tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37747829521922748522024-03-16T14:52:28.805-04:00Adoption & FaithAdoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.comBlogger243125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774782952192274852.post-59116261527768712452012-05-29T06:39:00.003-04:002012-05-29T06:39:57.213-04:0012-05-27: Solemnity of Pentecost<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: right; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><strong>Solemnity of Pentecost</strong></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: right; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Acts of the Apostles 2:1-11 / Pslam 104 / 1 Corinthians 12:3-7,12-13 / <em>Veni, Sancte Spiritus</em> / John 20:19-23</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">What do you call a person who speaks three languages, the joke goes</span></i><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Trilingual</span></i><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">A person who speaks two?</span></i><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Bilingual</span></i><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">And a person who speaks just one language?</span></i><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">An American.</span></i><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Implied in the joke is the premise that the ability to speak more than one language is beneficial, though for many Americans, if it’s going to be only one language, it best be English.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The readings for Pentecost speak to the point: the Tower of Babel, imaging humanity’s fall into mutual incomprehensibility as the purity of an original language is lost, vs. the Holy Spirit’s gift to the apostles, allowing them to be understood by their listeners who spoke varied languages.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"><span style="font-size: x-small;">In some way, language was treated a lot like religion when America came to be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Communities were separated by both their religion and their language: the Pennsylvania Dutch, the French-speaking Louisiana Territory, the English-speaking northeast, each mirrored Reformed, Catholic and Anglican religions, respectively.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While the children of foreign-speaking immigrants quickly assimilated English as their own, their religion was usually a different story; though, in isolated cases like Yiddish-speaking Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn or the German-speaking Amish of Pennsylvania, adherence to language became as important as adherence to religion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Apropos this dilemma of what it means to become an American, there’s been renewed interest of late concerning the background of America’s discoverer, Christopher Columbus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Doubts about Columbus’ pedigree first emerged in Franco’s Spain when it was suggested (until Franco quashed the research) that Columbus was either a descendent of a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">converso</i> or perhaps a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">converso</i> himself: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Conversos</i> being Jews who had converted to Catholicism in fifteenth century Spain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Their conversion, however, can only be understood as a forced assimilation, since they were heavily penalized for remaining Jewish.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Finally, in 1492, the same year Columbus made his epic voyage, the Catholic Monarchs of the united Kingdom of Aragon and Castile, Ferdinand and Isabella, expelled from their kingdom all Jews who had not converted to Catholicism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The desire for a Spain unified by religion, language and culture would eventually produce the Spanish Inquisition to insure those <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">conversos</i> didn’t lapse into their former religious practices.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"><span style="font-size: x-small;">On a recent PBS episode of <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Finding Your Roots</i></b>, genealogical and genetic research into the ancestry of Linda Chavez uncovered her Jewish roots that had been transported clandestinely to America early on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Evidence of other Spanish immigrants’ Jewish background turned up when tombstones were discovered in Catholic cemeteries carved with Stars of David and notations in Hebrew script.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Chavez recalled, as a young girl, seeing her grandmother mysteriously turn statues of saints, which adorned her house, to face the wall; perhaps an attempt to observe the Jewish prohibition against graven images.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The desire for unity is always a good and noble endeavor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But unity is not necessarily uniformity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Uniformity, when imposed, may do more to fracture authentic unity than solidify it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just remember the Inquisition in Spain or the Know-Nothing and Ku Klux Klan movements of early twentieth century America.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The great strength of the American enterprise, it seems, has been flexibility, patience and tolerance in regard to assimilation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And, no doubt, the protection afforded by the government to speak your native language and practice your chosen religion without fear of punishment or threat of exile.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin: 0in -0.15in 0pt 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin: 0in -0.15in 0pt 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin: 0in -0.15in 0pt 0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"><span style="font-size: x-small;">[N.B. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">It’s that time of year once again to sign off on these <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Pastoral Reflections</b> and give the patient readers of this column a well-deserved break!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Until September…tfb</i>]<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"></i></span></span></div>
<div align="right">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"></span></div>Adoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774782952192274852.post-20559973803663339382012-05-22T07:58:00.003-04:002012-05-22T07:58:56.704-04:0012-05-20: Seventh Sunday of Easter<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: right; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"><strong>Seventh Sunday of Easter</strong></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: right; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"><strong><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Acts of the Apostles 1:15-17,20-26 / Psalm 103 / 1 John 4:11-16 / John 17:11-19</span></strong></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">The election of a pope always makes for a good story.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For Catholics, all bishops are successors to the original apostles, though only the pope, the bishop of Rome, claims succession from a particular apostle - Peter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One exception of course is the apostle chosen to replace Judas Iscariot, the ignominious apostle who betrayed Christ with a kiss.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Today’s first reading records the event of selecting a replacement from two nominees: Matthias and Judas (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">aka</i> Barsabbas).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Both had the necessary credentials, being bona fide witnesses of the risen Lord.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After much discussion and prayer, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Acts</b> tells us, the eleven apostles commend their choice to the Holy Spirit by casting lots (apostolic succession by the role of the dice might explain the strange idiom: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">holy crap</i>(s)!).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Holy Spirit chooses Matthias: and we never hear of him again.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Understandable enough.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It couldn’t have been easy – taking over for Judas Iscariot – too much baggage, too many bad memories.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This might explain the Spirit’s decision of choosing Matthias over Judas Barsabbas; a successor with the same first name as the traitor might prove problematic – people easily get confused.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">The election of popes throughout the millennia have likewise been ascribed to the decision of the Holy Spirit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Though, if you’ve been watching Showtime’s <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Borgias</i></b>, about the papacy of Alexander VI, you might wonder about the wisdom of the Holy Spirit’s choice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, who knows, the alternative might have been even worse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My favorite pope by the way is Clement VII, one of the Medici popes (who reigned a bit after the Borgia one), whom Ludwig von Pastor, in his classic <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">History of the Popes</b>, ranked as one of the worst – bastard that he was. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Although it’s easier to assent to the reality of divine intervention in the selection of a good pope (or, at least, a moral one) this reference to divine intervention poses a dilemma for the modern believer because it reflects ultimately how we view our own lot in life: how we came to be and what we’ve done with what we got.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Phrased in differing ways, the dilemma is all about free will.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How much free will do we really have; and how much free choice do we really exercise in the many decisions, major and minor, we make throughout our lives.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Church teaches that human beings possess free will – this is a tenet of faith to which Catholics are required to assent; but, as to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">how much</i> free will we have - the Church has never said. The more we learn from neuroscience and psychology, for instance, the less real choice we seem to have; or, if we have it at all, it must be very limited indeed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An even more disturbing prospect: Could divine providence – that mysterious Holy Spirit - move us to make a bad choice to achieve a good end?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">The pathetic figure of Judas Iscariot looms at the heart of that question.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Regarding his own destiny on the cross, Jesus seems nearly obsessed with telling his disciples that the Messiah must suffer and die so as to fulfill the dictates or prophecies of scripture.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Skeptics claim that the gospels <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">had</i> to put these words into Jesus’ mouth in order to explain such an ignominious death and, further, to defend his choice of Judas Iscariot as an apostle in the first place (if Jesus was God, the jaded might argue, he surely must have known!).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">And so was Judas, poor Judas, just a dastardly coward who sold out his friend for money; or was he a dedicated but misguided follower who had his own ideas about how things should turn out; or, shuddering to contemplate, was he the servant par excellence, an agent of divine destiny that made the prophecies of scripture come true – a necessary hinge in the divine plan of redemption?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Bob Dylan put the question best in his old ballad, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">With God On Our Side</i></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Through many dark hour / </span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> I’ve been thinking about this</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> That Jesus Christ was betrayed by a kiss</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> But I can’t think for / </span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> You have to decide</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Whether Judas Iscariot had God on his side</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">If you were to take Bob Dylan up on it, your decision regarding Judas Iscariot might not be so academic; it would reflect your take about how you view the meaning of chance and providence, choice and destiny in your own life - whether or not you are or ever will be a successor to an apostle or just an ordinary soul making sense of the lots cast that has become your life, that hand of cards you’ve been dealt. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>Adoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774782952192274852.post-55761772478394109132012-05-14T13:37:00.001-04:002012-05-14T13:38:03.827-04:0012-05-13: Sixth Sunday of Easter<div style="text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;">Sixth Sunday of Easter</span></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;">Acts of the Apostles 10:25-26,34-35,44-48 / Psalm 98 / 1 John 4:7-10 / John 15:9-17</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Searching is a theme that runs through my life – everyone’s life, I imagine. On this Mother’s Day I’m remembering, though it’s hard to believe, it’s been thirty years since I decided to search for my birthmother. The process was an adventure, like unraveling clues in a mystery novel or going on a journey into unchartered terrain. Looking back it didn’t take me so long to find her (only a matter of months); though, truth be told, I’m still searching for something - that ever-elusive goal, that destination never quite reached. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I’m sure that’s why I’ve liked history so much. Because I’m a slow learner (this is not self-deprecation, just honest perception), it took me a long while to question that much-accepted myth and acknowledge that there’s no such thing as an objective view of things – history depends on who’s telling the story, on <em>what</em> and <em>how much</em> that <em>who</em> chooses to reveal. It’s precisely those dull textbook accounts, filled with numerous unadorned facts, which serve to turn most kids off to the study of history. You might think you’re being very wise when, like Sergeant Joe Friday from <strong><em>Dragnet</em></strong>, you say <em>you want just the facts, ma’am</em>; but those facts need to take on some flesh and blood, be embodied so to speak, in order for us voyeurs of history to get the meaning – to understand what’s really happening.