Pages

No-Shave November: A Catholic Approach

Image taken from Wikimedia Commons
No-Shave November is a growing campaign to promote awareness in the fight against cancer. It began in 2009 and has since gained momentum from year to year. 

Another similar campaign is the Movember campaign which promotes awareness of men's health issues by encouraging men to sport mustaches. 

No-Shave November predominantly promotes awareness through facial hair as well, although they also encourage more than the pogonotrophic arts. If you lack the capacity for the wild-and-free, virile tuft of mandibular fur, you could always cease shaving other areas for the cause.

Just like Catholics in Lent, No-Shave November forgoes one 'good' for some higher good. The money that you save from not shaving is given as quasi-alms to help those in need. While in your razor-fast the perpetual reminder to pray for the poor souls that battle with this unfortunate disease is right under your nose. Haven't sported facial hair before? The constant itch of a mid-length growth and the order of that garlic sauce stuck in your flavor-saver from lunch is penance enough, as if the end to displays of affection public and otherwise from your significant other wasn't enough.

And if you feel you still need some encouragement to sport your sprouts, here's a wonderful quote from St. Augustine:  "The beard signifies the courageous; the beard distinguishes the grown men, the earnest, the active, the vigorous. So that when we describe such, we say, he is a bearded man" (Exposition of Psalm 133. 6).

So, whether its the full beard, the chops, the handlebar, the goatee, van dyke, or even leg warmers (from the ladies), you have the opportunity to do some good while having fun at the same time. And remember, Jesus had a beard.

Please leave a description of the fanciful fuzz you're displaying in the comments below.

Igniting the World

Sometimes we get fixated on the words in this last Sunday's gospel about division within our households, but there is another verse which is often forgotten, namely "There is a baptism with which I must be baptized."

The ties between the reading from Jeremiah and the Gospel run deep. In order to see these ties we might want to understand Christ's words, "There is a baptism with which I must be baptized." The Catechism of Catholic Church (CCC) tells us in paragraph 1214 "to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to "plunge" or "immerse..." In our Christian understanding of our Sacrament, "the 'plunge' into the water symbolizes the catechumen's burial into Christ's death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him.."

When Christ says, "there is a baptism..." he is foretelling his own death. Denis the Carthusian explains this statement in Christ's own words saying, "there remains for me the duty of receiving a baptism of blood, that is, of being bathed, soaked upon the cross not in water but in my own blood poured out to redeem the whole world." Christ's baptism, the baptism that he offers us, is entrance into his passover, which does not begin on the Cross and does not end on the Cross.

Christ's passover is not a passover into death but into life. Christ was bathed in his own blood, and plunged into the tomb and plunged into the abode of the dead. But his "plunge" was not simply a plunge but also a rising from that plunge. That is to say that Christ's burial is meaningless without his resurrection. "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain" (1 Cor 15:14).

Now, hearken back to Jeremiah's arrest. And his "plunge" into the muck of the cistern. The early Church would have seen this clearly as a foreshadowing of Christ's passion. The Navarre commentary states:
One ecclesiastical writer, Olympiodorus, interpreted Jeremiah’s imprisonment as a prefigurement of Jesus’ passion and death. Commenting on v. 6, he said: “The prophet becomes a figure of the mystery of Christ, who was handed over by Pilate to the Jews, descended into hell, and was raised from the dead. Jeremiah climbs out of the cistern he was cast into; Scripture often refers to hell as a cistern” (Fragmenta in Jeremiam, 38, 6).
Note also, that "three" men come to lift Jeremiah from the cistern. Christ's resurrection is a divine act of the Trinity. In our baptism we are put to death, but raised up by the Trinity, as "a new creature" (cf. 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15).

Now let us consider His words, "I have come to set the earth on fire, and how I wish it were already blazing!" Christ sets this fire by His baptism, by the same baptism that we are baptized into. St. John Chrysostom comments on Christ's words saying:
For by the earth He now means not that which we tread under our feet, but that which was fashioned by His hands, namely, man, upon whom the Lord pours out fire for the consuming of sins, and the renewing of souls.
In Latin, we see the relation between human—homo—and the earth—humo—a little more clearly, which is very much the same in Hebrew, the original language of the story of Genesis, which is where this whole story begins.

