Harvesting Where God Didn't Plant?

image credit: ucg.org

At Mass last week, Catholics heard the Parable of Talents (Matthew 25:14-30). There's always something a bit odd about this reading to me: the wicked, lazy servant's description of the Master. He stated:

Master, I knew you were a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter . . .

Now, the Master obviously represents God, and God is all-good, so we would think that He would naturally pass by these claims that He was stealing, but the Master agrees with the servant:

So you knew that I harvest where I did not plant and gather where I did not scatter? 

 . . . and what do these things have to do with the servant not increasing the money he was given? The Master clearly links them as He continued:

Should you not then have put my money in the bank so that I could have got it back with interest on my return? 

In wondering about this, some ideas came to me.

We clearly recognize that God isn't a divine investment banker, concerned with worldly riches. After all, He already owns all the money in the world, we just get to use it. The talents, then, as most people easily gather, refer to abilities or opportunities that we are given. These gifts are given to us so that, by putting them to use ("trading with them"), we might draw closer to God and draw others closer to God, ultimately to be happy with Him forever in Heaven.

So what to make of the "gathering where He had not scattered"? Is God just some greedy farmer?

What if Jesus was implying that "where He scattered" was the group of souls of those who would be in His Church (or even those who have been properly evangelized)? If that is the case, we could posit that saying "He gathers where He did not scatter" could refer to the idea that God even gathers people to Himself people who are not visibly part of His Church. This is nothing new. The Catholic Church has always taught that people who don't know God are still drawn by God to Himself via truth, goodness, beauty, etc., and it is even possible for them to be saved. (See Acts 10:35, CCC 843, 847).

If this interpretation can be plausible so far, let's consider why the servant was so wicked and lazy for not "making money." While people outside the visible union of the Church can be saved, it would be much easier for them if they were Catholics (CCC 848-856). Why?  . . . because Catholics have two very distinct advantages in the pursuit of a relationship with God: the fullness of the Truth, and the Sacraments.

• Knowing the fullness of what Jesus revealed and has been handed on by the Apostles and their successors about God Himself and how we ought to live provides us with a "detailed map" of how to follow God. Every other person has his own map, it's just not as complete (lacking the fulness of truth) or it may have inaccuracies. It is still possible to draw closer to God, just not as easy. The completeness of any other such map would obviously vary depending on the closeness of that person's knowledge to the Deposit of Faith given to, and handed on by, the Catholic Church.
• The Sacraments give us God's extra helps (graces) on the journey. Baptism wipes away every sin up to that point, makes us God's children, gives us a participation in His Life (Sanctifying Grace), etc. Confirmation strengthens Baptism's effects on us, enabling us to mature in that relationship. Holy Communion is God Himself, and as we consume Him our bodies assimilate Him and He assimilates us into His Body (the Church). Reconciliation forgives sins that we commit after Baptism. Marriage helps us to live a loving, stable family life, and raise more souls to go to Heaven. Holy Orders gives us more men to teach us, govern us, and give us the Sacraments. Anointing of the Sick helps us to remain faithful to God when we are near death, so that we may not despair in the "hour of our death." These graces help us to love more and more deeply both God and neighbor. Effectively, the Sacraments get us on the right path on the "map," bring us back to the path when we stray, help us to see the right path, and continue on it, even when it's tough.

Image Credit: 1.bp.blogspot.com

Back to the wicked, lazy servant . . . He was precisely so wicked and lazy because he had the "talent" (we can easily enough use the English definition of "talent" here instead of the monetary currency described in the parable) to go out and draw souls closer to God, but He chose not to evangelize (bury it in the ground). He was given the responsibility to bring more people to God, and he refused. Because of his refusal, souls that could have been drawn to God were not, including his own (money was not made). That makes him wicked and lazy.

We, too, are given our own talents. Every single one of us has the ability to draw closer to God and to draw others closer to God. We're all called to help scatter the seed of God's Truth (see Lk 8:5-15), increasing the Master's area of scattering and planting, so that as many souls as possible end up loving God deeply and being happy with Him in eternity. This is both a right and a duty. We get to help draw people closer to God, and must help draw people closer to God--for their sake and our own. Of course, the more we love God, the more we will desire to help others know and love Him more, so this duty is gladly accepted. Let us, then cultivate that relationship, study our road maps, and trade for as many talents as we can while we still have time to trade.

