Following Jesus Christ requires feet

Generally spirituality is defined as the quality of being spiritual, or as something that is incorporeal or immaterial in nature.

By contrast, an authentically Christian spirituality is not disembodied, but embodied, that is, it is incarnational. Incarnational means nothing other than Christian spirituality necessarily involves our bodies. It is not a matter of trying to escape our spatio-temporality. After all, when God finished creating the material universe, of which the crowning achievement was man and woman, who together constituted the divine image, "God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good" (Gen. 1:31a). The liturgical memorial of St. Dominic, who spent much of his life delivering people from the Albigensian heresy by solid preaching of the Christian faith, seems a good time to note this fact.

Crucifixion, by Michelangelo in the British Museum

We have a great thirst that arises from our human orientation towards the transcendent. This is why so many people, many of whom describe themselves as "spiritual, but not religious," practice various forms of spirituality. Hans Urs Von Balthasar, one of the greatest Catholic theologians of the last century, in an interview he gave towards the end of his life, observed that while Eastern forms of meditation, which remain popular, are useful for attaining interior silence precisely because they are objectless (the old Zen saying that if you encounter the Buddha in your meditation you must kill him, they) do not help us to attain Jesus Christ, “who is the living God” (Test Everything 27). Balthasar concluded his brief reflection on these matters by saying "contemplation of the East (achieved by abstraction from the worldly-objective) is a far cry from the Christian 'objectless' contemplation of the living God, who is triune love and who revealed himself in the humanity of Jesus Christ and his Holy Spirit, in which case, in a Christian sense, no abstraction is possible" (27-28).

This is terribly theological, I know, but I think reflections like this on spirituality are not only useful, but necessary once in awhile, especially because Christian spirituality is an embodied spirituality. So, it must engage our intellect. For all of us who minister, that is, serve in the Church, we need just the kind of knowledge to minister on behalf in Jesus Christ, which is only made possible by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ is the salvation that comes from the Jews

I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie; my conscience joins with the Holy Spirit in bearing me witness that I have great sorrow and constant anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh. They are Israelites; theirs the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen (Rom. 9:1-5)

"Even if Israel continues to belong to the people of God, one must not overlook the distinction Saint Paul has explicitly drawn between a people according to the flesh and one according to the spirit...The mystery of Israel consist in being both an 'ethnic' people with certain racial characteristics (no gentile in that sense can ever become a Jew) and also a people created and preserved by God with a special purpose. Both aspects, the ethnic and the theological one, are inseparable as long as one confesses his Jewishness - or negatively expressed- does not become a Christian, that is, move from the theology of the Old Testament to that of the New, which is its fulfillment." Balthasar goes on to note that for the Jewish people to remain identifiably a people after all they have suffered in history "is proof of the ongoing theological relationship between the Israel of the Old Testament and that of today." After all, he observed, God does not revoke His promises. Jesus Christ came after the Baptist's mission to turn the hearts of the children of Israel to God (Luke 1:16). Christ, "being the last and all-embracing Word of God," no longer sought to return Israel to its office, but was Himself "the origin of an 'Israel of God.' (which is what Saint Paul calls the Church)," an Israel "no longer bound by any ethnic ties" (Test Everything: Hold Fast to What is Good, pgs. 33-34).

This reflection on our second reading for the Nineteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time is late because I was overcome by events. Nonetheless, I have been waiting all week to link this insight of Hans Urs Von Balthasar vis-á-vis the Church and Israel. There is more to say, of course. Scripture does not permit what one might call an unreconstructed supercessionism, but neither can one side-step what Balthasar states here.

Can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a Mormon for president? I think so

I don't typically read a lot of what is called Catholic apologetics. While I concede that such efforts have a constructive place in the Church, I think the space for this kind of endeavor is very limited for a number of reasons. I guess I can most charitably summarize my reasons by simply noting that it is possible to be correct to no constructive end, what we might call the "clashing cymbal" effect (1 Cor. 13:1-3). So, I would not have come across an article by Jimmy Aiken, Should America Elect a Polytheist Who Claims to be a Christian?, unless a brother deacon, who saw it on The Deacon's Bench, mentioned it to me. I will jump straight to Aiken's conclusion:

When a candidate’s election (or even nomination) would do grave damage to the American public’s understanding of what Christianity is, a value so important is in play that I personally don’t see how I could vote for such a person

As one might guess Aiken is referring to the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Currently, Romney is leading the pack vying for the Republican presidential nomination. Of course, Romney also sought the Republican nomination back in 2008. At that time the issue of his belonging to the Mormon Church was thoroughly hashed over by the media. Attempting to address this issue, he gave a speech at the presidential library of President Bush the elder in College Station, Texas. I posted on this matter in the wake of that speech, in which, among other things, I dealt with some far too little known aspects of LDS belief. But the first thing I noted, even back then, was that Gov. Romney's main problem among Republican voters was not being LDS, but, given that all of his previous political experience was in Massachusetts, where he served as governor and darn near beat the late Senator Kennedy in an election, was being reliably conservative enough on social issues.

It's funny that at one point in his race against Kennedy his opposition tried to play the religion card against him. Romney easily defused this tasteless ploy by invoking the religious bigotry encountered by JFK while running for president as a Roman Catholic in 1960. In that race, religious bigotry essentially forced candidate Kennedy to go to Houston and kowtow to a group of Protestant leaders. While Romney's speech in Texas left a lot to be desired, he stopped short of eviscerating his conscience, which is too high a price to pay for anything in this world. It is also worth noting that by seriously endeavoring to conform his life to what he believes, Gov. Romney strikes me as possessing more of the kind of integrity I look for in an elected leader than, say, JFK, or even his now Catholic rival for the Republican nomination, Newt Gingrich, who while loudly and publicly calling for the impeachment of Pres. Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky, managed to be having an extra-marital affair of his own with a staff member.

Rank anti-Catholicism is not dead by any means. It seems wholly suitable in this context to mention the recent uproar when it was discovered that Michelle Bachmann's former church in Stillwater, Minnesota (Salem Lutheran), a member of the Wisconsin Lutheran Synod, believes and publicly professes that they "identify the anti-Christ as the papacy. This is an historical judgment based on Scripture."

It is certainly no great secret that Mormons do not believe that God is a Trinity of divine persons. However, given that many Catholics are practically-speaking modalists, I fail to see how orthodoxy in this regard informs how we vote. So, I am certainly not disputing that the LDS do not share our belief in God, something I very recently dealt with in a post responding to Glenn Beck's speech to the Israeli Knesset (Beck being a Catholic who became a Mormon). Neither do Jews or Muslims, who can easily see Mormonism as kind of the logical conclusion of Christian theology. Besides, since when do we as Catholics living in a religiously pluralistic society look at political candidates to cement our theology? Ronald Reagan's non-church-going biblical apocalypticism was downright odd, but it's really beside the point. If you're a Catholic, the criterion proposed by Aiken can logically extend to any non-Catholic candidate. I was gratified to see that at least one of Aiken's readers takes a far more Catholic approach:

I’m not persuaded that Christians need to vote against an LDS member simply to catechize the nation. I voted against Obama, but not because of who his daddy is—and prior to the last election, I was encouraged to vote against him precisely because of that reason. I may well vote against Romney, but not because of his religion. I will continue to cast my vote based on the candidate’s stand on the issues.

Along with this commenter, I think this is an instance where we are certainly better off foregoing abstraction and engaging with reality. It may surprise people to learn that there are over 200,000 Catholics in Utah. It also might surprise Catholic readers to know that, as in many places, Catholic politicians who seek office in Utah are often Democrats who disagree with the Church on important matters. For example, we had a Catholic who ran for the governorship in 2010. During the campaign he publicly said that he agreed with what the Catholic Church teaches with regard to the sacredness of human life and then proceeded to say how he supported legalizing abortion in cases of rape and incest. He also made it quite clear that even in a state with an overburdened public education system, he opposed parental choice in education by opposing school vouchers at the behest of the public teachers' union. So, for these and a few other reasons, instead of voting for a Catholic, I voted for a pro-life, pro-family, pro-faith Mormon! I am no more interested in Newt Gingrich's ability to articulate an orthodox understanding of the Most Holy Trinity than I was when deciding who to vote for governor.