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yet facts are essential. They’re the skeleton on which that flesh takes form. That’s why despotic governments throughout history have always tried, and often succeeded in manipulating people, by withholding from them the uncomfortable facts of their own history. In a recent interview to promote his new film, <strong><em>For Greater Glory</em></strong> (opening June 1st) Eduardo Verástegui told how he had been raised and educated in Mexico’s public schools and yet had never heard of the Cristero Rebellion of the 1920s. The film is about that uprising which rebelled against the Mexican government’s attempt to eliminate the power of the Church by suppression, violence, imprisonment and execution. Embarrassed by those events, subsequent governments sought to brush things under the rug – <em>what they don’t know won’t hurt them</em>, seemed to become accepted government policy. But lies always hurt; and the greatest lies are the ones that are told to keep secrets. So a Japanese student will never read from a Japanese textbook about the misery his countrymen perpetuated in China in the 1930s or about their cruel occupation of Korea for nearly forty years. And you’ll look in vane through any Turkish history book in search of that chapter on the Armenian Genocide.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The adopted suffer a similar injustice; the lie, for us, writ large on amended (i.e. false) birth and baptismal certificates – the original facts sealed under lock and key. But lies always backfire. It may take time, but they always do. Lies not only deceive others but they deceive the liar as well. I remember an adoptive mom asking me once whether I thought she should tell her two sons they were adopted. <em>After all,</em> she said, <em>they came from abusive homes. It might hurt them to know.</em> <em>But</em>, I said, <em>they’re only four months apart in age. Don’t you think that someday they’ll figure out they’re not related to each other?</em> It literally never occurred to her. The adopted, who have been lied to about their origins, may indeed someday forgive the adoptive parents – as was the case in the recent film <strong><em>October Baby</em></strong>. But that type of lie – the biggest kind of lie you can tell – can never be forgotten. “It is secrecy that is everywhere the soul of bureaucracy,” Simone Weil wrote. “It is the condition of all privilege and, consequently, of all oppression.” </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I now know many of the facts of my particular history – at least, a lot more than I knew before – but I’m still sifting through them, deciphering their meaning, trying to understand how they became the deck of cards I was dealt. Jesus tells us in today’s gospel that we are no longer slaves because a slave doesn’t know what his master is doing – he doesn’t have the facts. Jesus calls us friends because he lets us in on things, reveals, discloses, sheds light on the situation. This is why we call the gospel the “good news.” Love always seeks knowledge and knowing inevitably leads to loving – and that’s a fact.</span></div>
<br />
<div align="right">
</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>Adoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774782952192274852.post-33874863787813736972012-05-08T05:48:00.000-04:002012-05-08T05:48:01.841-04:0012-05-06: Fifth Sunday of Easter<div style="text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;"><strong>Fifth Sunday of Easter</strong></span></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: xx-small;">Acts of the Apostles 9:26-31 / Psalm 22 / 1 John 3:18-24 / John 15:1-8</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>Clean up your act – or else</em> might be the subtitle for today’s gospel image of God the Father as he prunes the vines and cuts down all the deadwood in the vineyard. It didn’t take long till the Church Fathers understood the vineyard to be synonymous with the Church, ever in need of purification from doctrinal error and moral misbehavior. This outlook would eventually give rise to things like the Inquisition, the Index (of forbidden books) and, in our time, a renewed emphasis on the demand to conform to the Magisterium, the Church’s teaching authority, with little room for questioning or nuanced disagreement.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">These “markers” in the history of the Church might be perceived as extremist positions. Not satisfied with the conversion (albeit pressured, if not forced) of Spanish Jews during the <em>Reconquista</em> of the fifteenth century, the Inquisition sought to make sure their conversion “took.” Spying on friends and family was encouraged so as to report any remnant religious practice, like avoiding pork or seeking to circumcise your son. And well into the twentieth century Catholics were forbidden to read certain books and authors deemed dangerous to your faith. How a book ended up on the Index was a mystery unto itself, though an insight was given a few decades back by Graham Greene. What is now considered a very Catholic novel, <strong>The Power and the Glory</strong>, was about to be placed on the Index when a young monsignor working in the Vatican interceded on Greene’s behalf, insisting that the character of the priest, weak and sinful though he was, is ultimately a noble testament to divine grace working through that weakness. The monsignor won out and Greene was spared condemnation. The monsignor, Giovanni Battista Montini, would eventually become Pope Paul VI.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As for the renewed emphasis on the Church’s teaching authority and its demand for the believer’s obedience, we seem now to be approaching a crisis point. Evidence of the dilemma erupts here and there in ever-increasing frequency: bishops refusing communion to certain politicians who hold pro-abortion views; the recent case of a Catholic school teacher being fired because she became pregnant through <em>in vitro</em> fertilization; the Archbishop of Seattle requesting all parishes in his archdiocese to campaign for signatures at Mass in order to place a referendum on the ballot attempting to overturn same-sex marriage legislation. The dilemma occurs not because bishops are teaching in error, but because other loyal believers see the enforcement of certain liturgical embargoes in response to views held, or lifestyles practiced, a foolish response to complicated issues.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The rector of the Seattle archdiocesan cathedral, for example, refused his archbishop’s request to campaign during Mass for parishioners’ signatures to place on that referendum because, he said, it would serve only to offend and divide his congregation. Or, in the case of a lesbian who was denied communion at her mother’s funeral because the priest knew she was living with another woman, the Archdiocese of Washington apologized to the woman and put the young priest “on leave.” And, perhaps most significantly, the recent case reported from the Archdiocese of Vienna where Cardinal Schönborn overruled his own spokesman who had stated that <em>active homosexuals are living in the state of grave sin,</em> and permitted an openly gay man, living with his male partner, to serve on his parish council after being elected by parishioners. Cardinal Schönborn made the decision after meeting with the man and his male lover for lunch. It serves well to remember that the cardinal was the main editor of <strong>The</strong> <strong>Catechism of the Catholic Church</strong> and a former pupil of Pope Benedict himself.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Although moderation in doctrinal enforcement may indeed be coming to the fore, the forces that seek to prune away what they perceive as deadwood in the contemporary church seem all too willing to sacrifice anyone, and nearly everyone, for the sake of purity in faith and morals. Remember that movements like the Inquisition and the Index ultimately backfired: so-called heretics were emboldened in their perceptions, and books placed on the Index (as well as movies later condemned by the Legion of Decency) became guaranteed best sellers. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As for pruning those vines, it might be wise to acknowledge that an unblemished purity in matters of faith and morals is seldom found (except in bishops, of course); and, more importantly, that perceived impurities can in fact be the very place where grace enters the human heart – <em>O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam</em>, sings the <strong><em>Exultet</em></strong>. The esoteric Alan Watts, once Anglican priest turned Buddhist, reflected on this deep and essential paradox when defending his own lack of purity in both faith and morals when he wrote that “the finest incense in the world – aloeswood – is made from a diseased part of the tree, and pearls are a sickness of oysters.”</span></div>
<br />
<div align="right">
</div>Adoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774782952192274852.post-17494668550930089732012-05-05T10:20:00.002-04:002012-05-08T05:49:49.190-04:00adoption reform NYS Legislature<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">5 May 2012</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Honorable Edward C. Braunstein</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Assemblyman - District 26</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">213-33 39th Avenue</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bayside, New York 11361</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Dear Assemblyman Braunstein,</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I hope this note finds you well. I’m writing in the hope that you might consider supporting recently proposed legislation in the New York State Assembly concerning the right of adopted adults to have access to their original birth certificates. It is my understanding that Assemblyman Weprin is now sponsoring such legislation in bill <strong>A8910</strong>.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As someone who was adopted in New York City in 1953, I have been involved over the past twenty years in efforts to change the laws that currently prohibit citizens like myself from access to the identifying information with which they were born but have been denied through legislative action that had sealed records and issued amended, i.e. false, birth certificates. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In recent years virtually all adoption professionals have advocated openness in adoption procedures and the free access on the part of the adopted and their adoptive parents to vital information concerning their natal identities and medical information. What adoption reformers, myself included, are now seeking is the same right and practice extended to those born into the closed adoption system that sealed records in most states, including New York.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The main objection, I believe, on the part of those who oppose access to original birth certificates on the part of adult adoptees has been the assumption that women who relinquished children to adoption were promised confidentiality from everyone at the time of relinquishment. Though this position is often stated, there is actually no evidence that any such confidentiality was ever promised at the time of relinquishment. In fact, my own adoption (which was emblematic of adoptions conducted in New York State at the time) suggests otherwise. When the adoption papers were issued by Surrogate’s Court and given to my adoptive parents, I was identified in those papers with my birthmother’s surname. If the state had indeed intended to guarantee confidentiality to my birth mother – from everyone, including the adoptive family - why would the state issue the adoption papers with my mother’s surname? I would submit that one could only logically infer that confidentiality, i.e. anonymity from the adopted themselves, was never intended.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Those of us in adoption reform wish to argue that the right to know your parents’ names and the facts of your own birth is a human, civil and inalienable right. I hope you would consider backing <strong>A8910</strong> and help those of us long denied this right – a right which every other American citizen possesses, that is, the right to one’s original birth certificate - be granted.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Sincerely,</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(Rev.) Thomas F. Brosnan</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Pastor </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>Adoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774782952192274852.post-84744848870088835952012-05-01T17:01:00.002-04:002012-05-01T17:07:07.081-04:0012-04-29: Fourth Sunday of Easter<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"><strong><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Fourth Sunday of Easter</span></strong></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"><strong><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Acts of the Apostles 4:8-12 / Psalm 118 / 1 John 3:1-2 / John 10:11-18</span></strong></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">“There is no salvation through anyone else,” Peter says of Jesus in today’s first reading.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That conviction, perhaps more than anything else, has driven the efforts of Christian missionaries for two thousand years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The history of that missionary effort, its beneficial as well as its harmful effects, has been the subject of much debate in the past fifty years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">I remember, in seventh grade, reading <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Maryknoll Magazine</i> for the first time and deciding there and then I wanted to be a missionary, travel to far and exotic places and bring Christ to the “heathen nations.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Within the religious ghetto where most Brooklyn Catholics of my generation grew up, there was little doubt that the Roman Catholic Church not only <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">subsisted</i> in the one true Church of Christ (as Vatican II put it) but was identical to that true church and, thus, the only way to salvation – the one door to heaven, so to speak.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some would argue that Vatican II changed all that, opening up a way to acknowledge Christ as the unique Savior of the world while respecting other religious traditions as valid: if those non-Catholics were not on the designated highway to heaven, at least they were seen as traveling in the right direction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">I’m not so sure Vatican II invented that idea as much as verbalize what had already been brewing in our collective unconscious for some time, especially since the time when Europeans embarked on that so-called “Age of Discovery”; when they encountered peoples, cultures and societies which challenged their basic notion of what Cardinal Ratzinger called <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and his Church</i> in his now famous declaration from the year 2000 – <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dominus Iesus</i></b>.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">That encounter with difference, way back when, posed the challenge of first seeing peoples outside Western culture as human, as capable of salvation (African slaves and Indians being the prime examples); and then, once their humanity was acknowledged, to make every effort to convert and baptize them, igniting a great missionary effort not seen since Christianity ceased being simply a Jewish sect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even in China, where Europeans encountered a culture more advanced and sophisticated than their own, the emphasis was on making <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the other</i> conform to western ways of expressing faith at the expense of their own cultural practices.