Priesthood of all believers

"I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Romans 12:1-2)

What does the apostle mean?

I think A.W. Tozer gives us a pretty good idea:

"The 'layman' need never think of his humbler task as being inferior to that of his minister. Let every man abide in the calling wherein he is called and his work will be as sacred as the work of the ministry. It is not what a man does that determines whether his work is sacred or secular, it is why he does it. The motive is everything. Let a man sanctify the Lord God in his heart and he can thereafter do no common act. All he does is good and acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For such a man, living itself will be sacramental and the whole world a sanctuary. His entire life will be a priestly ministration. As he performs his never so simple task he will hear the voice of the seraphim say 'Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.'" A.W. Tozer The Pursuit of God

Meum cum sim pulvis et cinis

Spirit and flesh on the Fifth Sunday of Lent

In writing reflections on our Sunday readings over the course of this holy season, my focus has been exclusively on the Gospel passages. On a day that we hear yet another dramatic event from St. John's Gospel- Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, I want to focus on our second reading from St. Paul's Letter to the Romans, in which the apostle also writes about what it means to be raised from the dead:

"Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh; on the contrary, you are in the spirit, if only the Spirit of God dwells in you. Whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is alive because of righteousness. If the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the one who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also, through his Spirit dwelling in you." (Romans 8:8-11)

St. Paul, when referring to "the flesh" in this passage is not writing about the body. If he was simply referring to the body he would've used the Greek word soma. Instead, he uses the word sarx. Before unpacking this term a little bit, it is important to note that a truly Christian anthropology is not dualist, meaning that we do not see the body as something evil, as something to be overcome, to be set aside, to be escaped from. On the contrary, we will be bodily resurrected and live forever as embodied beings. Rather, God created us as we are, redeemed us through the bodily sacrifice of His Only Begotten Son, who for our sake became incarnate in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, His bodily resurrection from the dead, and His bodily ascension into heaven. He now sets about sanctifying us in our bodies by the power of the Holy Spirit- Just think about the sacraments! All of this is necessary because the temptation to gnosticism is ever present and has been from the beginning!

Like most every word in a lot of languages sarx has a number of meanings. In its most straightforward, that is, literal sense, sarx (i.e., "the flesh") refers to the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood. It also means the sensuous nature of humankind, what we might call our animal nature. According to just about any New Testament Greek lexicon, sarx, which is used in the writings of St. Paul to refer to our sensuous nature, does not automatically suggest depravity, but does refer to those bodily cravings that lead us to sin if we follow them unchecked in a hedonistic manner.

A great example of the distinction St. Paul makes in this passage is found in Matthew 26:36-41. This passage is Matthew's account of Jesus' prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane. Before laying bare His soul before His Father, our Lord says to Peter, James, and John- "My soul is sorrowful even to death. Remain here and keep watch with me." Going off to pray and asking the Father to let the bitter cup that He is about to drink, even the dregs, the Lord returns to find the three fast asleep. His disappointment and sorrow are evident when He says, "So you could not keep watch with me for one hour? Watch and pray that you may not undergo the test. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." It is not difficult to imagine the three, when asked by Jesus to keep watch with Him, responding positively. I further imagine it growing later, colder, darker, making them even more tired. So, huddling together, they warmed up and, perhaps even fighting their drowsiness, fell asleep. If you follow the passage, they fall asleep more than once! Hence, St. Paul's constant injunction to wake up, to stay awake, etc.

It is good that we hear this late in Lent, a season in which we try to open ourselves to God by more intensively practicing the spiritual disciplines, putting off the flesh through acts of self-denial in order to live according to God's life-giving Spirit (i.e., "the Lord, the giver of life"). In this passage from his Letter to the Romans, St. Paul sets forth something James Kushiner summarizes very well: "What the discipline is meant to do is to help you get yourself, your ego, out of the way so you are open to His grace." I think "flesh" in the sense Paul uses it in this passage can certainly be called "ego".

Meum cum sim pulvis et cinis

Jesus Christ makes all the difference in the world!

As with most things in my life, excepting God and my family (thank God), I have a pretty ambivalent relationship with blogging. On the other hand, I would be lying to say that I don't enjoy blogging. I would also not tell the truth if I were to write that I don't feel like it is something of a burden at times, but one internally imposed. Since I am always in discernment about my on-line activities, I appreciate very much Sarah Payne's article on E-zine, Why You Shouldn't Be a Blogger. While I could answer her point-for-point in writing and take some exceptions to her piece, I will take her challenging piece and add it to my Lenten discernment.