Trying to trade my talents well,
Casey

How is the Pope Holy?

A friend wrote to me on Facebook, asking the following question:

 . . . how is the Pope considered a 'holy man' when he is elected by a group of individuals? It seems too Democratic a system to be pure and holy.

I enjoy when friends ask questions because they often ask questions that go beyond the scope of what I have already studied, so I have to do more research to learn exactly what the Church teaches on that particular topic. I was intrigued to begin to formulate an answer to this question, because I had been wondering about part of it myself--specifically, what the Church taught about God's role in the election of the Pope. I believe I was able to make a good start, but I think there is probably much more I can learn about this topic. Feel free to comment if you know any more than I have already listed.

What follows is my response:

1) How is the Pope a “holy man?”

Photo Credit: catholicism.about.com

First, it will help to understand the word holy. We use “holy” in multiple ways, particularly to describe the following:

• A: God Himself
• B: A person, place or thing consecrated to God (set aside as belonging to God)
• Gen 28:16 - the place God appears
• Ex 19:6 - God’s people
• Ex 28:43 - the Tabernacle
• Is 48:2 - Jerusalem
• Lev 10:17 - the sacrificial goat
• Rom 1:7 - what Christians call each other
• C: Someone who has an outstanding relationship with God and lives an exemplary moral life. (This is probably the most common use in our ordinary vocabulary.)

We also use other words that mean holy: sacred, saint, hallowed, blessed, etc.

We call the pope “the Holy Father” because of his particular position (his office). In Mt 16:18-19, Jesus said to St. Peter that he was “Rock” [Jesus changed his name from Simon to Kephas (Aramaic for “rock”) --> Petros (Greek feminine for “rock”) --> Petre (Greek masculine for “stone”) --> Peter (English transliteration)] and on this “Rock” He would build His Church. At this point Jesus also promised to Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven [a symbol of Jesus’ authority being handed on to Peter to be “in charge” after Jesus ascended--when the Old Testament King was going away, he would give his prime minister the keys to the kingdom to show that he had the authority while the king was gone (see Is 22:20-22)]. Catholics see this as Jesus establishing Peter as the head apostle, who after the Ascension would have Jesus’ authority to lead the Church. Peter left James in charge as the “bishop” (from the Greek episkopos or “overseer”) of Jerusalem and moved on temporarily to Antioch. Peter eventually settled in Rome, where he spent the rest of his life. Peter helped to begin and grow the Christian community in Rome. After Peter was crucified, the remaining Apostles and other bishops knew that someone needed to take Peter’s place just like Matthias had been appointed to take Judas’s place (see Acts 1). Linus was appointed to take Peter’s place as not only the bishop of Rome, but also the new head of the whole Church. Since then whoever was the bishop of Rome was considered the head of the Church (Benedict XVI is the 265th bishop of Rome).

Because his position is to lead the faithful closer to God, he is called the “Holy Father” --> the “papa” --> the “pope.” This corresponds mostly to definition B (above) for holy. He is “holy” by virtue of the fact that his office dedicates him totally to God, and he is acting with God’s authority in that position. He acts in the person of Jesus as the earthly head of the Church, so we also call him the “Vicar of Christ” (vicarius is Latin for “in the person of”).

Ideally, we can also apply definition C to the pope: that he is a moral role model. We have been very fortunate to have recently had a string of some very definition-C-holy popes. Some popes have not been very morally upright (Leo X comes to mind), but the REALLY cool thing with that is this: even though there have been some really morally lousy popes in the past, God has prevented all of them from changing official Church teachings to say that those bad things are good. God wants His people to always have access to the correct teachings about Him (faith) and how we ought to act (morality), so He prevents the popes from changing the teachings that Jesus handed on to the Apostles, who handed it on through history to us today. The popes don’t necessarily get any extra knowledge, but because God wants us not to be led into error, the Holy Spirit prevents the pope from changing the teachings. This can be seen in that same passage from Matthew: both in the authority of the keys, but also when Jesus told Peter that whatever he “bound on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever he loosed on earth would be loosed in Heaven” (“binding” and “loosing” were terms used by rabbis both for doctrine and for the forgiveness of sins). This is what Catholics mean when they say the pope is “infallible.” He is not made “impeccable” (without sin), but he is prevented from changing the truth that Jesus handed on. It has been such a blessing that Benedict XVI and John Paul II were such holy men in all accounts, but not every pope has been that way.