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There were notable exceptions: the remarkable Jesuit, Matteo Ricci, being perhaps the greatest example. In sixteenth century China Ricci <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">translated</i> himself into Chinese Confucian society. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rather than simply imparting truth, he sought to discover it – practicing that Thomistic (and very Catholic) principle he had learned so well: God can indeed be known through the light of one’s own reason and that, therefore, in a mysterious way, salvation can be experienced by those who never heard of Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ricci’s non-Jesuit successors, however, didn’t see things the same way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One could argue that their arrogance in these matters lost China to the Church, altering the course of world history in a significant way.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Some see the theology expressed in <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dominus Iesus</i></b> as a revisionist document in much the same vane; a return to that type of arrogance where the explicit necessity of confessing Christ and the Catholic Church as the only way to salvation is reiterated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And even for those of us completely convinced of the truth of that document, the fact remains that we no longer live, or can live, in that Catholic ghetto of yesteryear (even though we might want to).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There remains that nagging question in the back of our minds, brought forward every time we meet someone – be they Protestant, Jew, Muslim, or even atheist – who leads a good and perhaps even exemplary life: How can it be that someone who is outside the Church, or who denies Christ’s unique role as savior, lead a better, happier or more meaningful life than people like you and me who claim more complete access to truth and grace?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Apart from a ghetto mentality that basks in black and white, either/or formulas, the answer resides in mystery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even those graced with the gift of infallibility in matters of faith cannot (at least, till now, have not) pronounced on how that divine mystery of love and redemption enters the hearts of those outside the faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps the answer doesn’t lie so much in explaining what that faith entails, but rather, depends on the definition of what you mean by “outside.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">The Catholic Baptismal Rite might be a case in point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While blessing the water to be used for baptism, the priest says: “Through the waters of the Red Sea you led Israel out of slavery, to be an image of God’s holy people, set free from sin by baptism.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One might wonder if those Israelites of a pre-Christian age knew they were being baptized into Christ as they trod through the muck and mire of those parted waters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I wouldn’t think they did.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the blessing does reveal the Church’s willingness to accept that salvation can come in different guises, through many different <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">translations</i> of that one eternal Word.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Revelation may have ended with the death of the last apostle, but history has not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s not the fact of the redemption that one questions in this regard, but how that redemption is revealed in time, in history.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The task of the missionary, our task as Catholic Christians in this age of the so-called “new evangelization,” is perhaps not so much to simply <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">reiterate</i> an ancient truth but to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">discover</i> its manifestations – the translation of that eternal Word - in ever new and surprising ways.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>Adoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774782952192274852.post-15940305990637373662012-04-23T16:50:00.000-04:002012-04-23T16:50:42.464-04:0012-04-22: Third Sunday of Easter<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">12-04-22: Third Sunday of Easter</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Acts of the Apostles 3:13-15,17-19 / Psalm 4 / 1 John 2:1-5 / Luke 24:35-48</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Last Sunday, April 15<sup>th</sup>, was a day saturated with history.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was the day Abraham Lincoln died from the gunshot he endured the night before; it was the day the Titanic sank into the icy Atlantic taking fifteen hundred human lives; and it was Pope Benedict’s 85<sup>th</sup> birthday, celebrated amid widespread rumors that he would announce his resignation (retirement), as pope, due to age – it never happened.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">There had been several popes in history who resigned in order to end schism or the scandal of simony but only one, Celestine V, who did so without external pressure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Having been a Benedictine monk for most of his life, Celestine was elected pope, without his knowledge, because of his reputation for sanctity and humility.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He resigned the papacy at eighty years of age within a few months of his election because he felt that he could not handle the burdens of administration.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He sought to complete his life in peace following the ordered routine of monastic life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not too long ago Pope Benedict had visited Celestine’s grave, fueling the rumor that at some point Benedict might follow the example of his predecessor and resign the papal office because of age and/or infirmity (an option allowed by Canon Law).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From remarks made on his birthday last week, however, the pope seems to have the clear intention to continue as successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ until death.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Apropos of rumors of papal resignation, the newly-released Italian film, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">We Have a Pope</i></b>, is the fictional story of papal resignation or, more accurately, papal abdication.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although the film is difficult to follow at times and gets sidetracked into unnecessary farce, the plot remains an interesting one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s about the election of a new pope, Cardinal Melville; but, before he is introduced to the world from the balcony of St. Peter’s, the newly-elected pontiff experiences a psychological breakdown of sorts – he gets cold feet and, literally, runs away from his appointed destiny.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You could say the frightened pope, filled with doubts about his own abilities, is the contemporary anti-hero, akin to the likes of an Edward VIII abdicating the British throne, his destined duty, “for the woman he loved.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The pope and the king just can’t measure up.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">But</i>, we post-moderns might ask, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">who could</i>?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">At the heart of such human predicaments lies the question of duty, sacrifice and heroism and the quest for happiness and fulfillment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The more conservative among us might argue that, in the good old days, there was no predicament – happiness and fulfillment were found in doing one’s duty even if it required heroic sacrifice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But then, one might argue back, Pope Celestine lived in those good old days – the thirteenth century being, as Tennyson might have put it, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the greatest of all the good old days</i>.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Perhaps we are on the cusp of a paradigm shift in the way we understand how we engage our responsibilities and the permanence of our promises.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Evidence of such is increasingly more clear in the way the Church approaches the possibility that circumstances can change the nature of our previous decisions: consider the number annulments the church grants every year or dispensations from active ministry (and celibacy) granted to priests.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We might, from that more conservative viewpoint, condemn the objective decision of a fictional Cardinal Melville or the historical Edward VIII in forsaking the duty they seemingly were destined for.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But we cannot judge their interior motivations or whether those decisions evince genuine courage or an unfortunate cowardice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That, only God knows.</span></div>Adoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774782952192274852.post-61737896374225561152012-04-17T12:49:00.001-04:002012-04-17T12:52:18.178-04:0012-04-15: Second Sunday of Easter<div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:78%;"><strong>Second Sunday of Easter or Divine Mercy Sunday</strong></span></div><br /><div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:78%;">Acts of the Apostles 4:32-35 / Psalm 118 / 1 John 5:1-6 / John 20:19-31</span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;"></span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">Some say the Acts of the Apostles reflects an idealized rather than an actual view of the early Christian community. The skeptical sight today’s first reading which says that <em>no one claimed any possessions and all held everything in common</em>. That’s a pretty tall order for any group to accomplish – just look at the mess that Communism engendered in the twentieth century. But the clincher, as to the use of hyperbole in describing the early church community, lies foremost in the rather nonchalant statement at the beginning of the reading: “the community of believers,’” it asserts, “was on one heart and mind.” Thinking of the church today, no less imbued with the Spirit now as it was then, you’d be hard pressed to see us as of one mind on anything.<br /><br />There is one notable and undoubtedly true exception to this thesis and that’s what’s stated in today’s gospel. After the crucifixion, the gospel tells us, the apostles were locked away in a room “for fear of the Jews.” Scholars disagree what John’s gospel attributes to the cause of that fear. Were the apostles fearful they would be persecuted by the Jewish authorities as Jesus was; or were they fearful they would be accused by the Jewish authorities of having stolen Jesus’ body? Whatever the reason: they were certainly of one mind and heart in that fear. <br /><br />Bishops, the Catholic Church maintains, are the successors of the apostles. This distinction, a guaranteed-given by the grace of ordination, is meant to assure the continuation of church and sacraments, and suggests as well that the bishops share in witnessing to the truth about Christ and his presence among us. Unfortunately, the grace of episcopal ordination doesn’t safeguard from that all-too-human affliction of fear. In this, modern day bishops are just as weak as their apostolic forbears. A case in point: the trial of Msgr. William Lynn of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.<br /><br />Msgr. Lynn is now on trial for endangering the welfare of children - all in connection with the priest sex abuse scandals. No one is accusing Msgr. Lynn of abusing children himself, though he is accused of being no less responsible, since he was the head of clergy personnel when a number of cases of abuse were reported and accused priests, rather than being removed, were transferred to other parishes. If convicted, Msgr. Lynn would be the first priest to be held responsible for covering-up the sexual abuse of children by “protecting” the abusers.<br /><br />On the face of it some might breathe a sigh of relief, saying to themselves:<em> Well, finally someone is being held accountable.</em> But, as every priest I suspect knows deep down, Msgr. Lynn is the quintessential scapegoat in this ugly drama. Because, as every priest also knows (and anyone else who has seen firsthand the bureaucratic workings of the church), it is the bishop of the diocese who bears the responsibility for the placement and removal of his priests. In this case the responsibility rested with the Archbishop of Philadelphia, Cardinal Bevilaqua, who died a few days before the trial began. The prosecution felt so robbed by this twist of fate that they ordered an autopsy against the wishes of both the archdiocese and the cardinal’s family – implying there might have been foul play (echoes of the Borgias right here in Philadelphia).<br /><br />There can be little doubt that the prosecution does not also know that Msgr. Lynn, as wrong as he might have been in hindsight to dutifully fulfill his obligations to episcopal authority, was not the person ultimately responsible for these bad, but all-too-common decisions, on how to handle abusive priests. Lynn is the district attorney’s clerical scapegoat. But, much worse it seems to me, Msgr. Lynn is the bishops’ scapegoat as well. <br /><br />For fear of the authorities, not one American bishop has spoken up explaining how decisions are made on a diocesan level and how those decisions are executed within the clerical bureaucracy of the local chancery. Not one bishop has publicly expressed support or even concern for Msgr. Lynn. Not true, some say: the Archdiocese of Philadelphia has offered their legal counsel to Lynn, probably free of charge. This, despite the repeated warnings of the judge, that this in itself is a clear conflict of interest and would not serve Msgr. Lynn well at all. Alas, Msgr. Lynn has not taken the judge’s advice and has refused separate counsel - reason unknown. Perhaps he has grown used to being used, and abused, by the workings of the American episcopate – <em>of one heart and mind,</em> locked in their fear of those secular authorities.