Along these same lines, just when I am about to despair, things start to pick up. My post from last Saturday on the incompatibility of Christian faith and Qu'ran burning was published on-line over on the English site of Il Sussidairio, which is always gratifying. As with my initial post on Archbishop Sheehan's challenging pastoral letter, more gratifying still was a conversation sparked by my post on Christian-Muslim relations.

The particular issue addressed was concerning my assertion, which I have made on these pages before, that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, which is the meaning of the Arabic word Allah, which word is used in Christian liturgies that precede the advent of Islam by centuries. My first and most direct response would be, after the manner of Jesus, to answer a question with a question: Did Israel of old worship the same God, that is, the God of and who is Jesus Christ? Of course this is what we call a rhetorical question because I assert that we worship the same God, but failing, or even refusing to see Jesus as God, like the Israelites of old and of today, Muslims have not received the invitation to call God "Father". It also bears noting that as Christians we are not a people of the book. We are the people of the resurrected and living Lord, who sent His Holy Spirit to dwell in and among us, thus making us temples in whom God dwells.

Nonetheless, it is easy for me to see how what I wrote can be taken as something that tends towards a certain religious indifference. In defense of Miroslav Volf, whose Christianity Today interview about his new book in which he addresses this question, it is too much to say that he leaves out the fundamental reality that God is love. (1 John 4:8.16) While he certainly does not mention this in his interview, which is very short, I cannot say that he omits this in his recently published book, which I have yet to read. Of course, this will be something for me to pay attention to when I read it. It is fair enough to say that my treatment deals exclusively with the question, what is God, and does not really address the infinitely more important question, who is God? The answer to the latter question, of course, is that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I do not believe for one moment that the quote I employ from Nostra Aetate can be dismissed as political because I think a decree by an ecumenical council, even one that is not dogmatic, cannot be dismissed with the wave of a hand. It is worth pointing out that at the time Nostra Aetate was promulgated, the troubles we now experience were not yet realized because even the Islamic world, under the influence Nasser and the rising Ba’athists, was embracing secularism.

What does it mean for a Muslim to revere Jesus as a prophet? It means that the one we revere as our risen and glorified Lord is seen by the Muslim as one who speaks the authentic words of God, even if he does not revere Jesus as the Word made flesh. This is altogether different than how a Communist might revere the man Jesus. Jesus Christ, in whom the fullness of God bodily dwells, is, indeed, an "ontological" and "insurmountable difference between our Allah and their Allah." Jesus Christ, in whom the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, makes all the difference in the world! (Col. 2:9) After all, the only answer to the question, why be a Christian, is Jesus Christ!

Living as I do in Utah, God as He is worshiped by Muslims is certainly more recognizable to me than the God of the LDS, who even describe the Father as having "a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s." (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22) It was Lorenzo Snow, an LDS prophet, who said of God the Father (who the LDS insist is both separate and distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit): "As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become." They also hold that the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob "have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods." (Doctrine and Covenants 132:37) I do not mention this to start an argument, just to note the relative and objective difference with regard to various understandings of God and how well they measure up to the revelation of God in Christ Jesus, which revelation, as Dei Verbum explicitly teaches us, has two modes of transmission- Scripture and Tradition. (par. 10)

I guess the question I pose in my article is what challenge does Christ- Allah made flesh for us- give to us who follow Him with regards to the Muslims, who see God as full of mercy and infinitely just, but not fully as love? To wit, surely not burning the Qu’ran and denouncing them as monsters, people we hate! Indeed, to say that God is love implies the Trinity because love requires an Other and, as St. Thomas Aquinas noted long ago, love is profuse. So, at least in Western Trinitarian theology, we see the Holy Spirit precisely as the love between the Father and His Only Begotten Son, who for us and for our salvation became our Lord, Jesus the Christ born of the Virgin Mary. How does one give faithful witness to the love of God given us freely in Christ? I know that burning the holy books of others who worship God, even if they do not fully know Him, is one way not to give such faithful witness.