2) Does the election of the Pope make him holy? Isn’t it a rather fallible human system?

Photo Credit: Fotographia Felici

Analogously to Jesus Himself, in the election of the Pope there is a certain combination of the human and the divine. Yes, the cardinals are men, electing the next pope, but they are called to pray for God’s help. Pope Paul VI described it in his document on the Election of the Roman Pontiff (#84):

Like Our predecessors, We strongly exhort the cardinal electors not to be guided by likes or dislikes in electing the pope, nor influenced by the favor or compliance of anyone, nor moved by the interference of persons ... nigh places or pressure groups, or by the suasive language of the masters of the communications media, or by violence or fear or love of popularity. Instead, with God's glory and the good of the Church as their sole guide, and having asked for divine help, let them vote for him whom they judge most fit to rule the universal Church in a fruitful and useful way.

In the next paragraph, Paul VI also recognized that all the Catholic faithful around the world are called upon to pray for the cardinals in the conclave, so that they may be open to listening to God’s direction. While it is open to human fallibility, the conclave of cardinals electing the new pope is called upon to open themselves to God’s direction. And even if they don’t, and the worst pope in history is elected, we can trust in Jesus’ promise to Peter in that same quote that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church. Whomever they elect will be the new bishop of Rome, and God will help him in guiding the Church. Even if the man is not definition-C-holy, he will be by default definition-B holy. We pray for both B & C.

UPDATE (3/1/13): A friend linked me to this article at the Deacon's Bench, quoting Cardinal Ratzinger 8 years before he became pope:

I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. … I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined . . . There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!

I hope this helps. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Again, if any of you have any good quotes on God's guidance of the papal electors, please share.

Praying for our current and future Holy Father,

Casey

Marriage, Sin, Sex, Contraception, & Truth

Here are the latest episodes of our podcast The Beauty of Truth:

Episode 11 - Why is marriage a Sacrament?

Episode 12 - What is sin?

Episode 13 - What is the purpose of sex?

Episode 14 - Why restrict sex?

Episode 15 - If Catholicism is true, is everyone else wrong?

Freedom

Randall Smith just posted an article over at The Catholic Thing, entitled Freedom from Catholicism, in which he poses the question:

"Why is it that 'freedom' for ['tolerant'] people is always freedom from Catholicism? The freedom to be fully and authentically Catholic rarely shows up on the radar screen of such 'tolerant' souls."

I don't mean this to be an antagonistic post (though the article itself expresses a bit of frustration), but I think Smith poses an honest question. There are various "tolerant" voices today calling for "freedom." The quest for freedom in itself is a good thing, but there is a strange consistency in that what they call "freedom" is always something anti-Catholic. They readily attack the Catholic Church's stance on contraception, marriage, or even the fact that we simply believe in God. Because of these beliefs, we are labeled "bigots," "intolerant," etc. Someone on Facebook just a couple of days ago called those of us who support traditional marriage "racists." I couldn't help but cock an eyebrow at that one. It's funny how most of the news media and so many people can call for tolerance, yet they vilify anyone who holds to the whole of Catholic doctrine. All of this is couched in the language that one will be "free" if one turns against the Church.

I can't help but see the funny paradox. Smith cites multiple situations in which someone was calling for freedom because the Church teaches the use of contraception is morally wrong. A mother refused to attend her daughter's wedding because her daughter wouldn't use contraception. So here we see the paradox: The mother thinks the daughter will be freed by the use of contraception, yet contraception is the vice from which the daughter wants to be free. Contraception is a vice because it traps the user into an objectification of the other: sex for pleasure instead of sex as a full gift of self to the other. Contraception prevents the couple from fully giving themselves (including their fertility) to each other in self-donation. It disrupts the marital act, disassociating it from one of its natural ends (procreation), thereby altering the act and so preventing the fullness of the other end for which the act was designed (union of the couple).

