How to evaluate our time of crisis.

On the Fox News Channel, Glenn Beck’s editorial program presented this comment made by Senator John Conyers of Michigan concerning the massive health care bill proposed by the Obama administration:

“You have these members who get up and say, ‘read the bill!’  What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”  Beck commented that Conyers could consider the novel idea of actually telling his colleagues and the administration that he cannot finish evaluating the bill and therefore they are going to have to wait.  As it is, it seems that political pressure to maintain unity in the party pushes many current congressman to neglect the one task for which they were voted into office: govern. 

The current climate of political animosity and insanity, so often animated by the hijinks of Beck, could easily lead the citizenry to cynicism.  And this cynicism can lead to two actions.  On the one hand a citizen can despair of ever accomplishing the necessary tasks of self-governance, which is to educate one’s self of the facts at hand and apply the appropriate principles.  This citizen then resorts to following the emotional impulse of blind and un-reflective party loyalty.  Such loyalty usually results from upbringing where the citizen votes the party of their parents, or against it.  Or, they may rally around a charismatic national celebrity, with a good narrative, and emotionally invest in the success of that celebrity as one would if they were participating in American Idol.

On the other hand, cynicism can lead a citizen to dismiss themselves from the political process altogether.  The citizen can feel as if their vote makes little difference since neither of the major national political parties satisfy the citizen’s criteria.  If the citizen voted for the other options, that person would be “throwing their vote away.”  This feeling is not without foundation.  Indeed, the progressive political deference of the local and state governments to the federal has created a new political system very different from the kind formed in 1776.  A citizen did not just vote.  A citizen held free associations, volunteered, ran for office, wrote to his statesman, considered local politics far more relevant and, most importantly, engaged in heated political, philosophical and religious debate at the local pub or at the dinner table.  As it stands now, it appears as though much of the political process has been removed from the citizenry by at least 3 degrees of separation.

In the midst of this current political climate, where does the Christian citizen find herself?  A Christian can easily say none of this really matters since Christ is coming again.  Or, a Christian can say this question carries the heaviest weight…that salvation depends on it.

The Naked Public Square, the seminal work produced by the late Fr. Richard Neuhaus, offers this Christian perspective: 

“In our world-weary moments we may agree with the observation…that history is just one damned thing after another.  While history contains much that is eminently damnable, however, that view hardly accords with a Christian understanding of God’s intent in time.  An awkward consequence of the Christian view…is that we are frequently unsure what that intent is with respect to specifics at hand.  We are not disinterested observers, we are not an audience, but, however large or small our role (and we can never know that for sure either), we are both the subjects and the objects of our inquiry into what may be happening.  Our Lord cautions us in no uncertain terms about unwarranted certainty.  We are not to say, “Lo here! or, Lo there!”  Yet we cannot help but say, “Maybe here, and, Maybe there.”  And then we must act in the courage of our uncertainties.”

Neuhaus continues by saying that what gives us the courage to engage politics and the public square is faith.  It is faith that God does not waste his time and he does not waist history.  It has a definite direction and purpose.  The purpose is salvation and the direction includes the public engagement of Christians in politics and in the public square.  The insanity and uncertainty of the current time of crisis do not change the story of humanity that God pens in his providence.

Pope BXVI stirs it up in the public square

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0803789.htm

This article talks about how the very presence of 300,000 people attending WYD 2008 has stirred the heart of what is known as the secular culture of Australia.  This is a perfect example of how a small contribution of Christian witness from so many people can have an impact, albeit, somewhat tenuous.  What is particularly significant was how this article discusses compartmentalization in Christian witness, ie, it cannot be.  Let us pray for the Church in Australia and for conversion of hearts and minds as well as a transformed culture.

More on Spe Salvi and Engaging the Public Square

Pope Benedict said, “On the strength of his hope, Augustine dedicated himself completely to the ordinary people and to his city–renouncing his spiritual nobility, he preached and acted in a simple way for simple people.”  If this does not point out some of the most central points of this blog then I don’t know what does.  Part of the challenge for me is to take so much of the wisdom of our tradition and distill it for folks who are educated and full of information in so many ways, yet are still simple on the level of faith and on the level of life.  Are the people in the congregation fired up about tackling the major cultural problems of this secular-progressivist society?  Probably not.  Do they need to be?  I don’t think so.  This is why there is the academic side of this question, and then on the other side (the more important side for us pastors) there is the pedagogical.