Meum cum sim pulvis et cinis

More on marriage and pastoral care

I have had a couple of very insightful comments from two people I admire very much concerning my post on Archbishop Sheehan's recent pastoral letter, Marriage as a sacrament of salvation, a channel of God's grace. One from a brother deacon in Los Angeles, Eric Stoltz, and one by none other than the IC herself, who had the great misfortune of being my theology professor in graduate school. Along with Deacon Vince Tomkovicz, Deacon Eric co-authored the fantastic book, which is our RCIA text, Ascend: The Catholic Faith for a New Generation. I also recommend the IC's book, Dear Communion of Saints: amusingly foolish advice for Christians (as a non-writer myself, I am always happy to give plugs for friends with gifts).

Commenting on Facebook, Deacon Eric, who has a passion for reaching out to those on the margins of the church, expressed his concern about the punitive approach taken in the letter. Indeed, there are six consequences listed for those in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe who are cohabitating without ever being married, those who were previously married and are now re-married without having their previous marriage annulled, or their attempted marriage officially voided by the church, as well as those who are Catholic and only civilly married. In my previous post I listed three of the six specific instructions given by His Excellency in the letter.

As to cohabitation prior to marriage, I think it is always good to point out to couples who are cohabitating, or are thinking about it, that those who live together before marriage have a significantly higher rate of divorce than those who don't. Many mistakenly believe they are setting themselves up for success, when they are doing the opposite. Msgr Francis Mannion, one of my early mentors, summed this up well well when he said "People who live together before marriage tend to keep living together after they are married."

While I am writing about this issue I feel the need to highlight the pastoral failure of the church in providing extensive, thorough, and high quality marriage preparation. As I mentioned in my previous post, if marriage is truly a vocation to which most Christians are called, one akin to being a priest or a professed member of a religious order, then why is the preparation for this state of life often slip-shod or even non-existent? Look at the resources we dedicate to priestly formation, diaconal formation, and lay ecclesial ministry formation, then consider what we put into marriage formation. Now, admittedly, the hope is that those who are formed for pastoral ministry do a lot by way of marriage formation. However, even granting that, my point is still valid.

How do we do in equipping couples to fully live out their vocation, one challenging dimension of which is preparing them to observe what the church teaches with regard to sexuality? I think Bishop Olmsted exhibited a lot of courage and genuine pastoral concern when he began requiring all couples seeking to be married in the Diocese of Phoenix to take a full-blown course on NFP, learning how to do NFP, instead of the one-shot, 3 or 4 hour overview, where couples learn about NFP, which is all most dioceses require. Getting involved with marriage preparation strikes me as a wonderful opportunity for married permanent deacons and their wives, collaborating with other committed married couples in their parishes, to be of great service to the church! In other words, the issues Archbishop Sheehan brings up are a call to action, not to sit in the bleachers and cheer.

Thinking about the need for better marriage preparation prompted me to remember when Holly and I were getting ready to be married: other than Engaged Encounter and the mandatory NFP class, from which we were exempted due to the fact were planning on using NFP and so were working weekly with a certified instructor, all we did was meet with our associate pastor twice. One time was to go over our FOCCUS results, which were scored improperly (before computer scoring), making it useless, and the other was to plan our wedding liturgy. But he thought because we were both committed Catholics we didn't need anything else by way of preparation.

While our associate pastor was a truly a wonderful priest, frankly, I don't think he had much to offer us. So, we did some intensive preparation, including a weekend retreat, in an Evangelical Christian setting. It was a great decision, something which has benefited us as a couple in terms of our need to pray out loud together, read Scripture together, etc. In fact, because our spiritual life together has been on the wane this past year, just last night we started reading together Couples Who Pray: The Most Intimate Act Between a Man and a Woman, which includes the 40 day challenge. You can poo-poo such things all you want, but here's my question- If you're married, how often do you pray with your spouse? Plus, we need something simple, not a discourse on prayer!

The IC wrote in wondering what effect reading the archbishop's letter from the ambo of every church at each Sunday Mass across the diocese had on those who were suddenly and, likely, unexpectedly "called out," as it were. I have to honestly admit that I have no idea. So, while I certainly laud Archbishop Sheehan for tackling head-on an urgent and persistent problem, I also hope his pastors, associate pastors, and deacons have been diligent in their pastoral follow-up with those who are affected by these episcopal directives, actively reaching out to those affected in their parishes, realizing the potential for disaffection and offering them a helping hand, a sympathetic ear, and even a shoulder to cry on. I have absolutely no doubt this is Archbishop Sheehan's intent. While I believe that such a straightforward approach has the potential to do great good, we also have to be careful about lobbing hand grenades and then ducking behind the altar. In my view, if this not taken as a call to pastoral action, it won't amount to much apart from more people leaving, opting to either stop attending church altogether, or moving to where they perceive themselves as more welcome.