The mother has been so blinded and trapped by the contraceptive culture and the contraceptive mentality that she (as well as the above voices) can only see contraception as a freedom from a perceived evil. But one must ask what this evil is. Many won't be able to say. Other will give vague answers that the evil is "the Catholic Church," or "repression," or "male dominance," etc. Really, that from which a couple is freeing themselves is responsibility, family, and a more self-sacrificial love of each other. All three of which are goods. The wool has been pulled over the eyes of so many. They are being told that they will be free, but they do not understand that they are being "freed' from good things, while being entrapped into vices. This same can be said for the other areas.

The above paradox is indicative of the greater problem throughout the world: people are calling for freedom from good things because they think that their particular vices will be the goods for which they long. This has the devil's fingerprints all over it: the father of lies has convinced these people that things which would truly be good for them are entrapping while these vices are "freeing." He particularly hates the Catholic Church because it refuses to cave into these lies. In order to fight against God and His Church, the enemy tries to convince these people that the Catholic Church is the source of all evil today, so they must be "free" from these "evil constraints." The people rail against the Church, but the Church remains strong, simply holding to its roots and proposing a better way to the people.

The pressure against the Church by various media outlets, politicians, etc. has gotten to the point that in some ways it becomes difficult to live the Catholic life. The most obvious threat to that is the HHS mandate, which forces Catholic business owners to pay for insurance programs that must include coverage for contraception. We are seeing a movement in our country against the freedom to be Catholic.

I encourage you to read the Church's doctrines and see why we believe what we believe about certain things. There are some great websites out there that will help you understand more:

• Catholic Answers
• Family Catechism
• The Catechism of the Catholic Church
• New Advent
• The St. Paul Center for Biblical Study
• and many more

Hopefully you will come to see that the Catholic Church is the one promoting the most free lifestyle possible because She promotes freedom from vice and not freedom from goods. That is true freedom. "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32)

Beauty of Truth Podcast

Recently, my friend Cristobal Almanza approached me, asking if I was interested in starting a podcast in which he and I would explain elements of the Catholic faith. I thought it was a great idea.

Our first episode ("Why is the Church so bossy?") is now available on Austin Catholic New Media: http://www.austincnm.com/index.php/2012/07/beauty-of-truth-podcast-episode-1-why-is-the-church-so-bossy/

Welcome Home, Leah

If you had asked me a few weeks ago who Leah Libresco was, I wouldn't have been able to distinguish her from Eve, but I have recently found out that Leah blogs over at Patheos under the moniker of Unequally Yoked. Up until recently, her subtitle read: A geeky atheist picks fights with her Catholic boyfriend, but just over a week ago, Leah's post was titled: This is my last post for the Patheos Atheist Portal. Leah announced that she has entered the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA), the preparation for adults to enter the Catholic Church. Her blog subtitle now reads: A geeky convert picks fights in good faith.

Leah's Banner on Patheos

Welcome home, Leah! May God continue to bless your journey!


P.S.
Sorry I've been inactive for so long, everyone. Things have been crazy. Hopefully, I will be able to get back to posting a little more often.

Hopping on the HHS Bandblogon

Basically every Catholic writer has already written a post on the HHS mandate, and many have done a fine job, but I thought I would jump on the bandblogon (yes, I think I just made that up) and add my 2¢ today. My wife was on facebook a little while ago when she noticed that one of our friends had posted an article about how the government is preventing Catholic military chaplains from reading a letter from the US bishops, protesting the mandate. The first commenter responded:

[Commenter]: 95-98% of catholic women use contraception by their own admission so what's the problem? http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/Ninety-eightPercentofCatholicWomenUseBirthControl.asp

I've seen this silly argument multiple times in this debate. I'll discuss the dubiousness of the numbers at the bottom, but I'd rather get right into the ridiculosity of the argument itself (perhaps I just made up that word, but silly arguments call for silly words). My friend gave a well-reasoned first response:

[Friend]: 

I think the problem is the gag-order [Commenter] - that is, specifically, it seems that it ought to be within the purview of religious organizations to conscientiously object to heavy-handed government mandates that, at least attempt, to force religious organizations to act against their own well-formed beliefs - which is precisely what the gag-order is attempting to stifle. N.b., in my opinion, as much suggests that Obama has failed to adequately appreciate the nature and scope of the first Amendment with respect to both free speech and to the non-establishment clause for religion.