</span></div>Adoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774782952192274852.post-34333031832524058442012-04-10T17:20:00.004-04:002012-04-10T17:24:29.872-04:0012-04-08: Easter Sunday<div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:78%;"><strong>Easter Sunday</strong></span></div><br /><br /><div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:78%;">Acts 10:34,37-43 / Psalm 118 / Colossians 3:1-4 / Victimae Paschali Laudes / John 20:1-9</span></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;"></span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">If you’ve ever been to Jerusalem and had the opportunity to visit the Holy Sepulchre you might agree that it’s a big mess. Different churches control different parts of the church and their respective (though not very respectful) clergy are constantly getting into arguments with each other that quite often escalate into fist fights and brawls. If you can manage to get through the main entrance and make your way to the tomb itself you can actually enter the tomb, say a prayer and maybe light a candle - before you get thrown out. Unlike any other famous tomb, there would of course be no remains present because, as the gospel states, “He is risen as he said.” In this, you would have walked, literally, in the footsteps of Peter and the beloved disciple and experienced what they experienced on that first Easter morning – an empty tomb. Yet we are told, the beloved disciple “saw and believed.”<br /><br />So, what <em>did</em> he see? That’s the starting point of a book just released this past week in which a British professor makes the case that it was the Shroud of Turin, or more precisely, the image on the shroud that engendered belief in Jesus’ resurrection for Jesus’ first disciples. John’s gospel tells us that the burial cloths that covered Jesus’ body, as well as the cloth which had covered his head, were in plain sight. The author of the book makes the case that, unlike today, an image had an enormously powerful effect on ancient peoples and it was the image of the crucified Jesus on the shroud that engendered belief in the resurrection. I haven’t yet read the book (only a review) so I don’t know how the author deals with the other very obvious detail in the gospel account – the fact that the body of Jesus was missing.<br /><br />The other way to read the same gospel account is to understand that what the beloved disciple saw was, in a word, nothing. He believed on account of what he <em>didn’t</em> see. And it’s this experience – the experience of what’s missing – which can be of great value, precisely because we human beings all know that feeling. And we don’t like it! That empty, hollow feeling we get after a long relationship breaks up, when the doctor gives a diagnosis of terminal disease, when someone we’ve loved so much takes his last breath. It’s that hollow, empty feeling that brings on that sick-to-the-stomach, I–just-wanna-wake-from-this-nightmare feeling. But maybe that’s the first fruit of the resurrection – that <em>hollowed</em> feeling can become a <em>hallowed</em> encounter with the divine.<br /><br />The notion that the <em>hollowed</em> may be a sign of the <em>hallowed</em>, that emptiness is the mirror image of holiness, that what is missing is already evidence of what will be found, resonates with that old rabbinic take that God created the world by withdrawing, just as the beautiful sandy beach appears only when the wave recedes. This might not be an experience of the Risen Lord in the flesh, but it may well be the first fruit of his resurrection – hope. A hope which intimates that all is possible. That’s what happens when you hollow out space; you make it hallowed, holy – you make room for what’s missing.</span></div>Adoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774782952192274852.post-20369048830807688362012-04-02T18:24:00.002-04:002012-04-02T18:31:51.671-04:0012-04-01: Palm Sunday of the Passion of the Lord<div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:78%;"><strong>Palm Sunday of the Passion of the Lord</strong></span></div><br /><div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:78%;">Mark 11:1-10 / Isaiah 50:4-7 / Psalm 22 / Philippians 2:6-11 / Mark 14:1-15:47</span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;"></span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">If you had seen the Oscar winning movie, <em><strong>The Artist</strong></em>, you might have assumed it was making allusions to that heartthrob of the silent screen – Rudolph Valentino. It’s my understanding that Valentino, like the leading man in <em><strong>The Artist</strong></em>, lost out when sound came to cinema: not so much a problem of foreign accent which both men possessed but, for Valentino, because he had an unusually high-pitched voice. Suspicion about Valentino’s sexuality, verbalized at the time as doubts about his masculinity, hounded Valentino till his early death at thirty-one in 1926. It seems Valentino was a bit avant-garde when it came to fashion as well. He began to wear an item which men judged effeminate. After WWI this particular item of fashion became quite common and remains so today; but when Valentino sported it, he was judged a danger to the idea of what an American man ought to be. No, it’s not an ascot, not a monocle, not even that questionable cigarette holder – the kind FDR would constantly hold. It was just a wristwatch. Some say that pegged Valentino’s “deviant” orientation more than anything else. Times have changed – thank God.<br /><br />Those who embody sexual difference, or what others might judge as sexual deviance, have always been a part of every culture. Take today’s Gospel which begins Jesus’ Passion. The account opens with the scene of a woman anointing Jesus’ feet with expensive nard. Very early on the Church Fathers would identify her as a prostitute and the ointment she used as something bought with the money she earned in “the world’s oldest profession.” What is Jesus’ response: “Let her alone. Why do you make trouble for her?”<br /><br />Then, almost incidentally, a very interesting thing occurs. The disciples ask Jesus where he would like to celebrate the upcoming Passover meal. “Where should we go?” they ask him. “Go into the city,” Jesus says. “And a man will meet you, carrying a jar of water. Follow him.” It would have been very unusual, in the Jerusalem of Jesus’ day, for a man to be walking about carrying a jar of water. Why? Because that was what women did; work was gender-specific. Men simply did not carry jars of water about; a man doing so would have seemed very strange. What the gospel is describing here might be called, in modern parlance, a trans-gendered event. Yet, Jesus tells his disciples something extraordinary: “Follow him.” It must have taken more than a bit of courage for those two disciples to follow this man-acting-like-a-woman. But they obeyed Jesus so that the Passover meal could be prepared as he wished. This incident which could be perceived as an example of an <em>inversion</em> of nature would prepare the way for the great <em>conversion</em> of nature into supernature, of bread and wine into the Lord’s body and blood. The disciples were able to know where to go because they would have recognized the man easily; his ‘difference’ made it all possible.<br /><br />These days the so-called culture wars, and presidential politics as well, remain concerned with issues surrounding sexuality, be it soccer moms moonlighting as high-class madams, those seeking the right to same-sex marriage, or those same-sex couples seeking to adopt. Today’s hot-button issues make the wearing of a wristwatch seem a very minor affair. Sticking with the analogy some might contend that some of these issues have become, in the minds of the more liberal, as innocuous as wearing a wristwatch. But for many, especially the religious, issues involving sexuality can still rattle more than a few feathers. The Church, the Body of Christ in the here-and-now, has the right and the duty to teach as Jesus did in matters of morality. But timing can make all the difference. Jesus did not condone prostitution, yet he saw the innate dignity of the woman who anointed his feet with her ill-earned ointment. And while it doesn’t seem likely Jesus would have been turning water into wine if the feast at Cana was a same-sex wedding, he still recognized the innate dignity of the man carrying the water jug, the man acting like a woman within that cultural context, and used him to lead his disciples to their appointed task and their ordained destiny.<br /><br />Was it Flannery O’Connor who once remarked that it remains a sublime paradox that many enter the Church by means the Church does not allow? Perhaps there are lessons yet to be learned by all parties, religious and secular, gay and straight, in this mystery we call human sexuality, on this Sunday we dedicate to passion.</span></div>Adoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774782952192274852.post-34904269425469022592012-03-25T15:31:00.002-04:002012-03-25T15:38:47.653-04:0012-03-25: Fifth Sunday of Lent<div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>Fifth Sunday of Lent</strong></span></div><br /><div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:78%;">Jeremiah 31:31-34 / Psalm 51 / Hebrews 5:7-9 / John 12:20-33</span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;"></span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">With the heated debate over religious freedom of conscience now raging as the presidential election approaches, that very issue of conscience has become entangled with sexual behavior and reproductive issues. Although for the past twenty years, with Pope John Paul II’s “theology of the body,” the church has sought to engage issues of sexuality and reproduction within an “incarnational” framework, what unfortunately seems to result, when such topics mix with vying political agendas, is that the church is seen as the great <em>nay-sayer,</em> a puritanical voice amid the cacophony of voices that claim freedom and choice as its goals. <br /><br />Today, March 25th, is the traditional Solemnity of the Annunciation, when the angel Gabriel came to Mary and the virgin conceived “by the power of the Holy Spirit.” It’s odd that the church, for all its current concern over reproductive technologies and the legitimate conception of children, wouldn’t emphasize the Annunciation more – move it to a Sunday or, at least when it falls on a Sunday as it does this year, celebrate the Annunciation rather than the usual Sunday. But, alas, next to the mystery of the Trinity itself, there are few things so incomprehensible in Catholic life than liturgical rules and practices.<br /><br />One of the current areas of contention between Catholic sexual morality and us moderns (Catholics included) is the issue of <em>in vitro</em> fertilization (IVF). One could argue, at least from anecdotal evidence, that Catholics by and large disobey, ignore, contravene this prohibition as much as they do the prohibition against artificial contraception. But not even the more conservative among Catholic leaders and politicians (are they the same entity?) dare broach that teaching for fear of alienating their brothers and sisters and, perhaps as time goes on, their own mothers and fathers. Yet, as far as I understand it, the moral reasoning prohibiting both is pretty much the same. In the case of contraception the church teaches that, in marriage, every conjugal act must be open to procreation and to circumvent that possibility, by artificial means, is immoral. In the case of IVF the church teaches that the unitive aspect of marriage must also be always evinced between a man and a woman and, thus, then to remove the act of fertilization from that marital “embrace” is also immoral. John Paul II’s “language of the body” understands marital intercourse to “speak” both a bodily self-giving (procreative aspect) and a spiritual self-giving (unitive aspect). To evade either is to, in this sense, act falsely; to lie, as it were, with your very body.<br /><br />In a perfect world, I suppose, all that sounds quite admirable and a worthy goal to want to strive for. But one wonders where <em>that</em> world might be. I remember back in the ‘70s when Louise Brown, the first “test tube baby” – the first to be conceived <em>in vitro</em> - was born. Pope John Paul I was one of the first to acknowledge her birth and did so without condemnation, rejoicing in her birth rather than focusing on the means of her conception. A wise political choice for that historical moment. Alas, times have changed. <br /><br />It has since become, if not commonplace, then quite un-extraordinary, for a child to be conceived <em>in</em> <em>vitro</em>. The moral questions concerning what happens to the other fertilized but un-implanted eggs are, for sure, a grave moral concern. But that question really doesn’t impinge on the morality of how <em>the born-child</em> was conceived. Perhaps the Feast of the Annunciation, when we celebrate the fact that a young unmarried girl conceived a child in an asexual manner without benefit of intercourse or marriage, can help us better grapple with this contentious issue. The Virgin Mary and her bodily experience does not fit the strictures or definitions of what Catholic morality insists should be – suggesting perhaps, a la Shakespeare, that there’s more to the mystery of life and its origins than is in our philosophy – or our moral theology.</span></div>Adoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774782952192274852.post-2530949183713020992012-03-20T07:52:00.002-04:002012-03-20T07:55:59.562-04:0012-03-18: Fourth Sunday of Lent<div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>Fourth Sunday of Lent</strong></span></div><br /><div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:78%;">2 Chronicles 36:14-16,19-23 / Psalm 137 / Ephesians 2:4-10 / John 3:14-21</span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;"></span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">History is filled with ironies. Just think of the import reflected in today’s first reading about Cyrus the Persian, responsible for the repatriation of exiled Jews back to Israel in the sixth century <span style="font-size:85%;">BC </span>and then for rebuilding the Temple after having been destroyed by the Babylonians fifty years earlier. Cyrus the Persian, Cyrus the proto-Iranian if you will, was so admired and appreciated by the Jews that he is even given the title “Messiah” in the scriptures. Fast forward 2,500 years and Cyrus’s descendents, the Iranian ayatollahs, are Israel’s sworn enemies and the greatest threat to Jewish existence. <br /><br />This weekend we’ll be celebrating the memory of Saint Patrick who, virtually single-handedly, converted the entire people of Ireland to Christianity. All the more remarkable when we realize that Patrick, probably from Roman Britain, had been kidnapped and enslaved by Irish pirates and, upon his escape, felt an interior call to return to Ireland as a priest and preach the gospel to his former captors. The legacy of the Catholic Faith that Patrick left in Ireland helped preserve the faith of an entire Europe during the barbarian invasions. Now, after the priest sex-abuse scandals and subsequent cover up by the Irish bishops, we see the Irish Church imploding and the Irish people themselves rejecting their ancient faith.<br /><br />Comparisons could be made. Iran is an Islamic theocracy that seeks to govern on Qur’anic principles. Ireland was the closest thing to a theocracy in the modern West till very recently. The Catholic Church in Ireland wielded enormous influence and political power. But the problem with theocracies, no matter when and where we find them, is that the power entrusted to a religious elite is often easily abused. That has happened in both Iran and Ireland. One just needs to listen to the ranting of the Iranian ayatollah or remember the abuse of power in the hands of a former Archbishop of Dublin, John Charles McQuaid.<br /><br />Against that bleak backdrop there emerges an unexpected diamond in the rough – Diarmuid Martin, the current archbishop of Dublin, recently interviewed on <em>60 Minutes.