For example, I have encountered many instances where people identify a strong and spirited congregation by looking at how much of a percentage do church stuff.  Is that really what we are about when we say that the people of God must live out their faith?  A large part of our mission as priests, with Augustine as our model, is to remind the people of God of their dignity in the simplicity of their lives.  They need not start a television show, or lead a large church group, or start a new ministry.  Where they are is where God is sending them.  Are they looking for where God is sending them in their life now?  Or are they regretting that they cannot dedicate as much time being a lector, or attending church functions, or helping out at the pantry.  I cannot overemphasize that I do not mean to discourage by any means participation in the ecclesial life of the Church.  But, obviously, not everyone is supposed to help out on the Church grounds beyond what is their duty (tithing, participation in some community functions).  If this were so, the Church should be crowded with thousands of people all the time, and the world would be vacuous of Christians.  Rather, it is supposed to be the opposite.  The people of God ARE the leaven that God places in the dough that is the world to make it rise.  Brothers, let us preach this tirelessly.

Spe Salvi and the Public Square

Allow me to diverge from my thoughts on the public duty for Catholic voters as I have been struck with inspiration from the Pope Benedict’s last encyclical, Spe Salvi and I may spend the next several days reflecting on the implications this message has on our conversation.  He says in paragraph 25, “On the other hand, we must also acknowledge that modern Christianity, faced with the succeses of science in progressively structuring the world, has to a large extent restricted its attention to the individual and his salvation.  In so doing it has limited the horizon of its hope and has failed to recognize sufficiently the greatness of its task…”  What is the horizon of its hope but the public square?  The Holy Father makes the point that much of what belonged the hope for building the Kingdom of God was transferred to what we know call science.  Freedom and Reason became the main forces that liberated humanity and became an absolute value for progress.  Progress itself became an absolute value as well.  In this course of human history, Christianity was relegated to the private sphere, irrelevant to establishing the Kingdom of God.  The Kingdom of God became possible merely by studying human nature, sociology, history, and science.  Then we had only to place the right kind of structures to force humanity from the outside into a perfect society…free, happy, and progressing towards greater accomplishment over nature and over itself.  The results, of course, as many have noted, not just Christians, have been disastrous.  Men such as Karl Marx and Francis Bacon neglected one thing: “human freedom.”  And human freedom deals with interior transformation rather than exterior structuring.  And this pertains to the transformation that can only take place through a response to the hope that is offered in Jesus Christ.

American Catholic Voter II

Because of the strength of the super-ego in many people’s politico-ideological formation, the truly important questions concerning voting as a Catholic remain impeded.  But I’ll try anyway.  First, must one vote Catholic?  In other words, what does the Church have to do with politics?  Of course, the answer is “everything.”  Or, to repeat the words of John Paul II when he preached in Communist Russia, “there is no place where Christ does not have the right to be.”  We Catholics are obligated to allow the Gospel to penetrate and imbue our political ideals.  The Holy Spirit must be allowed to make a difference in the ballot box.  This does not seem obvious to every Catholic, especially if they are ruled by a super-ego that hinges basically on a particular issue, ie, gun laws, free speech, environment, economy, etc.  At the same time, even if every Catholic separated from their super-egos enough to see things more objectively, there would still remain much controversy.

Many differ on what a vote actually means.  Are we supposed to vote for a platform or for policies?  More on this tomorrow…

The American Catholic Voter

Is there such a thing as an American Catholic voter?  Do Catholics allow their faith to shape ALL that they do, including their politics?  This question is ultimately multi-faceted.  First, there arises the question of the nature of American politics in general.  Second, there arises the question of the nature of American Catholicism in general.

As to the first question, I think that much of one’s political persuasion comes from one’s family background.  One is conservative if one’s parents are conservative, and vis versa if one’s parent’s were liberal.  Or, if one is rebellious than one would be the opposite.  In any case, many people adopt their political perspective from a super-ego construct that stems heavily from up-bringing.  Less of an influence comes from doing actual homework, research, and trying to answer the tough questions.  There are exceptions to this.  Those exceptions have nothing to do with how intelligent one is.  A person can be quite intelligent and yet still be ruled by their super-ego, especially when it comes to something so opinion-based like one’s political point of view.  The exceptions about which I speak are those who KNOW their super-ego construct…those who are self-aware.  Then they are little more capable of distinguishing themselves from outside reality.  They are little more driven to truly become informed of facts and to weigh opinions (those who are the swing-voters are not necessarily these people.  I suspect that many of these merely come from a background where the parents have no solidified persuasion but I would not know the statistics on this).  In conclusion to this first paragraph, I suppose that most of the work of self-formation towards true political opinion invovles managing one’s super-ego so that one’s political decisions are not merely emotion-driven and so that one’s discussion in politics are less shrill and loud (ala Hannity and Colmes).  More tomorrow…

Ambrose desires that we be liberal… with the poor.

