dealing with spirited opposition from family and friends. A surprising amount of dissenters have not looked much further than what they have been told by ill informed teachers, parents, or priests. Yes, those are all people we should be able to trust but we live in the age of information. It doesn't hurt to look up and consider what the Church Fathers have said about such issues and pretty much every one that bothers people today has bothered people at some time in the past.

There is nothing wrong with questioning Church teachings. God gave us brains and expects us to use them. However, I think there is something wrong with the way a lot of people do the questioning. You have to be open to hearing what you don't want to and then to conforming your conscience, once informed, to the Church. I really never had considered my support of abortion or euthanasia in relationship to the Church when converting. It was only when I couldn't in good conscience say, "Lord, hear our prayer" in response to spoken prayers for an end to abortion that I felt I ought to find out why the Church taught such a thing. I started reading (and reading and reading) works by people who I knew to be in accordance with Church teachings. After all, there's no good in looking to dissenters to explain what the Church teaches ... you have to start at the source to see what is really said about something. Once I saw the logic applied, I couldn't deny that what the Church taught agreed with Scripture. Don't get me wrong, I didn't immediately go around flinging up my arms and shouting, "I have seen the light." I had to get comfortable with the idea that I was going to be in direct opposition with much of popular culture ... and that wasn't easy either.

I think we also must consider the examples of those who have changed the Church the most ... the saints. St. Teresa of Avila, St. Catherine of Siena, St. John of the Cross, St. Ignatius ... the list goes on and on. When they brought up their ideas of change, did the Church embrace them with open arms? No. Often the rejection was cruel, in more ways than one. They might have gone through channels to get rulings changed but they didn't go around complaining to everyone they knew, writing books, and clucking when others supported current teachings. They applied to their lives those precepts that God wants most from us ... prayer, humility, and obedience. They trusted to God to use their lives to make a change. They were obedient to the authority over them, the Church, and God used that very obedience to make changes.

Personally, I have found this prayer very effective in helping along the way:

Lord, that I may obtain what you promise, make me love what you command.

Naturally, I also have met many people troubled by Church teachings of one sort or another who are honestly seeking answers. I do not mean to lump everyone together into a category. However, a majority of dissenters seem to be militant (or is it that they just are loud?) and there is a tone of condescension and anger underlying their conversations. They talk about "my Catholic Church," forgetting perhaps that the Church is Christ's Bride. It is His Church ... the Catholic Church ... one, holy and apostolic Church. We all are members of the Body of Christ, but the Body does not belong to individuals but to Christ.

When I was not Catholic and would have laughed at the very idea of becoming one, I looked at those dissenters and wondered why they didn't just find another church. There generally are plenty of Protestant churches that would fill the bill with their teachings. Once I was in the Church I made friends who dissent from various teachings, have tried to leave, and are drawn back time and again. It seems to me that God uses the Eucharist to keep them from straying too far. They tend to be a different sort from the angry, "militant" dissenters I have run into. My friends are questioning and honestly trying to find ways to come to terms with Church teachings. How can I not honor and appreciate that? It is what I went through myself.

Personally, I feel for the dissenters of all sorts. I pray for them, for their peace, for their change of heart so that they may wholeheartedly love the Church, or -- if we have saints in our midst -- that they will be humble and obedient so God may work to His glory through them. I must admit, when I'm toe to toe (or comments box to comments box) over an issue of doctrine I've been mad enough to spit. But even then I'm praying (for both of us!) in the midst of the fray.

On this matter of Church teachings I turned to my friends, new and old, for advice. I will leave the final words with them.

The law of God entrusted to the Church is taught to the faithful as the way of life and truth. The faithful therefore have the right to be instructed in the divine saving precepts that purify judgment and, with grace, heal wounded human reason. They have the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church. Even if they concern disciplinary matters, these determinations call for docility in charity.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2037

We must abide rather by the Pope's judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians, however well versed he may be in the divine Scriptures.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Quodlibetum IX,Q.8, Quaest. Quodlibetales

It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church's moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a "good Catholic," and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere.
Pope John Paul II, in his talk to the Bishops in Los Angeles in 1987

... that it is absolutely incorrect to refer to Pre-Vatican Council II and Post-Vatican Council II, as if there were changes in the Church's position in matters of faith and morals. The only changes in that respect have sprung from erroneous interpretations of the Council.
Cardinal Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report

The teaching Church does not invent her doctrines; she is a witness, a custodian, an interpreter, a transmitter. As regards the truths of Christian marriage, she can be called conservative, uncompromising. To those who would urge her to make her faith easier, more in keeping with the tastes of the changing mentality of the times, she answers with the apostles, we cannot. (Acts. 4:20)
Pope Paul VI, in an address in Jan. 1972

In practice, those who dissent from authoritative Church teaching very often give as their reason for doing so, not so much their own personal insights, as the authority of dissenting theologians. This, however, is to misunderstand the role of theologians in the Church, for their authority does not, and cannot outweigh the authority of the Pope in declaring the faith of the Church.
The Irish Bishops, in a statement on Conscience and Morality

I was going to expand on bending our wills and intellect to Catholicism ... I've learned to realize that when the church and I disagree, it's because I've made some sort of mistake in reasoning, not her. She's been right time after time for 2,000 years. I'm frequently wrong. I'm sure it has something to do with the fact that Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would always guide the Church, and didn't make that promise to me.

"So I should blindly follow, eh?" Well ... no. We ought to find out why we disagree. If we're really about truth and seeing the whole picture, we'd be concerned about what part we were missing. What does the Church know that we don't? Once you look into all the reasoning behind the Church's stance and understand, it's pretty obvious that it's the truth. I've also found that the more often you do this, the more your conscience conforms to Catholicism and you begin to see that what you believe is the same as the Church's belief. Which is good. So what I'm getting at is that it's logical to believe whatever the Church teaches on faith and morals because if follows from the conclusion in the paragraph above, but we have to force our wills and intellects to do it.
De Fidei Obedientia

The only honest reason to be a Christian is because you believe in Christ's claim to be God incarnate. The only honest reason to be a Catholic is because you believe the Church's claim to be the divinely authorized Body of this Christ.
Peter Kreeft, Catholic Christianity