</em> Archbishop Martin seems a maverick among his brother bishops, not willing to go along blindly either with them or the Vatican. A seeming humble man, named to his post from outside the usual source of candidates, he came to near tears in the interview when talking of visiting a school and seeing the innocence of the children all the while remembering the stories of abuse told him by sex-abuse survivors. He’s no fool though. When pressed to speak about the recent rift in relations between the Irish government and the Vatican (Ireland closed its embassy to the Holy See and the pope recalled his nuncio) he politely refuses to speculate. And, no doubt, <em>60 Minutes</em> was told not to mention the Pope’s refusal to accept certain bishops’ resignations over the scandal or ask for Martin’s response. Yet Martin seems a light in the darkness now engulfing the Irish Church – perhaps the only light amid a bevy of bishops running in all directions; including Cardinal Brady, Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of Ireland and, thus, successor to St. Patrick himself, who has admitted to “silencing” sex-abuse victims years before lest <em>they</em> cause scandal to the church. While there’s little doubt Martin’s church career will go no further - he’ll not succeed Brady as Primate - one can’t help but think Martin is, in fact, Patrick’s worthy successor. If anyone will be able to begin to rebuild the Irish Church from this low point in its history, Martin seems to be the one. <br /><br />Ireland and Iran are separated by a lot of geography but their attempt at workable theocracies bears more than a little similarity. And students of comparative linguistics have long known that both Persian Farsi and Irish Gaelic are distantly related, belonging to the same Indo-European family of languages. Interestingly, a case has been made for the remarkable theory that the place names, <em>Ireland</em> and <em>Iran</em>, share the same root, “Ar”- the same root of the name <em>Aryan</em> – an ancient and mysterious people who seem to have emerged from the Russian steppe some 4,000 years ago, spreading in all directions and leaving vestiges of their language and religion within disparate cultures. Let’s hope that the example of Cyrus the Persian, that proto-Iranian defender of the Jews, and Saint Patrick, that messenger of the Gospel to the Irish who once enslaved him, will win the day in both modern Iran and Ireland. And let’s pray that any attempt at theocratic government, from whatever religious background, will be seen for what it actually is: tyrannical despotism – albeit clothed in attractive religious garb.</span></div>Adoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774782952192274852.post-43101312558267702882012-03-12T16:45:00.002-04:002012-03-12T16:49:28.128-04:0012-03-11: Third Sunday of Lent<div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>Third Sunday of Lent</strong></span></div><br /><div align="right"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:78%;">Exodus 20:1-17 / Psalm 19 / 1 Corinthians 1:22-25 / John 2:13-25</span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">The American Atheists Association has once again gained media attention: it’s posting billboards in Muslim and Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in Brooklyn, written in Arabic and Hebrew (Yiddish?), saying <em>You know it’s a myth – you have a choice</em> referring to belief in God. One old Jewish resident of Williamsburg was quoted as saying: “That takes a lot of chutzpah.” Maybe. If they really had chutzpah they’d forget about G-d and Allah and just question the bona fides of Mohammad… <em>peace be upon him.</em><br /><br />One of the pivotal stories in the Bible is recorded in today’s reading from Exodus about the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments, the covenant made with the chosen people through Moses. We are oftentimes overly impressed by the fact that the essence of the covenant between God and his people is one framed in law, a set of prohibitions (the latter seven commandments) to ensure peaceful communal coexistence. We should remember that the civilization from which the Hebrews were escaping – Egypt – had long before achieved a level of high sophistication. Remember Moses found himself leading the Exodus because he had been running from “the law” having killed an Egyptian whom he had seen beating a Hebrew. No, there’s nothing essentially extraordinary about the latter seven commandments – but there’s quite a bit of dynamite in the first three. <br /><br />If the last seven commandments teach how we should relate with others, the initial three are concerned with how we relate to the deity. Remember, Moses was the first human being to whom God had revealed his personal name which, paradoxically, is the heart of that second command – forbidding anyone to utter that name (the prohibition against using foul language – which most of us learned, and still is taught in Sunday school, is but a silly extrapolation). But it’s that first commandment that remains uniquely relevant: “I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me” (KJV). No doubt the command mirrors the great insight of monotheism which Judaism has brought to the world. But we think of it as a great insight only because we are viewing it in hindsight. It was anything but. It’s the generally accepted understanding of most scholars that strict monotheism took some time to be enthusiastically embraced by Hebrew-turned-Israelite-turned-Jew. The command says to have no other gods before this particular God; and the chosen people obeyed, though with a caveat. For centuries they were <em>monolatrous</em> though not monotheist, meaning they <em>worshipped</em> only one God while acknowledging the existence of other gods. Only after the Exile is there clear indications that their monolatry (one-god <em>worship</em>) had evolved into genuine monotheism (<em>belief</em> in only one God). Some might argue that, even today, Christians, Jews and Muslims still struggle with putting God first in their lives. When it comes to money, power, fame, sex we’re all monolatrous – striving to worship the true god while very cognizant that those other gods are vying, and often times winning, our attention and worship.<br /><br />The first commandment, when viewed within the context of the ancient polytheistic world where gods abounded in every village and city, is thus primarily a command to <strong>not believe</strong> in many gods. It is, oddly, the command to become an atheist. The emergence of genuine monotheism goes hand-in-hand with the possibility of atheism, inviting all to relinquish long-held myths in favor of a mystery which we are forbidden to name.<br /><br />So the American Atheists campaign in Brooklyn’s Williamsburg and Kensington neighborhoods among Orthodox Jews and Muslims is, for sure, iconoclastic – as iconoclastic, perhaps, as the Decalogue itself. Atheism, like a bastard child, is closely related to monotheism – a first cousin once removed. That first commandment continues to call each of us to question our belief and our worship of all those idols we make into God. Strange as it sounds, atheists are not unlike Moses coming down the slopes of Sinai with the tablets of the Law, calling us deeper into the mystery we so casually call God. I just hope, at their first meeting, those atheists have the good sense not to serve ham sandwiches – old habits are hard to break.</span></div>Adoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774782952192274852.post-65907414240517413762012-03-06T16:39:00.002-05:002012-03-06T16:45:55.375-05:0012-03-04: Second Sunday of Lent<div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>Second Sunday of Lent</strong></span></div><br /><div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:78%;">Genesis 22:1-2,9,10-13,15-18 / Psalm 116 / Romans 8:31-34 / Mark 9:2-10</span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;"></span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">One could say that all of history, from the Christian perspective, can be summed up in that line by Paul Newman in the film <em><strong>Cool Hand Luke</strong></em>: “What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.” </span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;"><br />For what is the meaning of divine revelation if not communication? God trying to communicate with his creatures, who all basically suffer from ADD to one degree or another. That’s why God – not unlike the novelist Flannery O’Connor - has to shout now and again to get our attention, so impervious do we seem to advice from on high. Lent is meant to be a divine shout: <em>Hey wake up</em>, the divine voice says. <em>I’m over here. Pay attention for a bit</em>. Caught off guard we often don’t hear the message clearly or even correctly. Not only do we have a failure to communicate, but we misinterpret, misread, mis-hear what’s being said and so screw things up, leaving God to look like the heavy. Today’s story from Genesis may be a case in point.<br /><br />The revered Old Testament scholar, Gerhard von Rad, wrote that Genesis 22 is one of the greatest pieces of world literature, filled with concise suspense and high drama, promises made and sacrifices asked. It’s also pivotal in the self-understanding of the three monotheistic religions (though the Koran substitutes Ishmael for Isaac). Yet, from our modern perspective, it is a dark tale no matter how later commentators spin the meaning, including St. Paul himself. Even the title of the episode eludes consensus: the Jews refer to it as the <em>Aqedah</em> (“the Binding of Isaac”) while Christians call it “the Sacrifice of Isaac.” The former suggesting the theme of submission of will; the latter, a proof of faith. In reality, it would best be titled “the Testing of Abraham.” <br /><br />But what if Abraham just misheard God’s command? It’s possible, isn’t it? Why else would God have to send his angel to stay Abraham’s hand as he lifted the butcher’s knife to slay his favorite son as an oblation to the deity? God gets off the hook if we see it as a mandate to not imitate the practice of human sacrifice which seems to have been prevalent in Canaan at the time – but, alas, not everyone agrees about that. Maybe Abraham wasn’t interpreting his relationship with this new found God by the same terms as he had previously interpreted his relationship with the other gods he no doubt had one time worshipped. New God - new language. Things easily get missed in translation.<br /><br />One of the great though frustrating things about the Bible is it’s fraught with the possibility for misunderstanding – just think of the myriad interpretations of various texts from creation accounts to prophecies of Armageddon. Even the personal name of God is a mystery still largely unsolved: both its meaning and its proper pronunciation. The Hebrew alphabet, having only consonants, records the personal name of God as <em>YHWH</em> first revealed to Moses in the burning bush. How Moses might have heard the divine name pronounced is lost to history (but, then again, the name “Moses” is itself more than a bit of an anomaly). So sacred was the divine name that Jews (and everyone, actually) are forbidden to utter it and must resort to circumlocutions like “the Lord” (<em>Adonai</em>) or “the Name” (<em>ha-Shem).</em> It’s a bit like the story of the seven-year old boy returning from Sunday school to be asked by his mother what he learned in class that day. <em>We learned God’s name</em>, the boy says. <em>And what would that be?</em> his mom asks. <em>Harold</em>, the boy answers. <em>Harold?</em> the mother questions. <em>Yeah mom, you know, like when we pray we say: Our Father, who art in heaven, <strong>Harold</strong> be thy name</em>…<br /><br />Communication is always problematic, especially when the connection is long distance – a long way from here to heaven. And maybe longer still when discerning the meaning of words read in 2012<span style="font-size:85%;">AD</span> but originating from events that happened in 2000<span style="font-size:85%;">BC</span>.</span></div>Adoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774782952192274852.post-49411482208837326822012-02-26T08:00:00.002-05:002012-02-26T08:03:36.798-05:0012-02-26: First Sunday of Lent<div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>First Sunday of Lent</strong></span></div><br /><div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:78%;">Genesis 9:8-15 / Psalm 25 / 1 Peter 3:18-22 / Mark 1:12-15</span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;"></span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">The account of Noah’s Ark is one of those universal stories that even the unchurched and irreligious have heard of. Catholics too, notorious for being proudly unaware of the Bible, feel on safe ground when it comes to Noah and his floating zoo. You can’t say that for much else in the Bible or in the collective religious consciousness today. Stephen Prothero, in <strong>Religious Literacy</strong>, writes that on the first day of class each semester, in his Boston University Religious Studies seminar, he gives a quiz to find out how much his students know about what were once bits of common religious knowledge. One question, <em>Who was Joan of Arc?,</em> elicited this answer: <em>Noah’s wife</em>. <br /><br />Biblical fundamentalists, like the Intelligent Design gang, like to make the point that they believe in the literal truth of the Bible, i.e. the six-day creation story, the young age of the earth (about 10,000 years), and the biblical account of the flood that gave rise to the story of Noah. On the other side of the debate are both modern biblical scholars and evolutionists who see in the account of Noah and his Ark the makings of a great religious myth (the former group reading “myth” as a <em>poetic truth,</em> the latter as <em>fable</em>). Some time ago archeologists discovered not one, but several, ancient extra-biblical accounts of a flood and a hero who builds a boat to escape. The hero goes by different names depending on the culture. In the <strong>Gilgamesh Epic</strong> from Mesopotamia, he is named <em>Ut</em>-<em>napishtim</em>. You would think that the fact that different cultures possess similar accounts of an ancient flood would reassure the fundamentalists that perhaps this was a proof that the biblical account of a flood might be historically true. But no, they can’t bring themselves to contemplate the possibility that God spoke to someone else in a book not called the Bible. Of course, Jungians might suggest that it’s all a wash and but a proof that there is such a thing as the <em>collective</em> <em>unconscious</em>. But it is intriguing, isn’t it, that virtually the same story is told by several different cultures indicating, perhaps, that there might well have been a huge flood or, even more intriguing, that the Bible borrowed stories and made them its own – perhaps making the God of the Bible <strong>not</strong> a <em>primary source</em>.<br /><br />In the <strong>Gilgamesh Epic</strong> Ut-napishtim becomes divine through his ordeal. Noah never gets that far. Noah’s story continues after he lands on dry ground and he is subjected to some further ordeals, one of them involving a very kinky and unexplained sexual experience that’s not fit to be repeated in this above-board column. Though, to his everlasting credit, Noah is attributed with introducing wine into our shared history as well as being permitted by God to eat meat (up till then everyone was supposedly a vegetarian). <br /><br />All this doesn’t jive too well with the beginning of Lent when we’re supposed to be more circumspect about certain sensual pleasures (forego the filet mignon and aged Cabernet and choose the salmon and iced tea). But maybe there’s some hidden wisdom here. After all, Noah had to endure the flood in that Ark of his, not only with his immediate family, but a menagerie of all living creatures (hope they had cross ventilation). When the Ark finally hit dry ground, atop Mount Ararat, Noah had to start all over again. Not easy for a more than middle-aged man; but he did so with a spirit of thanksgiving (the wine and roasted lamb might’ve helped). Maybe that’s a good lesson for us as we begin this Lent. Starting over is never easy, but when you begin again with a sense of gratitude for the opportunity - all things are possible. Come to think of it, those undergrads from BU should be grateful that the <strong>Bible</strong> beat out the <strong>Gilgamesh Epic:</strong> <em>Noah</em> is a lot easier to remember than <em>Ut-napishtim.