Now, consider briefly the word "fire." Fire burns, destroys, it purifies gold and burns up impurities. It produces warmth and light. It consumes the sacrificial offering and sends up the smoke of incense and prayer. All the more the Holy Spirit, then, sets man ablaze with love, a love that purifies the heart, produces warmth, enlightens the mind, and consumes the offering of our life producing of it a prayer that rises up to God.

So, what's the point of all this? Why does this lead to division?

1 Peter 4:12-19 answers this for us:
Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.
Setting the world on fire is about the Spirit. It is about sharing this Spirit, by taking it into ourselves. Ultimately, it is about Baptism. It is about Christ's baptism and our union with Christ by our baptism, a union of love effected by the Holy Spirit. It is a call to live out our baptismal promises and the life—that is the fire—we received at baptism.

Three Musts of the New Evangelization

If we face up to the facts, we have lost some serious ground in the culture wars. It is not because what we have to say is not true, or right, or loving. It is because the way we say it is unintelligible, unconvincing, and unaffective (I know this isn't really a word). We are using a language that is lost on generations of people who do not speak the philosophico-theological lingo. We, in effect, are preaching in German to the French. It is absurd and laughable.

If we want to take our situation seriously, we need to do things differently. We have to become more intelligible. We have to become more convincing. We have to become more affective.

Becoming more intelligible...

In our daily arguments with 'the World' we seem to think that if we use the same words, we will be understood. The problem is that the same word means different things to different groups. It is like I tell my friend, "Let's go fishing tomorrow; I'll meet you by the bank at five." We both know what fishing means, but when I say bank, I may mean the bank of the river or the financial institution. When I say five, I have not made clear if I mean in the morning or the evening. So, when my friend shows up at the wrong place at the wrong time, I should not be surprised. 

A more concrete example is the matter of "rights." If we look at them, we will notice that we do not even have a functioning definition of what a right is or where it comes from or what distinguishes rights from pseudo-rights. As Catholics we like to think we can take the high ground, but we are using a borrowed word that carries a lot of baggage. Without denying the existence of rights—which we have not even proven—we can talk about all the same issues using the language of duty.  

Sure, I may have the right to do 'this' or 'that,' but I certainly do not have a duty to do 'this' if it conflicts with the duty to do 'that.' And if I do not have the duty, then I most certainly have a clear moral imperative to refrain from 'this' and to do 'that.' 

Becoming more convincing...

In order to be convincing, we have to be credible. Nothing makes us less credible than our failure to practice what we preach. The only way to be more convincing is to be more loving. Our good works preach the gospel, at times, more loudly than our words (and no St. Francis never said, "Preach the Gospel at all times; use words when necessary." Look it up.).

Integrity is essential to our arguments, especially when are arguments are about being a certain kind of person. Our own lives need to reflect better the lives of the saints. We cannot do that if we do not first know Christ. The common denominator in the lives of the saints is Christ and His Church. A love for the Sacraments is essential to living a truly Christian life. If you want to know Christ, you have to meet Him where He is, namely in Scripture, in the Eucharist, and in your bother and sister (cf. Mt 25).  

Becoming more affective...

We have to touch the heart and mind, and we cannot do one without the doing the other. We have to not only be loving, but we have to get others to feel loved. We have to stir up the spirits of those we are preaching to and all the Spirit to move them to conversion. We cannot expect them to change based solely on one or two moving experiences, but without those experiences, we change is difficult if not impossible.

We have to stop thinking of all emotive experiences as superficial. Some of them are consoling. When a sense of peace and joy, that is ordered and reasonable, fills a person we can be sure that that is the work of the Holy Ghost. When someone is stirred with a joy that is muddled by the overwhelming desire to do too much too soon, we have to question the source of that experience. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Wisdom and will never lead us imprudently. We can be sure, however, that peace is from God.

If we touch the heart without touching the mind, our desired effect will be short lived. If we touch the mind without touching the heart, we will have an army of self-referential pietists who may know the faith but do not practice it or who practice only that aspect which is most comfortable to them, most likely study.  