Since I am privileged to serve quite a few people who are in irregular marriage situations (I stopped doing marriage prep a several years ago, but in my ministry I still deal with some who are cohabitating) this is something with which I personally have a lot of experience. I can honestly say that I cannot think of any person who has not been most eager to resolve these issues and have their marriage convalidated in the church. The trouble, as far as I can tell, is that nobody has ever reached out and offered to help them do this. In fact, quite a few people thought their situation was irresolvable and were overjoyed to learn it was not.

Meum cum sim pulvis et cinis

"Don't discard me...Just because you think I mean you harm"

Just as we sometimes feel oppressed because people expect too much of us, we often expect more of others than they are capable of giving, more than is fair to expect. This inability, which is the result of our human limitations, does not eradicate the need we have, which is why, especially on Fridays, I pray, Jesus, I trust in you!

"But these cuts I have/They need love to help them heal."

Meum cum sim pulvis et cinis

Marriage as a sacrament of salvation, a channel of God's grace

Very often when we speak or write of "being pastoral" it is a euphemism employed to justify our refusal to speak the truth in love. Just as frequently, those of us engaged in pastoral ministry view our role as one that requires us to be unfailingly comforting and never challenging, even when the situation calls for a challenge, perhaps even a mild provocation, aimed at helping those we serve live more fully in the awareness of their destiny. Of course, there is an art to pastoral ministry, which is necessary for discerning what approach to take with people in life's myriad of situations. However, this is more about means than ends because the end is always to draw people to Christ by drawing them more fully into the Church, Christ's Body, to which they were joined at baptism. The key ingredients are taking the necessary time, always acting out of love, which means never being adversarial, and approaching each pastoral encounter prayerfully.

On 3 April 2011, Archbishop Michael Sheehan of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, New Mexico, in a challenging and provocative way, issued a pastoral letter: Pastoral Care of Couples Who are Cohabitating. He begins his letter by clearly setting out the issue he is addressing:

"We are all painfully aware that there are many Catholics today who are living in cohabitation. The Church must make it clear to the faithful that these unions are not in accord with the Gospel, and to help Catholics who find themselves in these situations to do whatever they must do to make their lives pleasing to God.

"First of all, we ourselves must be firmly rooted in the Gospel teaching that, when it comes to sexual union, there are only two lifestyles acceptable to Jesus Christ for His disciples: a single life of chastity, or the union of man and woman in the Sacrament of Matrimony. There is no ‘third way’ possible for a Christian. The Bible and the Church teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman and opposes same sex unions.

“We have three groups of people who are living contrary to the Gospel teaching on marriage: those who cohabit; those who have a merely civil union with no previous marriage; and those who have a civil union who were married before”

He goes on to issue six specific instructions, among which are the following:

"People in the above three situations cannot receive the Sacraments, with the important exception of those who agree to live chastely ('as brother and sister') until their situation is regularized. Of course, those in danger of death are presumed to be repentant....

"Nor are such people to be admitted to the role of sponsor for Baptism or Confirmation... It is critical for the sponsor to be a practicing Catholic - and can anyone be seriously called a practicing Catholic who is not able to receive the sacraments because they are living in sin?"

"Those who are married outside the Church because of a previous union are urged to seek an annulment through our Marriage Tribunal. If it can be found that the first marriage lacked some essential quality for a valid marriage, the Tribunal can grant an annulment. Your pastor can help someone start a marriage case for this purpose. It is important for such couples to continue to pray and get to Mass even though they may not receive Communion, until their marriage can be blest in the Church."

He ends his letter with this encouraging, yet challenging exhortation: "Our popular American culture is often in conflict with the teachings of Jesus and His Church. I urge especially young people to not cohabitate which is sinful, but to marry in the Church and prepare well for it.

"I congratulate and thank those thousands of Catholic married couples who role model the Sacrament of Marriage according to the teachings of Jesus and his Church."