It also bears noting that in Utah we have a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as being solely between one man and one woman, despite the fact that Mormons still theologically accept plural marriages between one man and multiple women, even permitting it in countries where it is not against the law. The LDS Church led the way, making common cause with the California Catholic Conference, in the passage of Proposition 8. I could multiply examples, such as their opposition to the legal mandate to teach gay history in California public schools. Here in Utah, many LDS legislators continue to advocate for private school vouchers. My point? How many Catholics who have voted for fellow Catholics or other mostly orthodox Christians could write the same things about their political leaders?

The representative to the U.S. House from my district, along with both of our senators, is a practicing Mormon. I routinely vote for our representative, but in the last senatorial election I voted for the Democrat, who is also an active member of the LDS Church, but who's Dad, an Italian immigrant, was Catholic.

One of the lovely and frustrating things about living in the U.S. is that we are free to vote for whomever we wish using whatever criteria we choose. However, for Catholics to apply such a narrow-minded religious test is to fail in our duty to seek the common good. While Mormonism certainly fails the test of Christian orthodoxy, it is not like Gov. Romney is saying he is one thing while actually being another. Stated simply, he holds his LDS beliefs conscientiously and in good faith. So, whether you choose to support Mitt Romney for president or not, I would hope that religious bigotry is not the basis for your choice. If I am not mistaken, I believe that both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom rejected the divinity of Jesus Christ, would have failed this test.

"Lord, snap my stubborn heart in two"

A friend and brother who is a well-known blogger sent an email today, forwarding along a comment someone tried to make over on his blog about how rock n' roll is of, get this (best Dana Carvey Church Lady voice), SATAN! Nooo! As Larry Norman asked a long time ago, Why should the devil have all the good music? Well he shouldn't.

God an[d] rock-n-roll do not mix!! God created music for His Own Greater Glory and Honor!! But, music has been abused (as my former pastor once told me). Before his fall from Heaven, satan was given guardianship over music and look what happened!! Rock-n-roll is devil worship!! The lyrics may be directed to God, but the music is directed to satan. So, God and rock-n-roll do not mix because God and satan do not mix!! There's no way that God can be worshiped in all that MESS!!

I will let rock n' roll apologist, the Reverend Glenn Kaiser, along with the Rez band, tackle this one!

I refute it thusly! Oh, and there's this comment left on Youtube regarding this song that I think speaks well to the issue at hand, brothers and sisters:

"Made a decision for Christ in '82 and this song (and Rez) has always been my passionate favorite. Even during some years were I chose a dark path often the question would rise at parties what song is paramount and your favorite of all time. I would always answer "Broken Promises by Rez" to which the majority of partiers would look at me confused and bewildered not knowing what I'm talking about. I would just smile... you just gotta know it to feel it!"

Experience always trumps ideology!

Taking a break

The beginning of August strikes me as a good time to take a few days away from blogging. For the remainder of this week I am only posting the Friday traditio before returning Saturday evening with a reflection on the Sunday readings. It is time to pray, to take a few walks, to finish some reading, put together some notes for a retreat I am giving to the staff of a local parish next week, and to enter fully into the Dormition fast. So, rosaries and Memorarés will be abundant.

I cannot believe that I initially neglected to mention that today is the liturgical memorial of St. Peter Julian Eymard, founder of the Congregation of the Blessed Sacrament. Let us not forget the words of the Apostle of the Eucharist: "The Holy Eucharist is the perfect expression of the love of Jesus Christ for man, since It is the quintessence of all the mysteries of His Life." St. Peter Julian, pray for us.

Discipleship requires hospitality at the Eucharistic table

There are reasons the liturgy was reformed as a result of the Second Vatican Council. The main reason for the reforms was to provide for the full, active, and conscious participation of all the faithful in the Sacred Liturgy. For some forty or fifty years before the Council the lack of participation by all the faithful in the Mass was matter of great concern among many pastors, bishops, and even popes. This led to surprising reforms even before Vatican II, made by the likes of such popes as Pius X and Pius XII. After Vatican II the Mass came to include congregational singing and congregational responses, both said and sung. The way was also opened for meaningful participation by the laity in liturgical ministries, which includes serving as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and as lectors. Hence, the remedy for whatever may ail the liturgy in the lengthy aftermath of these reforms is not a wholesale return to pre-conciliar practice, which is not what Pope Benedict's "reform of the reform" intends to bring about.