Today being the feast day of St. Ambrose, here’s a quote from one of his pastoral letters – as Bishop of Milan – addressed to the (particularly rich) widows under his care. Expounding on the so-called ‘widow’s mite’ of Luke 11:3, Ambrose demonstrates his attitude towards those who are less fortunate:

We are taught how fitting it is to be merciful and liberal towards the poor, and that this feeling should not be checked by the consideration of our poverty, since liberality is determined not by the amount of our possessions, but by the disposition of giving.

This is no smoke-and-mirrors trick. While many good shepherds preach it, this Saintly Bishop lived it. Soon after his election to the See of Milan (and his subsequent baptism and ordinations), he gave the majority of what he had to the poor, preferring to live a much simpler lifestyle than that of his earlier life as a statesman for the Roman Empire. As a priest/bishop, he provides us clergy an example, an ideal to strive for in our own struggles with evangelical simplicity and poverty.

He also has something to say about those who are poor. Even they have little, they too are to give, for even in their poverty, what they give is worth so much more.

I am challenged by his exhortation to be ‘liberal’ with the poor.  Especially as I encounter some of the truths of giving charity to the poor: that I will be taken advantage of.  Case in point: last month a homeless man needed ‘cash’ to pay for a 3-night stay at a bunkhouse run by a shelter-type-place.  I told him I could write a check.  Before writing it, I called the place, asking them if they would accept a check.  They would from me or the parish, which was fine.  I wrote the check, made the man a sack-lunch and sent him on his way, thinking that I had done my good deed for the day.  Now for ‘the rest of the story.’  This week, the shelter-place called to see if they should use the check that I had written a month ago.  A MONTH ago!  The impression that the man gave me was that he wanted to stay there that night, not one month later.  I had been taken for a ride, but I decided to let the man stay there, since the money was ‘spent’ already.  What’s a mere $24…

It made me angry.  I felt like a ‘patsy,’ having been taken advantage of.  I resolved from that day onward never to give anything to any poor man who begs from me ever again.  But, after reading what Ambrose wrote on being ‘liberal’ I was re-converted.  Our work with the poor should be done regardless of even their ability to accept gifts given in kindness.  Our generosity should still be the hallmark of what it means to be a Christian, a true disciple of Jesus.

Will I be taken advantage of in the future.  I hope so.  (Except for that cynical side of me that still perdures.)  But I also hope that they are able to see God’s love even my simpleton-like willingness to give.

Towards an Integrated Catholicism

I recently published an article in THE HOUSTON CATHOLIC WORKER pertaining to the need to jettison “adjective Catholicism” and move towards “integrated Catholicism.” I hold that this subject is germane to the topic of the public square, because I truly believe that an integrated Christianity is an inherently attractive Christianity. Given that we live in a time where “man’s search for meaning” appears to be without direction, the message of the Gospel, if lived and preached with integrity, can be an attractive “sign of contradiction” to a world desperately in need of its lived witness.
The link is: http://www.cjd.org/paper/seminari.html

Christianity is not a European Religion

In his introductory remarks to this week’s catechesis during Benedict XVI’s Wednesday General Audience, the Pope addressed a common error about the nature of Christianity:

According to general opinion, Christianity is a European religion that has exported the culture of this Continent to other countries. The reality, though, is a lot more complex, as the root of the Christian religion is found in the Old Testament, and therefore in Jerusalem and the Semitic world. … Also, its expansion during the first centuries was both westward — toward the Greek-Latin world, where it then inspired the European culture — and eastward to Persia and India, thus contributing to stimulate a specific culture, in Semitic languages, with its own identity. Along the same lines I would like to speak today of St. Ephrem the Syrian, born in Nisibis around 306 into a Christian family. He was the most important representative of Syriac Christianity.  