</em></span> </div>Adoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774782952192274852.post-85351376659078345852012-02-21T08:07:00.001-05:002012-02-21T08:10:53.374-05:0012-02-19: Seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time<div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>Seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time</strong></span></div><br /><div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:78%;">Isaiah 43:18-19,21-22,24-25 / Psalm 41 / 2 Corinthians 1:18-22 / Mark 2:1-12</span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;"></span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">Once again the gospels present a healing miracle of Jesus, but this time he connects healing with forgiveness and, thus, in the manner of the ancients – suffering with sin. If Jesus were plying his ministry anywhere but Israel few would have noticed, or cared, about the forgiveness part. But forgiveness, for Jews, was ascribed to God alone.<br /><br />I once had the privilege of attending a series of lectures by Amy-Jill Levine, Professor of New Testament and Jewish Studies at Vanderbilt University. Levine, a practicing Jew herself, told the story of a hypothetical case posed by Simon Wiesenthal, the famed Nazi hunter. While addressing a mixed audience of Jews and Christians, he posed the following story: An SS guard lay dying in a Nazi concentration camp. He bids his comrades to send him a Jew, which they do. The dying Nazi looks at the Jew and asks rather matter-of-factly, sounding more like an order than a request: “Forgive me before I die!” Wiesenthal then asks his audience to identify themselves as Christians or Jews. He then asks the Christians: “Should the Jew forgive the dying Nazi? They answer, <em>yes</em>. He then asks the Jews. They answer, <em>no</em>. An understandable response on the Jews’ part, but there’s a caveat. Apart from the vested emotional interest a Jew would have in such a circumstance, he would insist the reason he cannot forgive is that he has no authority to forgive. Forgiveness is God’s prerogative, not man’s. Wiesenthal, and Levine, use this example to illustrate the different understanding of forgiveness between the two traditions.<br /><br />This anecdote helps us appreciate the sheer radicalism of the gospel story. The crowd who sees the paralytic take up his mat and walk away may have been <em>astounded</em>; but what <em>shocks</em> is the fact that Jesus has the chutzpah to say the man’s sins are forgiven. The shock is deep. If Jesus had simply mouthed words of forgiveness, the crowd’s shock would have simply been based on Jesus’ presumed blasphemy. But because suffering was viewed through ancient Jewish eyes as the result of sin, the “blasphemy” is more than mere words – it has an effect.<br /><br />I would suspect that most of us no longer hold that ancient, arcane view that an illness or physical defect is the result of an individual’s personal sinfulness. Yet, it seems we do make that assumption much of the time when it comes to psychological or emotional aberration. One might argue that psychoanalysis, as curative, is based on the assumption that the patient sustained some kind of wound in childhood, intended or not, from a parent or adult-figure, and now suffers the consequences as fixation or arrested development. Therapy involves the recognition of the hurt and the capacity to forgive, or at least to let go, and move on with life. If the patient can do so he may be freed from laboring under a heavy weight, and life opens up in unexpected ways. What remains astounding as much today as in Jesus’ time, is the fact that the power to forgive can do remarkable things not only for the one forgiven but for the one who forgives as well. It is a power that Christ tells us is within our grasp, though we often view it as a kettle too hot to handle and so, for fear of the heat, seldom enter the kitchen.<br /><br />Returning to Wiesenthal’s Nazi hypothetical, I’m reminded of the well-made movie for television, aired about thirty years ago, called <strong><em>The Scarlet and the Black</em></strong>. Gregory Peck plays Msgr. Hugh O’Flaherty who saved thousands of Jews in Nazi occupied Rome during WWII. The Nazi commandant, Col. Herbert Kappler, knew of O’Flaherty’s involvement and tried to have him assassinated. He fails. Then, when the Allies were about to liberate Rome, the Nazi pleaded – demanded really – that O’Flaherty help his family escape Rome. O’Flaherty was enraged that the Nazi would have the gall to even ask this “favor.” When the Allies liberate Rome, Kappler is arrested, but his family has inexplicably escaped to Switzerland. Kappler serves a life sentence. He has but one visitor every week – Msgr. O’Flaherty, who would eventually baptize Kappler a Catholic: a conversion story, as much Kappler’s, as it was O’Flaherty’s.<br /><br />Lent will soon begin. As a creation of the Church, Lent can help us discover the extraordinary power of forgiveness which, when exercised or experienced, can have powerful, and rather shocking, repercussions.</span></div>Adoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774782952192274852.post-35893064748319558472012-02-15T15:26:00.002-05:002012-02-15T15:30:04.107-05:0012-02-12: Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time<div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time</strong></span></div><br /><div align="right"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:78%;">Leviticus 13:1-2,44-46 / Psalm 32 / 1 Corinthians 10:31-11:1 / Mark 1:40-45</span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">The readings this week continue the theme of suffering and Jesus’ response to it. Coincidentally, this Saturday (February 11th), we celebrate the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes. If you’ve ever been to Lourdes you might agree that it is especially moving to witness the great numbers of sick who are escorted to Lourdes by loved ones and volunteers (usually young people in search of something greater than themselves). All come seeking the curative waters and the possibility of a miracle. Most leave still suffering from the disease that brought them there yet claim, despite that fact, to have found a miracle nonetheless.<br /><br />Illness and disease not only produce physical pain but also isolate the sick, causing them to withdraw from friends and family or causing their friends and family to withdraw from them. Sometimes this is a direct result of the type of illness: leprosy, a case in point. In the biblical accounts isolation was enforced, as a divine mandate, for the good of the community, leaving the observer to wonder which is worse: the disease or the isolation. If you’ve ever talked with a person who is seriously ill, especially the elderly, they’d tell you it’s the isolation and loneliness that end up hurting a lot more than the disease.<br /><br />When a child suffers from illness, especially of the developmental kind (as in the various manifestations of autism) the entire family can feel isolated. Such a story was beautifully told in a recent <strong>New York Times Magazine</strong> article, <em>Wonder Dog</em> (2.5.12), about a couple who adopted two unrelated children from Russia: the girl, normal; the boy, later diagnosed as suffering from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. As the boy grew the symptoms of his disease became more manifest: an inability to relate and communicate, his propensity for severe tantrums and, as he now enters adolescence, his inability to exert any kind of self control. <br /><br />As you read how the family tried to deal with their son’s illness, your heart breaks for them. The boy’s illness not only isolated him, but caused his family to withdraw and isolate from the wider community. And then, when things seemed to become impossibly difficult, along came Chancer. Chancer was the Golden Retriever service dog who entered their family and changed everything. No, the boy did not suddenly become “normal” and everyone lived happily ever after. But the dog was nonetheless a miracle. Chancer was well trained as a service dog and became completely devoted to the boy. Although not uncommon for such dogs, but still fundamentally inexplicable, Chancer would somehow sense the approach of a tantrum before it engulfed the boy. In such tantrums the boy’s arms would lock as he grasped his shoulders, he would throw himself on the floor and begin to scream and wail. These tantrums could happen anywhere, at any moment - at home, at school, in the supermarket. When Chancer sensed such a tantrum about to erupt, he would run to the boy and place his snoot firmly on the boy’s chest as his arms were about to lock, preventing them from doing so, resulting in the boy embracing the dog. When Chancer was a bit too late and the boy was already engulfed in the tantrum, screaming and howling, the dog would begin to lick his face, slobbering all over the boy, as dogs are wont to do. And, in an instant, the screaming and howling became laughter and giggles. Chancer changed everything.<br /><br />Miracles are usually identified when the pain of illness or disease is relieved or reversed – and there are well-documented cases of such happening at Lourdes. What’s not documented, at Lourdes or anywhere else, are the miracles that occur when the <em>effect</em> of disease and illness – the isolation that the victim suffers – is relieved and reversed, as in the case of this boy and his dog. The divine can enter our human reality in stupendous, extraordinary ways. But most often it arrives through the ordinary. Chancer is a dog, not human, not of our species. Yet he serves this boy unconditionally and without judgment. By entering the boy’s world and placing himself in the boy’s arms, licking his face, converting anger and frustration into laughter, we can understand how grace builds on nature – even our very flawed nature. Or, as Rumi, the thirteenth century Persian Muslim put it: “Be helpless, dumbfounded / unable to say yes or no / then a stretcher will come from grace / to gather us up.”<br /><br />Grace – that healing divine presence - comes to us in many ways, in many forms: as angelic beings or slobbering Golden Retrievers. God always surprises.</span> </div>Adoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774782952192274852.post-55206587166039844152012-02-15T15:22:00.002-05:002012-02-15T15:26:17.094-05:0012-02-05: Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time<div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time</strong></span></div><br /><div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:78%;">Job 7:1-4,6-7 / Psalm 147 / 1 Corinthians 9:16-19,22-23 / Mark 1:29-39</span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;"></span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">Who said Jesus didn’t play favorites? Here he is in today’s gospel curing Peter’s mother-in-law so she can get up and go back to serving her guests – Jesus included. The gospels are filled with accounts of Jesus healing and curing, relieving the sufferings of those in dire straits. But he obviously didn’t get around to healing and curing everyone. Suffering and pain continued then, as it does now, to be a part of everyday life, though we should be inordinately grateful to those who have fomented tremendous relief of suffering through medical technology and pharmacology (having endured the torture of a kidney stone until morphine was administered has made me a committed proponent in the use of opiates to relieve suffering).<br /><br />Suffering, and what we make of it, has always been a dilemma. But it’s especially a problem for us who say we believe in a singular God who claims to be good. For the ancient polytheist, suffering and evil could be ascribed to the one or more gods, among many, who ruled the dark side of reality. But for the monotheist, who insists that the <em>one</em> God is also a <em>good</em> God, the problem of suffering is seemingly insurmountable. C.S. Lewis once remarked, after he saw his wife dying in agony from cancer, that he had no difficulty believing that there was a God, but he had tremendous difficulty in believing that that God was indeed good.<br /><br />Most scholars think the <strong>Book of Job</strong> was written some 2500 years ago. Yet Job himself seems thoroughly modern, or better, postmodern. Like us, Job doesn’t know what to make of suffering. And like us, he doesn’t know what to make of life without it. In a recent book by Jonathan Weiner, <strong>Long for this World: The Strange Science of Immortality,</strong> the author interviews a leading scientist who claims that science will soon be able to increase our life span, not by a few years, but by hundreds of years, enabling us to live a thousand years without pain. The reaction of most people to this promise was simply: <em>Why would you want to?</em> The prospect of living a thousand years might make us echo Job’s words: “Isn’t life a drudgery?” It’s sort of like the reaction to the Islamicist claim that suicide terrorists (martyrs for the cause) will be rewarded with 72 virgins when they gain heaven for their sacrifice. When weighed against eternity, even 72 virgins aren’t all that enticing; at a certain point boredom becomes the worst suffering. But it’s Job’s wife who is the most postmodern of all. When she sees Job’s suffering only increase with no end in sight, she tells him “curse God and die.” In other words, take the extra dose of morphine and be done with it.<br /><br />Some Christians, mainly of the evangelical stripe, see suffering as inflicted by God in response to our sinfulness. When confronted with the problem of the suffering of innocents, their response is that there simply are no innocents – everyone’s guilty of something to one degree or other. We saw this response after the attacks on 9/11 when the TV evangelist Jerry Falwell pronounced that Americans invoked God’s wrath because of our permissive society – abortion and homosexuality being the catalysts. Even Mother Teresa fell prey to this cognitive dissonance when she pronounced in the early 80’s that AIDS was a punishment from God for immoral behavior. These types of “explanations” for suffering seem utterly inadequate when confronted with the fact that not all victims of AIDS have found themselves there by choice; and not all the victims of the 9/11 attacks had an abortion or were gay (some still insist that it could be possible that they voted for someone who might have been in favor of both). Their God seems especially capricious, not only permitting such things to happen, but deliberately causing them to happen in order to make a point.<br /><br />The more nuanced Christian response is to believe that meaning can be found in suffering. Like Christ, one can offer one’s suffering for others as a redemptive suffering. Yet the gospels are filled with Jesus relieving suffering. If suffering were always redemptive, shouldn’t Jesus have let those who were suffering continue to suffer so they might be redeemed? But he doesn’t. He is continually healing, curing, relieving pain and suffering. This gives me, coward than I am, a bit of hope that not all of us are called to endure our sufferings without limit, be it nobly or not. I’d gladly take the “mother-in-law option” and happily serve the guests - rather than endure the alternative.