It seems to me that for every 12 Catholics who care of about matters liturgical there are 13 opinions, meaning we have a long way to go in realizing the unity the Eucharist was given to bring about. It ought to go without saying that the Eucharist is the Sacrament of Christian unity. All too often it becomes the most divisive aspect of our ecclesial lives together. This is why I think great docility is required of all the faithful, both lay and clerical, when it comes to matters liturgical.

It is quite obvious that some people are more traditional in their liturgical preference and others more contemporary, while some still are more moderate, even though they lean one way or other (Full disclosure: I consider myself a moderate with traditional leanings, who is not averse at all to participating in a well-done, yet faithful, Mass in a more contemporary style). As Roman Catholics we face a highly unusual situation in which we have the Mass in two distinct forms: the Ordinary form and the Extraordinary form. The latter, of course, refers to approval of the use of the pre-conciliar Mass according to the final pre-conciliar edition of the Roman Missal, which was implemented in 1962. Nonetheless, Mass in the traditional form remains extraordinary with the so-called Novus Ordo being the ordinary form of the Mass. It bears noting that it was recently indicated by Cardinal Koch, who is the President of the Council for Promoting Christian Unity, that this state-of-affairs will result, at some future point, perhaps in the not-too-distant future, in a single rite.

In the wake of some recent public comments by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments that the whole Church should return to the practice of kneeling to receive Holy Communion, there is no shortage of people who want to demagogue this issue and who seek to impose their individual teaching authority. Cardinal Canizares' reason for saying this, at least according to the news sources I have read, was because he noticed that bowing before receiving communion while standing (something that should be done) is practically non-existent. As with many things in the Church today, this is probably more indicative of a lack of catechesis and Christian formation than a lack of reverence.

It is no secret that at the Holy Father's request, at Masses celebrated by the pontiff, those who receive communion from him receive on the tongue while kneeling (a prie dieu being put in place for that purpose). It is also true that in places, like the United States, where the normal way for receiving communion, set forth by our bishops and approved in by the Holy See (see Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America) is that it is at the discretion of the communicant whether to receive communion under both species, to receive standing, and to receive the Host either directly on the tongue or in the hand. The practical norm in the U.S. is to receive communion standing, after making a reverential bow prior to receiving communion. Not long ago, the Holy Father made it a point that those who choose to receive communion kneeling should in nowise be made to stand, but should be accommodated in the spirit of Eucharistic hospitality. Standing to receive Holy Communion is only done by way of an indult, not as a matter of law. However, the indults in this regard have now been in place for decades and so, it can credibly be argued, they can now be considered to be normative.

It is a very short trip from these kinds of observations to demands for communion rails to be re-installed in all churches and accusations that those who do not favor returning to receiving Holy Communion while kneeling don't really believe in the Real Presence, despite the fact that kneeling to receive Holy Communion is not the experience of most Catholics. Such matters require humility and great docility to magisterial authority, which includes your bishop and even your pastor. In short, you are not holier, or even necessarily more reverential, for kneeling to receive communion than many of your sisters and brothers who prefer to stand, just as returning to your pew after receiving communion, kneeling, and remaining in this posture until the end of the Communion Rite, does not make you more holy than someone who returns to their pew, sits and joins in the singing that takes place during this rite, especially if you do this in order to show others just how holy you are! Of course, the same is certainly true in reverse.

Anyone on either side of this issue that makes this ideological or divisive is to be eschewed, that is, ignored. It is certainly a legitimate aspect of our Catholic faith that is worthy of discussion and not just by Church leaders or experts, but all the faithful precisely because it concerns the central of act of our faith, which is always an ecclesial act. So, let's not throw extreme examples about, like the priest here or there who refuses to give communion to somebody who insists on kneeling, or receiving communion directly on the tongue, seeking to thereby implicate all who do not share the commentators point-of-view. As with most things in the Church, these rare occurrences are best redressed locally either by resolving the matter directly with the priest in question, or, if necessary (meaning the latter has failed) going through the chancery. The equal and opposite of this is impugning those who genuinely and piously ("pious" not being a perjorative word) desire to take what they see as an appropriately reverential approach to receiving Holy Communion as being ignorant, ill-informed, or hopelessly retrograde.