We should not be afraid to use means that move people as long as those means are accompanied by sound reasoning. A logical argument can be quite moving if presented in the right way. And a more affective, intelligible argument will ultimately be more effective and convincing especially if one presenting it is a person of real integrity.



Treading Lightly on the Sacred Ground

"Do not come nearer; rather take the shoes from thy feet,
thou art standing on holy ground." (Ex 3:5)
The spiritual life is sacred ground, but often times we tread clumsily and heavily as if it were not. My own experience is that those of us who spend their time studying religion, history, philosophy, literature, theology, etc... sometimes fail to manifest the same sensitivity and subtlety that they have in their own fields of study when it comes to talking about an individual's spiritual experiences.

For each of us the spiritual life differs vastly. I should not expect my life and my experiences to answer the questions of your life. The way I resolve my issues is not going to be the way that you resolve your issues and for all the right reasons. What is amazing, however,  is how similar our experiences are when we can uncover them. If we can boil them down to just their essence, we see great similarities between what is happening in each of our lives.

What is most difficult is developing the subtlety to distinguish between non-spiritual and spiritual events in our lives. For example, the feeling of hunger is a non-spiritual thing. My stomach is empty, it pangs for want of food, and I can hear a growling. On a spiritual level, I can move beyond my body's natural appetite to be fed. In a negative way, I can begin to despise the causes of my hunger and curse God for not providing for me. In a positive way, I can sublimate that hunger into a hunger for justice or grace. I can offer this temporal suffering out of love in atonement for my own sins. Whatever I do at that level, it is no longer a matter a my corporeal body.

Too often, though, we confuse non-spiritual affects with spiritual ones. Beethoven once said, "Music is the mediator between the spiritual and sensual life." Because of music's power to influence us on a physiological level, the place where the affect becomes spiritual is difficult to distinguish, and let us not forget that non-spiritual experiences really do influence our spiritual experiences.

This is why silence—real, true silence—is so necessary for us. We need to make time to sit with God in peace and quiet, listening to Him or listening for Him. Every outside influence can confuse us about what is spiritual and what is non-spiritual. So, in order to hear God we need to stop and draw clear lines of distinction between God's voice and everyone else's.

To do this we need to reflect on our day. We need to stop and reflect on the moments throughout the day where we made decisions and what things influenced the decisions we made. Were those influencers spiritual or non-spiritual? Were they ordered, reasoned, and directed toward God, or directed toward me and my own desires?

You can say, "who has time for that?" But that is already the wrong question. Just like every other relationship in you life, you make the time for the ones you believe are most important. If you cannot make five minutes for God, you have no business having any friends.

The prayer of the Church is a great place to start. In particular, I would encourage praying Night Prayer from the Liturgy of the Hours. It specifically sets aside time for an examination of conscience, and is a good place to start for thoughtful reflective prayer that incorporates scripture. It will help you develop a habit of setting aside time to stop and spend in conversation with the most important relationship in your life.

So, before you start giving out spiritual advice to friends and family, develop a deep prayer life. If you develop a prayer life that incorporates silence and the written word of God, you will start to see more clearly those lines of distinction. When you can see those, you will not be able to do anything but tread lightly.


The History of Henry VIII: an opportunity taken...

"To be deep in history is to 
cease to be a Protestant."
~ Bl. John Henry Cardinal Newman
Last week I wrote about an opportunity missed. This week, I seized an opportunity.

Yesterday, for the first time in months, I paid for a haircut. I am a fan of traditional barbershops, and the only traditional barbershop I know of in the area is about 45 minutes away. It is the same barber shop where I got my hair cut the day before my wedding.

The gentlemen there are always professional and personable. This time, as I was sitting in the barber chair, when I was asked what I do for a living. It is usually a conversation I do not enjoy having. When I say I do theology, I usually get one of two responses. The first is something to the effect of, "I don't see how anyone couldn't believe in God." The second is usually, "Oh..." and then silence.

This time the conversation was quite different. I was asked where I work. I told him that I do not currently have a job, and that finding a job in this area is difficult. I said that as a Catholic it is not like I can just go out and start my own church. To this, he replied, "Maybe God's telling you that it's time to join a different church."