Notice what the Holy Father is doing here. He is making it plainly clear that Christianity, while originally rooted in a semitic culture, has no more claim to be ‘European’ than it does to be ‘Syriac’. Christianity found itself inculturated (integrated) into the very fabric of the cultures that were evangelized by either the Apostles or Christian missionaries. 

The “error”, as I put it, is to presume – or, more aptly, to demand – that Christianity is only an imperialistic export of the European culture, and that any culture  who encounters Christianity  will be unnecessarily “corrupted” by the (self-depricatingly) “evil” of the imperial culture.  At the same time, those who advocate this position – many times in South American theological circles – advocate inculturating Christianity without any reference to the historical or geographical development of Christianity through the ages.  They envision a Christianity ex nubes, unstained by the corrupting influence of the ‘dominant’ (and in their opinion, the dominating, “oppressing”) culture. 

The Prots also got this wrong when they sought to re-invent Christianity.  They had to create the myth that the integration of Christianity into the Roman culture had irretrievably corrupted the original, pure, unsullied teachings of Christ and the Scriptures he dictated to the four Evangelists.  (Obviously, this is a polemical position, but here it is.)  They didn’t realize that without the inculturation of Christianity into the Roman culture, there would’ve been no Europe as they found it; nor would there have been a Europe worth preserving by their own religious reformation endeavors.In every age, the task of Christians have been to bring the Gospel (not just its mere ‘truths’ as C.S. Lewis would want, but the whole of it) to cultures that have yet to experience the Joy, Freedom, and Beauty of the Gospel. 

The challenge today is to re-Christianize Western Civilization. That is indeed a challenge. A culture that was originally a manifestation of a united, Christianized conglomeration of nation-states has gotten ‘over’ Christianity. It now thinks in terms of being beyond good and evil. It has grown tired of it’s perception of Christianity as being oppressive, repressive, and regressive. However, much like our own perception of our parents as we entered adolescence, we rebelled against them because we “knew” that they didn’t know what they were doing, much to our own downfalls. 

Only in hope can we see a time in which Western Culture is able to be re-baptized anew and see with fresh eyes and a child-like heart the new life originally intended for us by God our Father.

Early Church, Eucharistic Identity, and the Public Square

This sparked a memory about Bishop Flores’ homily to us ordinandi.  He spoke of how a liturgy that does not lead to service was a broken liturgy.  Along this same line of thought, the early church understood their identity in the context of what Christ did to the sacrificial system of the Old Testament.  He ‘did away with it’ by replacing it with himself.  To partake of the new ‘sacrifice’ means to partake of the life of Christ, that is, all of his life, not just his death, resurrection and ascension (which of course culminate all of his life).  Thus, we celebrate the liturgy of love and service in which the sacrifice we offer is not just a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving at the altar, but also a sacrifice of Christian ethic in everyday life.  To bring this point home, we find the centrality of the public nature of the Christian life even before St. John Chrysostom:”The bodies of the animals whose blood the high priest brings into the sanctuary as a sin offering are burned outside the camp.  Therefore, Jesus also suffered outside the gate, to consecrate the people by his own blood.  Let us then go to him outside the camp, bearing the reproach that he bore.  For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the one that is to come.  Through him [then] let us continually offer God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lips that confess his name.  Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have; God is pleased by sacrifices of that kind. (Hebrews 13:11-16)”So deep this presupposition operated in the minds of the early Christians, that only until the third or fourth century, according to Robert Daly in, The Origins of the Christian Doctrine of Sacrifice, did the sacrifice become identified with the words of the prayer by the bishop in the Liturgy and less identified with “the practical living of the Christian life”  (100).  Of course there is a long complex history involved here involving the development of orders, the Reformation, the reforms of Trent, and the post-Vatican II liturgical development.  However, I hold it as not uninteresting that a reduction in the public participation of Christians parrallels an increased devotional disposition that percieves the Eucharistic celebration more cultically or as merely a source for internal nourishment and less as a natural source of moral imperitave.  Indeed, the res of the Eucharist is unitas corporis mystici, in the words of the Angelic Doctor.  This impinges immediately on the moral character of all who are united in the body.  Unity and charity are one.  Also consider that on a subjective level the way we approach the Eucharist shapes our self-understanding and identity.  Understanding all of this, we must ask the question, if the people of God had a better understanding, especially on the “gut level,” this truth, how would they understand their identity in the public sphere on this same “gut,” that is, symbolic, level?