I thought an illustration might make the concept a little more concrete:

Casey Truelove: [Commenter], let's look at your argument, using another Church teaching. Let's use stealing. The Church says stealing is wrong. What if 98% of Catholics decided they weren't going to listen to the Church and that stealing was okay. Does that make stealing okay? Of course not! What if President Obama mandated that all states take their anti-stealing laws off the books, and mandated that all schools (Catholic schools included) had to teach that stealing was good? We Catholics who follow what the Church teaches would again be up in arms. Who cares how many Catholics don't listen to the Church? The fact is that the Church understands that stealing is wrong and isn't willing to call an evil thing good. The Church shouldn't be forced to promote evil--regardless of how many of its members have rejected that teaching. It's about objective goodness, not popular opinion. If one is looking for a popular-opinion-based Christianity, he should go to the Methodists (they vote on what they believe every 3 years). If he wants a religion that is actually concerned about truth and goodness, he should go to the Catholics. The Catholic Church isn't forcing anyone else to be Catholic. It merely proposes the truly Catholic way of life, and it should be free to exercise that way of life without the president trying to impose his own views onto the religion.

Once you take away people's emotional attachment to contraception so that they can see the actual situation for what it is, one would think the person should be able to move to a rational understanding of how horrible of an act it is that the president would try to force Catholics to do what they believe is evil. I hope you can all see this. I hope the Commenter sees it too.



The Numbers Game

Now we also need to look into whether his "95-98%" statement holds any water. The article to which the responder links doesn't actually cite any studies that prove their claim. It's written by an organization that is blatantly subversive--whose whole mission it to try to make Catholics turn against their religion--so we can start off knowing that they clearly have an agenda (red flag #1). With no proof at the source, I Googled the topic to find this article, wherein I found that the 98% number comes from a study by the Guttmacher Institute (an arm of Planned Parenthood, the nation's #1 provider of contraception/abortion--red flag #2), which states that 98% of Catholic women have used some form of birth control (red flag #3). Ah those tricky statistic words! "98% of the women have used . . . " An easy way to bump any statistic to make it look more overwhelming is to imply that anyone who has done something supports that thing, and believes that it is right. A common problem in our society (and this statistic) is forgetting that people can have a conversion. They can be doing something wrong, then realize that it is wrong, and change their life accordingly. Anyone in that situation would still be part of the 98%. The article goes on to later state that the number is actually around 70%. This is still a large number, but that extra 28% really makes it look impressive, so they can't help but use that to make it look like they might have some sort of point.

Even if we're going to trust the contraception giant on their numbers, we must return again to the above discussion and realize that even if 100% of Catholic women were using some sort of birth control, their argument still wouldn't have merit. If the Church recognizes that something is evil and teaches that it is evil, it shouldn't be forced by the government to provide that evil thing to society--especially when members of society can very easily find it free elsewhere.

If you're looking for discussions of why the Church recognizes that contraception is evil, there are many. It's not, as I have heard suggested before, just because some "crusty old men in Rome say so." Here are some links:

• Humanae Vitae (Pope Paul VI's Encyclical on Human Life)
• Contraception: Why Not? (A Presentation by Dr. Janet Smith)
• A search for "contraception" at Catholic.com brings up many articles.
• Sex Au Naturel by Patrick Coffin

Photo Credit: http://seoblognumbernine.link2light.com/images/blog_images/seo_bandwagon.jpg

Arrogance or Accuracy?