Ah! Yes! An opportunity to evangelize!

He continued saying, "Maybe if you were Episcopal you could be a priest and have a wife, I know it's difficult to do something like that if you're Catholic."

I asked him how much he knew about the history of the Episcopal church. He admitted that he didn't know much. I explained to him that the Episcopal church was an extension of the Anglican church in America. It maintained the liturgy of the Church of England and its structure. I then asked how much he knew about the Church of England. He acknowledged that he did not know anything.

King Henry VIII
I explained to him that the Church of England was part of the Catholic Church until the rule of Henry VIII. Henry ultimately decided to proclaim himself the head of the Church in England, because the Church refused to annul his marriage. I asked him if he thought that was a good enough reason to leave the Church.

He admitted it was not and we continued to talk. I expressed as subtlely as possible the idea that the more you know the history of Christianity the more certain you are that the Catholic Church is the only true Church. I did this from my own perspective, saying, "I can't imagine being any Christian denomination. The more I've learned the history of any denomination of Christianity, the more certain I am that their reasons for separation are unfounded and it leads to error. So, naturally I wouldn't consider leaving the Church myself just so I could get a job."

We continued talking but at this point he seemed to concede that my decision was well formed and he asked if there were other ways that I could help the Catholic Church. He made several suggestions, but nothing that I have not already thought of and tried. I expressed my own desire to work in college campus ministry again, and my love for working with that age group. He seemed interested in what I had to say and I thanked him for the opportunity to talk and for the wonderful haircut.

It was a great opportunity, and I am glad I took it. Now, it is up to the workings of the Holy Spirit.

Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and kindle in them the fire of your love.
Send forth your Spirit and they shall be created.
And You shall renew the face of the earth.

 O, God, who by the light of the Holy Spirit, did instruct the hearts of the faithful, grant that by the same Holy Spirit we may be truly wise and ever enjoy His consolations, Through Christ Our Lord, Amen.


Wedding Feast: An opportunity missed

I slept in recently on a Sunday, not too late, but late enough to have to go to a parish other than my own. My wife and I arrived a few minutes late, and to make matters worse, there wasn't a parking spot in sight.

The parking dilemma has happened before (not having been late), and it was because that Sunday was the "Children's Mass." So naturally I was cursing the concept of a "so-called-Children's Mass" on my way in asking, "Why isn't every Mass a Children's Mass? Why isn't every Mass an 'Everybody Mass'!?"

This is one of those moments when you feel like slapping yourself in the face: I walked in at the start of the Gloria and could not find a single seat open. I was not too worried about finding a seat since I had brought my pregnant wife with me, and I knew there had to be at least one gentleman in the place who would make some room for us. But as we were scanning for seats, I noticed two things. First, everyone was wearing there Sunday's best, which is sadly unusual. Secondly, there were a lot of children in the first set of pews wearing little suits and white dresses. *Slap* First Communions! "I'm sorry, Lord, I take it all back."

My frustration turned to joy almost immediately; there are few things as beautiful as witnessing a First Communion. The Collect was said, and the readings were read. We sat knowing what the homily would be about, namely, First Communion.

Fr. Bob (not his real name), is one of those priests who sincerely loves God and His Church, but is not the most 'liturgically' or 'theologically minded.' After finishing the Gospel, he kissed it set it down, and walked down into the nave. Pacing back and forth he asked the children, "Why are you all dressed up?"

To which one replied, "We're getting married."

A roar of laughter erupted and Father said, "I hope there's an equal number of boys and girls." He then proceeded to correct the child and explain that they were receiving the Eucharist for the first time. And what he said was very encouraging and good.

I feel, however, that missed an opportunity. That whole parish was rocking with laughter to the embarrassment of one child. Here was the perfect opportunity to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. In the midst of the laughter he could have said, "In a way, that's true."

Certainly not every child was preparing to marry another child, but in that moment, they were preparing to enter into a union of one body with Christ, which is itself very much like the union of a husband and wife.

Stop and think for a bit, if you do not already know what I am talking about. In the Mass the priest repeats the words of St. John the Baptist saying, "Behold Him, who takes away the sins of the world" followed by "Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb." This second text is an allusion to Rev. 19:9 which says, "Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb."