Mass is no place for activism or self-assertion of any kind. So, if you desire to receive communion on the tongue while kneeling, which is certainly not the norm in the U.S. as per our bishops (it is the reality regardless as to what you personally think about it), you might want to schedule an appointment with your pastor and discuss this with him rather than drop to your knees at Mass and take him unawares.

I've said it before and it bears repeating: Part of being a Christian means that how you say something is at least as important as what you say. You may very well be correct, but it may not matter or make a difference to anyone, except negatively, or merely serving to reinforce those who already agree with you. We should always bear in mind the words of the apostle:

If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing (1 Cor. 13:1-3)

UPDATE: My post Discourse divorced from reality: Norway and Israel was published this morning in the English edition of Il Sussidiario.

Ramadan begins

Today begins what Muslims throughout the world observe as the holy month of Ramadan. Since, like the Jewish calendar, the Islamic calendar is a lunar one Ramadan moves up about eleven days every year, which is why it seems to many people who don’t really pay attention to such things that Ramadan is all over the place as far as when it happens. Over the course of 34 years, a person who observes Ramadan, which requires fasting from both and drink during daylight hours, will have fasted on every day of the calendar year.

Ramadan is the ninth month on the Islamic calendar. It marks the period of time when Muslims believe that the Qu’ran

The month of Ramadan is the one in which the Qur-an was revealed, as a guidance for mankind, and clear proofs of guidance, and the Discrimination. So, whoever among you witnesses the month he will then observe Sawm therein. But whoever is sick or on a journey, there is then the counting out of the other days. Allah desires facility for you, and He does not desire difficulty for you; and that you should complete the number, and that you may exalt Allah for His guiding you; and that perhaps you may give thanks (Sura 2, Ayat 185)

Christians, too, have a holy season each year. We call it Lent. It is to be a time for us like Ramadan is for Muslims. In addition to fasting from food, drink, and, for those who are married, refraining from sexual relations during the hours of fasting, Muslims are expected to pray more, study the Qu’ran more, and to give alms more frequently, freely, and generously. In contemporary Christianity we talk about fasting from everything except what Christians have traditionally refrained from indulging in during seasons of fasting. What it may surprise many to know is that part and parcel of eating less, fasting more, and refraining from other good things, also calls us to tone things down, to seek out less entertainment, to spend time reading the Scriptures and other spiritual reading, praying, going to confession, attending Mass more frequently, maybe even every day, and giving alms and engaging in acts of charity.

Prayer, fasting, and alms-giving are hallmarks of the so-called Abrahamic faiths. Jesus not only does not seek to do away with these practices, but, as with most things, He intensifies them. He first does so by telling His followers in His Sermon on the Mount to "take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father" (Matt. 6:1). He teaches us that when we give alms not let "your left hand know what [our] right is doing, so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you" (Matt. 6:3-4). Similarly, He teaches that "when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you" (Matt. 6:6). With regards to fasting, we are taught: "when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that you may not appear to be fasting, except to your Father who is hidden. And your Father who sees what is hidden will repay you" (Matt. 6:17-18).

An article picked up by Sandro Magister in late 2009, written by Marina Corradi for the Italian newspaper L’ Avvenire, Dutch seminary professor, Wim Peeters said, "I believe that we would have nothing to fear from Islam, if we were Christians." He goes on to observe something about the Netherlands that is easily translatable to all Western countries, even increasingly the U.S.: it seems we are afraid of everything, from having children to immigrants. "But," Peeters reminds us echoing the words of the Scripture (1 John 4:18), "fear is the exact opposite of faith." Besides, Christians were engaging in these practices for centuries prior to the advent of Islam.

In his preaching, Blessed John Henry Newman, insisted that

"It is commonly said, that fasting is intended to make us better Christians, to sober us, and to bring us more entirely at Christ's feet in faith and humility. This is true, viewing matters on the whole. On the whole, and at last, this effect will be produced, but it is not at all certain that it will follow at once." He also observed that "since prayer is not only the weapon… in our conflict with the powers of evil, but a deliverance from evil is ever implied as the object of prayer, it follows that all texts whatever which speak of our addressing and prevailing on Almighty God, with prayer and fasting, do, in fact, declare this conflict and promise this victory over the evil one."

There is an important convergence this year because Ramadan begins on the same day that the two week Dormition fast starts for most Eastern Christians. So, this presents us with an opportunity.