One of the most rewarding aspects of my ministry is assisting people in resolving just the kinds of marriage issues Archbishop Sheehan courageously addresses in his very challenging and, hence, very pastoral, letter to his flock. I have convalidated many marriages that did not require resolving a previous marriage, or attempted marriage. Conversely, I have assisted many people in resolving marriage issues before the Tribunal of our diocese. Many of these have been simple lack of form cases that can be resolved in just a few weeks. But I have also worked with people and seen them through the lengthy process of seeking a full-blown annulment. It is amazing how healing and strengthening this process is for many people, especially with the proper pastoral support and encouragement.

Conversely, when parents bring their children to be baptized, one of the questions I ask is if they are married in the Church. At least in my own experience, increasingly parents, even when both are Catholic, respond, “No”. So, I ask, "Were either of you married previously?" The answer to this question is often, "No". Then the obvious, "Why didn’t you get married in the Church?" The same is true about completing Christian initiation by being confirmed. Even when couples answer, "Yes, there has been a previous marriage," and we discover that, say, it can be easily resolved due to lack of form, there is quite frequently no follow-up (i.e., the required documents are not submitted) and so they go on as before.

Over the course of each year, I have the opportunity to teach the parents of our young people who are preparing for their first confession, confirmation, and communion. Our first session always consists of discussing the 5 precepts of the Church, (see Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church par. 431-432). I always add to this list the obligation we have to observe what the church teaches with regard to marriage. This means reminding people that, as Catholics, if we are married, or planning to be married, we are just as obligated to be married in the Church as we are to attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation, go to confession at least once a year, observe days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church, receive communion at least once a year, and contribute to the material support of the Church.

After all, like priesthood, religious life, or the diaconate, marriage is a vocation. Look at how long and diligently people prepare for these other callings. Why should marriage, which is certainly more challenging in many regards, be so different? Rather, as Archbishop Sheehan implicitly asks, why should Christians who marry be so indifferent?

This is a good time to once again draw attention the USCCB's terrific website For Your Marriage. This is an excellent resource!

Meum cum sim pulvis et cinis

Hope is not wishing, but trusting in God's promise

Over the course of Lent I have been reading repeatedly the Letter to the Hebrews. I read fours chapters per day, which means that I finish the book every three or four days. Because Hebrews has thirteen chapters, I am forced to vary for either one or two days reading four chapters. Technique is not important, however. It never ceases to amaze me how rich God's word is, as Hebrews says, it "is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart". (4:12- ESV)

Sunday I was reading Hebrews 11, which is a breath-taking exposition on the theological virtue of faith, which it links closely to the forgotten, or least understood, of these God-given gifts, hope. Hope is the fruit, or flower, of faith. Put less poetically, hope is the product of faith. The chapter begins- "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." (1-3- ESV)

The author proceeds to give examples of those people of old, how they lived by faith, that is, lived hopefully: Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and Sarah. Between Enoch and Noah the author of this letter, what Bible scholar Daniel Harrington calls a written sermon, notes that "without faith it is impossible to please [God], for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him". (6- ESV)

Writing aboout Abraham and Sarah, the author commends them for going to the land promised them, thus acting on faith. Filled with hope they looked "forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God." (8 and 10- ESV) "By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised." (11- ESV). Hence, the author continues, "from one man, and him as good as dead [meaning Abraham, who was past the age of child-bearing himself], were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore." (12- ESV)

What is the point of discussing these "people of old"?

"These all died in faith, not having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire the better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city" (13-16- ESV)

In other words, they died not having experienced in their own lifetimes the fullness of that which God promised them. They did not die bitter, or unfulfilled. They passed filled with hope; trusting in God's fidelity to His promise.

The inroit for Mass on the Fourth Sunday of Lent refers to our longing for the city of God: Rejoice, Jerusalem! Be glad for her, you who love her; rejoice with her, you who mourned for her, and you will find contentment at her consoling breasts (Isa. 66:10-11) Indeed, "here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come." (Heb. 13:4- ESV) The new Jerusalem.

In his encyclical Spe Salvi, to which we have paid too little attention, the Holy Father pays great attention throughout his letter to this important book from the Christian Scriptures. I only wish to cite here the passage in which he wrote: "When the Letter to the Hebrews says that Christians here on earth do not have a permanent homeland, but seek one which lies in the future (cf. Heb 11:13-16; Phil 3:20), this does not mean for one moment that they live only for the future: present society is recognized by Christians as an exile; they belong to a new society which is the goal of their common pilgrimage and which is anticipated in the course of that pilgrimage." (par. 4) The church is supposed to be a foretaste of the heavenly city.

Meum cum sim pulvis et cinis