</span></div>Adoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774782952192274852.post-86888690124649793402012-01-26T15:03:00.001-05:002012-01-26T15:06:05.959-05:0012-01-29: Fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time<div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:78%;"><strong>Fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time</strong></span></div><br /><div align="right"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:78%;">Deuteronomy 18:15-20 / Psalm 95 / 1 Corinthians 7:32-35 / Mark 1:1-28</span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">There’s a powerful scene in the film <strong>The King’s Speech</strong> when King George VI is sitting with his family watching a newsreel of Hitler delivering a speech (in German, naturally) with consummate emotion filled with fury and determination. Princess Elizabeth looks at her father, whose greatest weakness is his inability to speak without a stutter, and asks what Hitler is saying. “I don’t know,” the king answers. “But he says it well.” It will become a great irony of history that George VI will be able to rally the British to victory precisely because he faced that personal weakness and made it a strength.<br /><br />Yet, there is little doubt that the content of words often plays back seat to the manner in which they are conveyed. The gospel today is a case in point. St. Mark makes the seeming important point that Jesus taught “with authority,” something obviously lacking in the other religious leaders of his day. But St. Mark neglects to tell us what precisely Jesus was teaching that day in the synagogue. I would bet that by the time Mark was writing his gospel, Jesus’ words and teaching were long forgotten, but not the impact they produced – that made an indelible mark. What was remembered was the exorcism that followed his teaching. That emotionally charged scene could not have been easily forgot and has become inseparable, in Mark’s memory, with Jesus’ teaching – whatever that was. Jesus’ words produced a physical effect. His words carried an emotional impact. And emotion, not talk, is what seals the memory.<br /><br />You can’t read anything Catholic today without coming across the phrase “New Evangelization.” At the risk of sounding a bit disrespectful it has begun to sound, to my ears anyway, more like those meaningless “five-year-plans” the Soviet Union used to issue over the course of seven decades rather than the saving message it’s supposed to embody. Although those that employ the term are always quick to tell you that the “New Evangelization” is <em>not</em> about programs, they inevitably follow up their presentation with program after program on how to get young people to church and lapsed Catholics back into the fold; the result being no different than those Soviet five-year-plans. Others, like some newly ordained clergy, see in the “New Evangelization” a call to return to more solid Catholic teaching. They seem to think if people only knew what the Catholic Church teaches about abortion, contraception, embryonic stem cell research, same-sex marriage, divorce and remarriage, they would enthusiastically follow. Ah, there’s a bridge I know of that’s up for sale…<br /><br />Teachings, doctrines, rules of religion are all-too-soon forgotten or, if not forgotten, relegated to the realm of the less-important for most people, believers and non-believers alike. In today’s gospel it’s interesting, to say the least, that it is the unclean spirit who does the evangelizing: “I know who you are – the Holy One of God.” St. Mark is trying to reveal what the unclean spirit already knew: that Jesus of Nazareth was an engaging, charismatic, compelling individual whom people would want to get to know, whom you had to get to know. Perhaps the “New Evangelization” is meant to be no different from the old: an invitation to engage in an encounter that involves the heart more than the head, emotion more than doctrine, experiencing rather than cogitating. All other things, like tenets of faith, sexual mores, and rules of behavior are always - always - of secondary significance. The encounter is what remains of greatest importance. Or, as Alec Guinness had engraved on the pocket watch his mother told him once belonged to the father he never knew: “The readiness is all.”</span> </div>Adoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774782952192274852.post-89293670786539971902012-01-26T14:59:00.002-05:002012-01-26T15:02:19.605-05:0012-01-22: Third Sunday in Ordinary Time<div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>Third Sunday in Ordinary Time</strong></span></div><br /><div align="right"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:78%;">Jonah 3:1-5,10 / Psalm 25 / 1 Corinthians 7:29-31 / Mark 1:14-20</span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;"></span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">This Monday, January 23rd on our solar calendar, is New Year’s Day on the Chinese lunar calendar ushering in the very auspicious Year of the Dragon. According to the lunar calendar I was born in the Year of the Dragon, though in the solar calendar 1953 is usually associated with the Year of the Snake. Since I was born in the first half of January, before the Chinese New Year, my sign carries from the previous year. So I’m a dragon and not a snake. I take pride in acknowledging this fact unlike someone who might be in a similar position teetering between being a rat and a pig. Labels do matter.<br /><br />Here in the West dragons have gotten a bad name. They’re usually associated with the bad guys who use them to conquer the good guys. There have been exceptions, of course. Like when Peter, Paul and Mary, back in the smoky sixties, gave us their endearing <em>Puff, the Magic Dragon</em> – sometimes it takes a little herbal supplement to recognize the good in what is presumed bad. In the East, though, dragons are auspicious. But they’re just mythical you might say. Not really. In Chinese (if I remember right) the word for “fossil” is literally <em>dragon bones</em>. It’s not a very big leap in imagination to understand that ancient peoples discovering dinosaur fossils – skeletal remains of huge dinosaurs - would enflesh those dry bones in the bedrock of their imagination and uncover some pretty impressive dragons. Matter of fact, a tremendous number of fossils were lost because the ancient Chinese (and not so ancient Chinese) would grind the fossils into powder to be consumed as a remedy for some significant ailments. Paleontologists cringe at the thought of so many dinosaur fossils having been lost to herbal medicine. Some of us just want to know if they work.<br /><br />Whether you think of dragons as mythical or as just an alias for prehistoric dinosaurs, you have to admit they’re impressive creatures. Being so big they instill fear, as well they should; but we can learn a lot about nature, creation and ourselves if we let our curiosity take over and lead our imagination into unchartered territory. The renowned paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, said that his fascination with evolutionary biology began when, as a child, he first stepped into the Museum of Natural History and saw the giant skeletal remains of Tyrannosaurus Rex in the main lobby. And the famed Jesuit-paleontologist, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin followed his curiosity all the way to China in 1929 to be a part of the historic and controversial discovery of the fossil remains of “Peking Man.” Although argued by creationists to be just an ordinary ape, a good number of scientists regard the find as an authentic one, representing our hominid ancestor. Teilhard would suffer greatly for his curiosity and search for truth, but remained steadfast to the end.<br /><br />Knowing where we came from can help us understand where we’re meant to go. In the search for truth, especially truth about what it means to be a human being, we are called to dig down into the past whether we’re uncovering fragments of bones or fragments of myths. Facing the fears that those bones and those myths represent is key, C.G. Jung would say, to discovering who you are and what you’re supposed to do with this life. In today’s gospel Jesus’ call to his first disciples, “Come follow me,” is echoed in every endeavor to uncover truth. Sometimes the cost is dear, leaving everything to follow that call wherever it may lead. That’s why you need to be a dragon - no matter what year you may have been born – to explore the mystery that’s you.</span> </div>Adoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774782952192274852.post-56699337068954926942012-01-26T14:52:00.002-05:002012-01-26T14:59:13.884-05:0012-01-15: Second Sunday in Ordinary Time<div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>Second Sunday in Ordinary Time</strong></span></div><br /><div align="right"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:78%;">1 Samuel 3:3-10,19 / Psalm 40 / 1 Corinthians 6:13-15,17-20 / John 1:35-42 </span></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span></div><br /><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">Vocation Awareness Week is upon us and we pray that more young people may “answer the call” to follow the Lord as priests and Religious. No doubt this time of year is chosen because of the readings chosen for Mass: the gospel stories of Christ calling his disciples to follow him, to “come and see,” as St. John puts it. And then there’s the Old Testament story of Samuel, the boy-seer and later prophet, who is called by the Lord to become his voice as judge and prophet of Israel.<br /><br />Coincidentally we’ve just passed the six hundredth anniversary of another seer’s birth. Joan of Arc is thought to have been born on January 6th of 1412. Although separated by millennia and geography, Joan and Samuel have quite a lot in common. Both live in times threatened by violence and familiar institutions are falling into ruin. Both see themselves as instruments of God in “crowning” a king. And both have come to their remarkable vocations in life through the experience of hearing voices they attribute to the divine.<br /><br />Although the Church might celebrate the likes of Samuel and Joan as hearers of the word, the Church would be the first to turn away any young man or woman today who claimed that they wanted to become a priest or Religious because they heard voices. And it’s important to remember that it was the Church, albeit corrupted by the politics of the time, which would condemn Joan to be burnt at the stake.<br /><br />Joan’s voices were judged to be real, but demonic. With Freud and the birth of psychology, the phenomenon of hearing voices was consigned to the realm of psychic illness and insanity. But there’s been interesting developments of late in the field of neurobiology. One theory suggests that the invention of writing, more precisely – the invention of the alphabet, had somehow changed the hard-wiring of the brain and what was once perceived as the external voices of the gods became interior locutions and the birth of consciousness. Julian Jaynes’ <strong>The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind</strong> is obviously more than a mouthful and not a little beyond my understanding but hints at an intimate connection between what we understand as conscious awareness and what has traditionally been understood as the realm of the divine. Leonard Shlain’s <strong>The Alphabet and the Goddess</strong> is a fascinating read, suggesting that a leap was made in human evolution when humanity invented the alphabet. It is interesting to note that many of those that claimed to hear voices or see visions were either pre-literate children (Bernadette Soubirous at Lourdes, the children of Fatima) or illiterate adults (Joan of Arc, Mohammad). In <strong>Muses, Madmen and Prophets</strong>, Daniel Smith presents many of these famous voice-hearers and respectfully evaluates their claims. All these works are not apologies for religious experience - quite the opposite; but they make the phenomenon of voices and visions a relevant topic and not one submerged in Freud’s view of them as psychic illness and illusion. William James, that psychologist of religious experience, argued that mental instability might be a necessary precondition for revelation. And it was C.G. Jung who said that “confrontation with the unconscious eventually leads to the recognition of an alien ‘other’ in oneself, the objective presence of another will.” Jung would claim that it was “a vocation that destines a man to emancipate himself from the herd and from its well-worn paths.”<br /><br />Whatever you may conclude about divine-voice hearers, you have to marvel at what some of them accomplished, from the likes of Samuel and Joan of Arc who crowned kings, to the work of Mother Teresa who confessed in her posthumous memoir, <strong>Come be My Light</strong>, that the voice she had once heard that invited her to care for the poorest of the poor had never again returned, she nevertheless continued to do such extraordinary work with joy.<br /><br />Maybe this Vocation Awareness Week our prayer shouldn’t be so much about the young choosing a specific life-path, but that they will simply listen a bit harder: the ear as it were, being the primary organ of the spirit, according to the Jesuit Walter Ong. And it was St. Augustine who insisted that’s precisely how Mary conceived Jesus – through the ear – tilted, as it were, toward Gabriel’s angelic voice.</span> </div>Adoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774782952192274852.post-70540006856118055972012-01-09T17:12:00.001-05:002012-01-09T17:15:57.028-05:0012-01-08: The Epiphany<div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>The Epiphany</strong></span></div><br /><div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:78%;">Isaiah 60:1-6 / Psalm 72 / Ephesians 3:2-3,5-6 / Matthew 2:1-12</span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;"></span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">In the history of biblical criticism one of the first stories to become a casualty of what’s called <em>demythologization</em> was that of the Magi. In fairness we have to admit it was a big target. Hard to envision three kings leaving some precious gifts in a stable in front of a manger where a young teenager has placed her baby with some shepherds mulling round looking more unkempt than the animals. Besides, how does a star come to rest? <br /><br />Demythologizing is what the Broadway hit, <em><strong>The Book of Mormon</strong></em>, seems to be all about as well (my friend had two tickets and I couldn’t disappoint him when his wife refused to go). She had good reason, too. The play is utterly irreverent and makes you laugh – a lot - at some of the fundamental beliefs of Mormonism. I know I shouldn’t have, but I did like it; it was, as they say, very well done. No doubt if they had chosen Catholicism as the theme there would be no end of hearing from William Donohue and the Catholic League. (Makes you wonder why the Mormons don’t have a Bill Donohue and a Mormon League). The audience was overwhelmingly young and attuned to the type of humor and overly-numerous scatological allusions that the creators of <em><strong>South Park</strong></em> (the writers of the play) are known for. Yet, the thing that shocked me was not the material but the fact that there were a good number of children, pre-teens and teens, in attendance. I don’t believe too many would disagree that <strong>The Book of Mormon</strong> is not for kids. I wonder though if that’s not precisely why they were there – parents wanting to <em>de-mythologize</em> their kids, like a vaccine, against what they understand to be the illusions and delusions of organized religion, exposing them to some memorable sarcasm and satire that highlight hypocrisy and absurdity as religion’s twin bookends.