There is a marriage taking place between the Lamb and His bride, the Church, who we traditionally call the Bride of Christ. We tend to forget this aspect of Communion, because we no longer follow the traditional order of the Sacraments of Initiation—Baptism first, Confirmation second, then Eucharist last—with children who have received infant Baptism.

The difficulty is that Communion is not the marriage itself, but rather the consummation of the marriage that takes place in Confirmation. The analogy is that we enter into a solemn relationship, much like betrothal, in our Baptism. We swear our fidelity to our beloved. In Confirmation, we perfect that promise made in our Baptism and receive the necessary graces to carry out the duties of our perfected relationship. In this way, Confirmation is more like the rite of Matrimony. Furthermore, Communion is the full expression of that love between us and Christ. It is an expression of fecund self-giving. It is deeply intimate and is more like the consummation of marriage. It can and should be repeated as an expression of love that is life-giving. Baptism and Confirmation, much like betrothal and the marriage rite, cannot be repeated because they carry with them a permanence, a solemn promise.

Now, obviously not all of this can be explained in depth to a seven-year-old, who would lack the comprehension of the full sense of the analogy, but nevertheless, it ought to be explained in part that we unite ourselves to Christ by this Sacrament and in doing so we express our mutual love for each other.

I should note that the reception of Confirmation is not restricted to those who have received their First Communion. Archbishop Aquila, while serving as the Bishop of Fargo, re-established the order in that diocese.





St. Thomas Aquinas Answers the Question: Do We Worship Christ's Cross on Good Friday?

God love us, this issue seems to remain unanswered in most parishes. The more practical question that pops up is whether we use a bare cross or the crucifix for veneration of Good Friday.  Some, like Fr. Z, seem to think that "the point of Good Friday is to venerate Christ Crucified: Christus Crucifixus," and that excludes and mere veneration of the the Holy Cross of our salvation. Others, who care for the rubrics as much as Fr. Z, read the texts and say, "It says cross not crucifix."

One question that needs to be asked is what kind of veneration are we offering to the cross during the Good Friday service? Another is whether that kind of veneration can belong to the cross simply or if it necessitates the image of Christ Crucified?

The Church has long tradition of very clear language that only God is to be worshipped with the latria." In fact, the Catholic Church distinguishes between three forms of veneration: latria, hyperdulia, and dulia. St. Thomas says:
adoration of "
Reverence is due to God on account of His excellence, which is communicated to certain creatures not in equal measure, but according to a measure of proportion; and so the reverence which we pay to God, and which belongs to latria, differs from the reverence which we pay to certain excellent creatures; this belongs to dulia, and we shall speak of it further on (103).
In Q. 103, St. Thomas continues:
Wherefore dulia, which pays due service to a human lord, is a distinct virtue from latria, which pays due service to the lordship of God. It is, moreover, a species of observance, because by observance we honor all those who excel in dignity, while dulia properly speaking is the reverence of servants for their master, dulia being the Greek for servitude.
Now, hyperdulia is reserved for Mary Mother of God. It is nothing more than the highest reverence to any creature. Nevertheless, even hyperdulia falls short of the homage paid to God. Naturally, the question arises in the Summa Theologica, whether we ought to worship Christ's humanity with the adoration of latria, for Christ's body is a created thing. The entirety of his humanity is creaturely. And yet His humanity is united to the Divine Nature by His Person. The cause of the honor due to Christ, in His humanity, is the dignity of His Person, and therefore, it follows that Christ's humanity is worshipped with the adoration of latria (III, Q. 25, a. 1-2).