Here's a Q&A from a Facebook Catholic Q&A group of which I am a part:

Questioner:
I was talking to my uncle today (who was baptized Catholic, but is now Buddhist), and he said he feels the Church is "arrogant" to say that she holds the fullness of the truth when so many other religions have "similar myths and legends" (virgins giving birth, a god impregnating a human, etc.). He said that he didn't understand why the Church couldn't just admit that she was one among many and that he didn't see any difference between Catholicism and the other religions. 
I did talk about how, if all of creation was awaiting the coming of Jesus since the beginning, it makes perfect sense that there should be "echoes" of this in all of man's searching for god (thus the similar myths and things), but as far as how Catholicism is different from these...I just had no idea what to say or where to start. I know there are huge differences, but...any ideas on how I should have responded?

My Response (slightly edited--I always think of better ways to state things aftewards):

Prayer. That's the best response. 

As for actual dialogue with your uncle, you could start with the Trinity (no other religion comes close to holding the idea of 3 persons in the one God), you could also try to distinguish the Incarnation (God retaining the full nature of God while taking on a full human nature, hypostatically united in one person) from the myths (half god/half man status, or fully god, but only seeming to be human, etc.).

You were right with the "echoes" idea. If Christianity is entirely true, that doesn't mean it has to be entirely unique. In fact, it likely means that Christianity is not entirely unique. It's extremely unlikely that no other religion would have ever come up with any correct doctrines, and that only the one true faith would have a single correct doctrine. Just because some other religions may have happened to have gotten certain aspects correct doesn't mean that Christianity copied them, it just means that they found pieces of the Truth, whereas the Catholic Church has received the fullness of the Truth. We, as Catholics, commend others (even atheists) in the places where they are correct. It is always good to urge others on toward goodness, truth, and beauty. God is the source of all of them. If someone truly strives for any of them, he will find himself growing closer to God and coming closer to realizing the fullness of Truth, which God has revealed. God established the Catholic Church to make sure that His revelation would be handed down accurately. Our claim of fullness of truth is not for the sake of self-righteousness; rather, it is for the sake of the Truth--something infinitely higher than elevating ourselves in our own (and other men's) esteem.

Personally, I find your uncle's attitude more arrogant than the Catholic claim. Taking his mindset (that Catholics are arrogant to claim the fullness of the truth) to it's logical conclusion is to say that no one will ever know anything that is correct--or at least it will be arrogant to think so. Just because I think I'm correct in knowing that 2+2=4 doesn't mean I'm arrogant, it just means I'm right, and I know it. If I were to flaunt my knowledge of addition and make those who believe otherwise into lesser persons, then I would be arrogant. Merely to state that I have the truth and to propose it for you to accept, however, is not arrogance. That's what the Church does. She proposes the Truth to others; She never imposes it. The Catholic Church doesn't force anyone to accept the Truth; She only makes it public so that others may freely accept it. To me, your uncle's attitude seems to incorrectly (and slightly arrogantly) elevate tolerance and diversity over Truth.

Spirit of the Liturgy - Chapter 1

This is a continuing report on the book The Spirit of the Liturgy by Cardinal Ratzinger.

Click here to read the report on the Preface.

PART ONE: THE ESSENCE OF LITURGY

Chapter 1: Liturgy & Life: The Place of the Liturgy in Reality

In the 20's it was common to describe liturgy with the analogy of a game (having its own rules, stepping outside the pressures of daily life, often being "a rehearsal for later life," [14] and thus allowing us to see daily life as a prelude to eternal life - offering us hope). This analogy, however, lacks a concrete orientation towards eternal life and towards God Himself, so Ratzinger wishes to offer us a new approach [which is really an old approach looked at anew]: liturgy as revealed in the Bible, particularly the Exodus.