<br /><br />Yet, in the end, the African villagers in the story all become Mormons despite their wise acknowledgement that the founding story of Mormonism is a myth or, as the play puts it, metaphor. And all the ulterior motives for joining a western religion are more than present, offering more than a few materialistic benefits to converts. But the play seems to leave the door ajar to a mystery here: that religion, for all its many faults, not only serves a basic human need but proposes the possibility that the divine is somehow real and continues to allure us in ways unexpected. <br /><br />The story of the Magi has survived and thrived these two millennia – but never more so than when its authenticity has been challenged. The story that scholars might gladly give up to the axe of demythologization is the very story that evokes awe and wonder even in this most skeptical of ages. “The self,” G.K. Chesterton wrote, “is more distant than any star.” And our journey toward and beyond that star makes us all magi, in one way or another, carrying our expectations and our gifts in search of something or someone to whom to offer them and with whom to share them.<br /><br />I wouldn’t be surprised – really – that, in twenty years or so, if those teens and pre-teens who saw <strong><em>The Book of Mormon</em></strong> were interviewed about their attitude toward religion and the divine and one or two of them might say they came to an appreciation of religion, and maybe even to belief, because they experienced <em><strong>The Book of Mormon</strong></em>. Irreverence serves to make religion, if not believable, at least relevant – a subject worthy of attention and discussion. Believers have nothing to fear from irreverence. It’s but a back-handed compliment to belief; because irreverence, served with gusto, opens the door to questioning what is relevant and sometimes we realize, shockingly, that the answer lies not in the practical but in the mysterious. And the mysterious almost always comes to us through metaphor and myth.</span> </div>Adoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774782952192274852.post-60900677969271678222012-01-09T17:08:00.002-05:002012-01-09T17:11:52.618-05:0012-01-01: Solemnity of Mary Mother of God<div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>Mary, Mother of God</strong></span></div><br /><div align="right"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:78%;">Numbers 6:22-27 / Psalm 67 / Galatians 4:4-7 / Luke 2:16-21</span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;"></span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">One of the lines in the revised translation of the Mass is heard in Eucharistic Prayer II when the priest prays for the dead: “Welcome them,” he asks the Lord, “into the light of your face.” I’m guessing that whoever wrote that line was thinking of today’s first reading from the Book of <strong>Numbers</strong> citing what is known as the <em>priestly blessing</em>. “The Lord let his face shine upon you…the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.” <br /><br />About thirty years ago an archeological discovery was made in the environs of Jerusalem when a silver amulet was unearthed containing these words of blessing. The amulet dates back to the eighth century BC, predating the Dead Sea Scrolls by more than half a millennium. Perhaps this is where St. Thomas received his inspiration to describe heaven, eternal joy, as the Beatific Vision – looking upon the face of God. <br /><br />For the ancient believer in the one true God, there was surely an awareness that the author of the priestly blessing is speaking in metaphor: God, being God, does not have a face. Yet the whole import of Christmas, the Incarnation, is to attest that in Christ the divine has become human: God has taken a face. And, of course, not only a face but an entire human body with all its limitations and sensations. At the risk of sounding crude, Christmas is all about bodies and body parts. <br /><br />The short gospel we read on this feast of Mary’s motherhood mentions a number of body parts. The shepherds saw the infant with their <em>eyes</em> and then used their <em>voices</em> to proclaim his praise. Mary, we are told, kept all these things in her <em>heart</em>. Before he was conceived in Mary’s <em>womb</em>, the child is named Jesus. And the child undergoes ritual circumcision; his <em>foreskin</em> becoming the source of numerous legends of miracles throughout the Middle Ages. In fact, not too long ago we used to celebrate this day as the Feast of the Circumcision, reminded that in such a ritual, <em>blood</em> inevitably flows from the wound.<br /><br />One of the greatest threats to true Christianity came, and continues to come, from those who profess some sort of Gnosticism in which the human body and the material world is considered superfluous or downright evil. In the famed Gnostic gospels (the Gospel of Thomas, I think) we read that <em>Christ did not blink and never left footprints when he walked</em>: evidence that this insipid heresy abhors the human body and all its functions. Death is seen as the spirit’s release – finally cleansed from the dirtiness of human existence to soar pure and unhindered. Christmas offends this type of thinking: Jesus is born in a stable surrounded by smelly animals and shepherds (who probably smelled worse). He’s laid in a manger – the trough from which the animals ate. Far from an unshackled existence, Christ binds himself forever to our human existence with all its limitation and difficulty.<br /><br />We’re often reminded, this time of year, that it’s good to have the Christmas “spirit,” meaning that it’s good to cultivate the practice of lending a helping hand to those in trouble, making sacrifices big and small for those we love and, especially, for those we don’t. In these ways that Christmas “spirit” becomes embodied through our words and actions. That embodiment of spirit is the key, the calculus if you will, to understand the mystery that has taken place at Christmas: not that we are spirits with a body but that we are embodied spirits - temples of divinity. In Christmas the temple of this human body has been sanctified in all its parts. Everything Christ assumed, the Church Fathers would write, has been redeemed – all is good, all is holy, all is grace.</span></div>Adoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774782952192274852.post-85701095225023829892011-12-25T10:38:00.002-05:002011-12-25T10:41:20.418-05:0011-12-25: Christmas Vigil Mass<div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>Christmas Vigil Mass</strong></span></div><br /><div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:78%;">Isaiah 62:1-5 / Pslam 89 / Acts of the Apostles 13:16-17,22-25 / Matthew 1:1-25</span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;"></span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">At the Vigil Mass for Christmas we read Matthew’s account of Jesus’ genealogy. Ever since I joined Ancestry.com I’ve come to appreciate the gospel accounts of the genealogies of Jesus more and more. “Genealogies” is in the plural because there are two, one in Matthew and one in Luke; they both trace Jesus’ lineage through Joseph , not Mary - but they don’t match. This, even though Jesus’ virginal conception is explicitly attested to only in those same gospels of Matthew and Luke. So you might agree these accounts of ancestors pose a dilemma, not only for later Christian faith which claims the necessity for belief in the Virginal Conception, but also for the integrity of the gospels themselves. The anomalies they present to the curious call for someone the likes of a Hercule Poirot to solve. <br /><br />As someone with two genealogies I think I can understand what Matthew and Luke may have been trying to accomplish. I remember as a teenager being pushed by my mother to make a family tree. I never got very far but, long afterward while on a vacation to Ireland, I found the town of my father’s ancestors and took a lot of pictures of storefronts and tombstones that carried the Brosnan name. All this, despite the fact that I was adopted and therefore not linked to these names by blood. Many years later I found myself back in Ireland, this time researching my birthmother’s family in a different part of Ireland – the North – a bit astonished to discover I was of Protestant ancestry, a fact which would not have sat well with my adoptive parents had they still been alive. Somewhere along the line, however, after emigration to America, my forebears became Catholic and paved the way for my unwed mother to baptize me Catholic before relinquishing me to adoption through a Catholic agency. <br /><br />When I joined Ancestry.com and plugged in all the names I knew from my birthmother’s background I allowed my family tree to be viewed by other on-line members. Within two weeks I was in contact with Bob, a gentleman who turned out to be my second cousin once removed (I think I’ve got that right): his great-grandfather was my great-great grandfather – who, it turns out, was murdered while a night watchman for a New Jersey Railroad and buried from the Catholic Church, though he’d been married in a Protestant one. A few months back Bob and his wife came to visit me all the way from New Mexico – they’re transplanted Pennsylvanians. He showed me some photographs of his side of the family as well as a very old photo of our common ancestor, Henry Jones, from the turn of the nineteenth century. It reminded me of the time when I had been searching for my birthmother but first found a trail that led me to a friend of her brother’s who had been a Jesuit priest at Georgetown and had long-since died. This classmate of my uncle’s, who had been his best friend, took out a photo album with pictures of him and my uncle. It was the first time I had ever seen a picture of someone related to me by blood. I know it sounds a bit superficial – but that was one of the most memorable moments of my life. Now, through Bob, and Ancestry.com, I was seeing the face of someone who was indirectly responsible for me being alive.<br /><br />Matthew and Luke needed to “prove” their theological point about Jesus being the fulfillment of human and Jewish history. They also were acknowledging indirectly the need for Joseph, the adoptive dad, to provide a name and a legal fiction for Jesus and Mary, saving them both from what would have been an impossible situation. The other aspect of such genealogies that can be quite comforting for someone like me born illegitimate, whose mother was not married and whose father was long gone, is the fact the names that hang on Jesus’ family tree are not unlike my own. Isn’t it significant, for example, that Matthew mentions David’s son Solomon, “whose mother was the wife of Uriah.” He could have simply said Bathsheba but he didn’t want people to forget that Solomon was the product of adultery mixed with murder. If these characters can be claimed as the ancestors of someone like Jesus himself, need any of us feel ashamed of the ancestral baggage we carry, or worry that the sins of our parents and grandparents make us – or them - any less worthy of God’s love and mercy.</span> </div>Adoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3774782952192274852.post-61633684511819046392011-12-19T16:35:00.001-05:002011-12-19T16:39:47.564-05:0011-12-18: 4th Sunday of Advent<div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>Fourth Sunday of Advent</strong></span></div><br /><div align="right"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:78%;">2 Samuel 7:1-5,8-12,14,16 / Psalm 89 / Romans 16:25-27 / Luke 1:26-38</span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;"></span></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">It’s called the <em>Virginal Conception</em> by Catholics and the <em>Virgin Birth</em> by Protestants. It’s what we celebrate at Christmas, and it lies at the core of the gospel message: that Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate, or as the new translation of the Creed would have it – <em>consubstantial</em> with the Father. Not a few people have complained about using <em>consubstantial</em> in place of the former translation: “one in being with the Father.” <em>Consubstantial</em> is the Latin term which attempts to translate the Greek “homoousion.” Maybe we should have went back to that, you think? This was the term by which the Council Fathers of Nicea (325AD) defined the nature of that baby born to Mary. It’s the stuff that doctoral students in theology spend a lot of time trying to figure out. Truth be told, its meaning, layered in Greek philosophical concepts, is lost on most of us, including myself, who know little of Greek philosophy. <br /><br />Maybe though this controversy we now experience over translated words can help us appreciate the essence of the problem regarding the identity of that baby born to Mary. I don’t know if it borders on the heretical, but let me say outright that I don’t believe that Mary or the apostles would have known what you were talking about if you could go back in time and pray the Nicene Creed with them – even if you could translate it into Aramaic. It is no accident that the Creeds were written in Greek, centuries after the fact. The Creeds represent a development, an evolution if you will, in the way believers came to identify that baby born to Mary. Some say that’s a virtual proof the whole thing’s a sham; but I would think the opposite. It would be a sham, in fact, to think that Mary or the twelve apostles could have thought of Jesus outside the perimeters of their Jewish faith. They were good Jews. They prayed the <em>Shema</em> everyday: “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.” They did not have the Greek categories, later employed, to understand how that basic statement of faith could include Jesus of Nazareth. St. Paul, born and raised in the Greek-speaking world, would be the first bridge between those two cultures and would begin to form the understanding of Jesus in non-Jewish ways. <br /><br />This incapacity to think of Jesus outside their own Jewish box (so to speak) adds more, not less, to how a first-century Jew came to perceive Jesus with awe. Jesus simply did not fit into their categories. What attracted them to him must have been so powerful on an emotional level that categories didn’t matter. Experience rendered creed irrelevant. How else can we explain the courage of a fifteen year old girl, pregnant, unmarried, sent to the hills to visit a distant relative (no doubt so the townspeople wouldn’t talk) to accept her role in this unfolding drama. And though, by marriage, Joseph would protect her and the baby from some ugly repercussions, there would always be those who mumbled behind her back, insinuating some unpleasant things about Mary and her son. The gospels themselves hint at such things whenever they refer to Jesus as “Son of Mary” (an odd designation for a Jewish man, to say the least). How else to explain why some left everything to follow him at his simple invitation. How else to explain why some would die rather than renounce knowing him. How else to explain why the acceptable Jewish term, <em>Messiah</em>, was simply not enough to capture his essence. What they experienced as unique, we have defined as divine. But what does <em>that</em> really mean – how does even that term define the depths of identity.<br /><br />St. Augustine perhaps said it best in his argument against the Manichees: “Do you think you know what God is? Do you think you know what God is like? He is nothing you imagine, nothing your thought embraces. O God, You who are above every name, above all thought, beyond every idea and every value...”<br /><br />Or, as Martha Graham once said after a reporter asked her what a dance meant: “Mean?” Graham said. “What did it mean? Darling, if I could <em>tell</em> you, I wouldn’t have <em>danced</em> it.”<br /><br />In the end experience, not words, makes all the difference.</span> </div>Adoption and Faithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16332283731619748846noreply@blogger.com0