The veneration of Christ's humanity can, however, be thought of in more than one way. In as much as it is His humanity, it is adored with latria. If his humanity is venerated on account of its perfection by the gifts of grace, it is not the Person, and therefore not the Godhead, that is being paid homage, but the perfection of humanity, which is nevertheless praiseworthy. On this veneration of His perfect humanity, St. Thomas says:
And then thus understood as distinct from the Word of God, it should be adored with the adoration of "dulia"; not any kind of "dulia," such as is given to other creatures, but with a certain higher adoration, which is called "hyperdulia"... Because the adoration of "latria" is not given to Christ's humanity in respect of itself; but in respect of the Godhead to which it is united, by reason of which Christ is not less than the Father (III, Q. 25, a. 2).
Now, if Christ's humanity is worshipped with the adoration of latria by virtue of its unity with the Godhead, then what about an image of Christ? Certainly the image is not united to the Godhead, and therefore, in itself is not deserving of latria. There is, however, as St. Thomas puts it, a twofold movement of the mind towards and image. There first, of course, toward the image as a thing. If a statue, the mind moves toward it first as a thing of plaster or stone. There is another movement that the mind makes towards and image, namely insofar as it is the image of something else. According to this second movement of the mind, the movement does not terminate in the stone and plaster of the statue, but rather, it terminates in the thing imaged.

In as much as it is an image, reverence is due to it. The reverence shown to it as image terminates not in it as a thing of plaster or stone, but rather in the person imaged. St. Thomas says:
It follow [sic] therefore that reverence should be shown to it, in so far only as it is an image. Consequently the same reverence should be shown to Christ's image as to Christ Himself. Since, therefore, Christ is adored with the adoration of "latria," it follows that His image should be adored with the adoration of "latria" (III, Q. 25, a. 3).
This then, brings us to the matter of the Cross of Christ, which we venerate on Good Friday.  St. Thomas is clear that reverence of any kind is due to persons and not to things. The cross is simply not a person, and so it would seem that no reverence whatsoever is due to it. This, however, is not the conclusion to which St. Thomas comes. By the subtlety of his intellect St. Thomas is able to find the distinction that we seem to fail to grasp on our own. Things are reverenced by reason a rational nature in two ways (emphasis mine):
First, inasmuch as it represents a rational nature: secondly, inasmuch as it is united to it in any way whatsoever. In the first way men are wont to venerate the king's image; in the second way, his robe. And both are venerated by men with the same veneration as they show to the king.
In an age where monarchs are few and far between, let alone our chance encounters with them, it becomes difficult to grasp this. If we look at our own personal relations maybe we can come to a similar conclusion. The person who carries a picture of his family or spouse and kisses it from time to time, is no different than the person who venerates the kings image. The young man who has received his dead father's pocket watch and carries it with him everywhere, is no different than the one who reverences the king's robe. The same care that he shows to that watch is a love that terminates in his father who he associates so closely with it.

So, as concerns any relic of the True Cross, St. Thomas says:
If, therefore, we speak of the cross itself on which Christ was crucified, it is to be venerated by us in both ways--namely, in one way in so far as it represents to us the figure of Christ extended thereon; in the other way, from its contact with the limbs of Christ, and from its being saturated with His blood. Wherefore in each way it is worshiped with the same adoration as Christ, viz. the adoration of "latria." And for this reason also we speak to the cross and pray to it, as to the Crucified Himself.
This is why Fr. Z can say, "If there is no relic of the True Cross available for veneration, then the Crucifix should be used." There is a greater tradition of veneration of the True Cross and to the Crucifix as a substitute, but St. Thomas does not leave it at that. He continues:
But if we speak of the effigy of Christ's cross in any other material whatever--for instance, in stone or wood, silver or gold--thus we venerate the cross merely as Christ's image, which we worship with the adoration of "latria," as stated above (Article 3).
So, whether it be a relic of the True Cross, a crucifix, or a bare cross, the adoration of latria is offered. To the True Cross latria is offered in a twofold way, by representation and by way of it being united to Christ by contact. Both the crucifix and the bare cross are only worshipped with the adoration of latria in as much as they are images of Christ.

Since there is no difference in the worship offered, it would seem that the best way to answer this question would be to ask whether in the rite of the Veneration of the Cross, we are called to venerate Christ or His Cross. It seems clear in the rite, that the veneration is of the cross itself, as the means by which our salvation is effected, is what we venerate in as much as it is associated with Christ. Therefore, since there is no image of Christ Crucified without a cross, it would seem appropriate to venerate either the a crucifix or, out of necessity, a bare cross will suffice. By kissing the cross or the feet of Christ, the worship offered is the same—latria—and to terminates in the same Person imaged—the Word of God, Christ.