The Exodus

The whole purpose of the Exodus is not just to give God's people the Promised Land, but to give them the freedom to worship Him (in whatever way He requests): "Let my people go that they may serve me in the wilderness." (Ex 7:16) [Not: "Let my people go that I may give them land."] "The only goal of the Exodus is shown to be worship, which can only take place according to God's measure." [16] They don't know the means by which God wishes them to worship Him--only out in the wilderness will they be given that knowledge. [They had to take every person and everything they owned, so that they would be prepared to worship God in whatever way He wanted.] "The land is given to the people to be a place for the true worship of the true God." [17] God makes a covenant with His people and "concretiz[es it] in a minutely regulated form of worship . . . [this form of worship shows them] how to worship God in the way He Himself desires." [17] [God tells them how He wants to be worshipped. They don't make it up on their own.] This worship is an entire way of life. It includes both "cult, [which is] liturgy in the proper sense," [17] and morality, the proper way to live. "Ultimately is it the very life of man, man himself as living righteously, that is the true worship of God, but life only becomes real life when it receives its form from looking toward God. Cult exists in order to communicate this vision and to give life in such a way that glory is given to God."[18] [Don't get confused with the popular definition of "cult"--something like a strange or evil group of fanatics. Cult means ritual. We worship in a ritualistic liturgy because that is what we have received from God. Those rituals draw us out of our daily lives, point us toward God, and allow us to receive His life. Only by looking toward God can we get the proper perspective of how to live the rest of our lives (and live them to the fullest). Without that orientation towards God, life is like being in a maze, but not knowing where the end is--there is no goal to direct our actions to the proper end. We have received the rituals for worship from God and from His Church. It is not something that we invent out of our creativity. Our worship is affective because it was given to us by God as a foretaste of how we will worship Him in Heaven.]

Worship, Law & Ethics

"Worship, law, and ethics are inseparably interwoven." [18] Law must be founded in morality and both must be oriented toward God, otherwise they trap man in a world-centered vision, forcing him to bow to the whims of the ruling majority, rather than the all-good, unchanging truths of God. People need law so that they may be free to live and worship. "God has a right to a response from man." [19] Law must preserve this right, otherwise man cannot live the life for which he was made. "When human affairs are so ordered that there is no recognition of God, there is a belittling of man." [19] The Israelites were given regulations for both cult and morality at Sinai. "This and this alone is what makes the land a real gift." [19] If Israel sticks to these regulations, she is free; if not, she loses her freedom. "When the loss of law becomes total, it ends in the loss even of land . . . steadfast adherence to the law of God . . . must be the necessary condition [foundation of existence] for life in community and freedom." [20]  [Proper worship directs us to God, who allows us to see how to live properly. That orientation toward God forms our morality/ethics. Law exists to encourage people toward right conduct (virtue) and discourage people from vice. Without proper worship, we are trapped in a mindset that thinks only of this world and its concerns. It fails to see things from the God's perspective and what is eternally best for our souls. Without the true goal in mind, our efforts can easily become misguided. Many of our civil law makers have lost the proper perspective, or have been trained in an environment which rejects God, and therefore, rejects the proper goal of all of life. Law should protect and promote worship, but that is far too often not the case in our society.]

The importance of worship.
Cult, then, "goes beyond the action of the liturgy . . . embrac[ing] the ordering of the world of human life." [20] Worship is "man glorifying God" and man does this "when he lives by looking toward God." [20] Law and ethics must be "anchored in the liturgical center and inspired by it." [20] Man's relationship with God (liturgy) must first be right before his other relationships (with other men, with creation - law, ethics) can be rightly ordered. [God gives man his relational orientation. Man must first encounter the Truth, Goodness, Justice, Love that God is in order to know how to be truly true, good, just and loving.] "The right kind of cult, or relationship with God, is essential for the right kind of human existence in the world. It is so precisely because it reaches beyond everyday life." Worship takes us out of the world and gives us a taste of Heaven. Life without that foretaste is empty, so those without true cult end up creating 'their own forms of cult, though, of course, they can be only an allusion and strive in vain by bombastic trumpeting, to conceal their nothingness." [21]
[I'm reminded of this at the end of every Super Bowl (or other sports finales). The whole profession is "bombastically trumpeted" with fancy graphics, lively commentators, jarring music, and memorabilia galore, which all conceal their real nothingness. I used to be a devout follower of the worship of football. Ever since I was introduced to it, I have loved to play the game, so it only naturally followed that I would love to watch the professionals play the game. Growing up, my family had our Sunday tradition of watching the games together. I was enthralled by the games, looking up statistics, buying the video games, collecting the cards, and eventually playing fantasy football. None of these are bad in themselves, but they can become dominant foci in someone's life--as it did in mine. Every year, though, as the confetti paper fluttered in the air to mark the end of that year's Super Bowl, something about it seemed anti-climactic. All this build up throughout the year (and intensifying as the game day drew nearer) seemed to leave me with an empty feeling when the game was accomplished. As the years went by, that emptiness pointed to something: all the hype around this contest is really hiding that it's just a game. It's entertaining to watch them compete, but the flashy decorations are all ways that they try to make the game seem as though it has some great importance.]


We must receive worship, not create it.
True Worship is the worship that God reveals. Man cannot "creatively" plan worship how he wishes. It must be received, otherwise "man is clutching empty space." [21] "Real liturgy implies that God reveals how we can worship him . . . [in bad liturgy] worship is no longer going up to God, but drawing God down into one's own world." [22] He gives, as an example, the Golden Calf narrative--the people created their own version of God and worshipped him how they felt like worshipping him. They weren't patient enough to receive the proper form of worship from God. Ratzinger says that this narrative "is a warning about any kind of self-initiated and self-seeking worship." [23] When man tries to create his own worship, "man is using God . . . a festival of self-affirmation. Instead of being worship of God, it becomes a circle closed in on itself . . . no longer concerned with God but with giving oneself a nice little alternate world, manufactured from one's own resources . . . an apostasy in sacral disguise. All that is left in the end is frustration, a feeling of emptiness. There is no experience of that liberation which always takes place when man encounters the living God." [23] [Here, Ratzinger turns the spotlight from the banal pursuits of secular society's worship of empty things to those who try to impose such empty things into the received worship of God (particularly the Mass). This is one of the greatest travesties of our time. As we saw above, man needs proper worship, so that he can be directed outside of himself and rightly oriented to God (and thereby rightly oriented to all of creation), yet so often today, people who style themselves as "liturgists" try to turn this received worship into a display of their own "creativity." In doing so, they turn the focus of the liturgy away from God and onto the people (either the ones performing the "creative" innovation or the community gathered in the pews). Later, Ratzinger will describe this as "replacing the true essence of the liturgy with a  kind of religious entertainment." How true his words are! All too often, I have attended Masses where it seems like the priest is trying to entertain the people instead of point them toward almighty God. The few I have questioned about this have made comments about "not wanting to be too 'high Church' for the people" or "wanting to make people feel welcome," etc. This makes me sick. I can't believe that someone would forego thousands of years of cultivated Church practice (based on revelation and handed on to us faithfully by the Magisterium and which has drawn countless people toward sainthood) for the sake of what amounts to creature comforts. It becomes a form of settling for the lowest common denominator instead of a pursuit of what is highest.]

Good liturgy: solemn, dignified, beautiful, inspiring, directing us beyond ourselves/daily life and toward God
It orients us to a proper relationship with God.

Bad liturgy: campy, showy, people-centered, uninspiring, banal, base, empty . . .
"It becomes a feast that the community gives itself, a festival of self-affirmation. Instead of being worship of God, it becomes a circle closed in on itself: eating drinking and making merry . . . no longer concerned with God but with giving oneself a nice little alternative world, manufactured from one's own resources . . . an apostasy in sacral disguise. All that is left in the end is frustration, a feeling of emptiness." [23]

Book Report: Spirit of the Liturgy - Preface

About six years ago, I was introduced to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's (now Pope Benedict XVI's) Book Spirit of the Liturgy. This was at a conference by one of his students: Fr. Joseph Fessio. At this conference, Fr. Fessio was able to make use of his many years both as a student and friend of our current Holy Father to help explain the Pope's book. I had previously started to take an interest in liturgy (the official public prayers of the Catholic Church - how they are celebrated and why). Quite impressed with the ideas presented to explain the Pope's views on liturgy, I was instantly intrigued. I bought the book and couldn't put it down. Ratzinger's view on the beauty of the liturgy and its power to inspire us toward God are evident in his liturgical example as pope. At this point I was determined to write an explanation of the book to help spread the Pope's message, but God knew better--I still needed more understanding and a better venue. At the conference, Fr. Fessio had introduced the crowd to Ave Maria University, and he mentioned how AMU was trying to put the Pope's thoughts on liturgy into practice. Through a series of miraculous situations (about which I should write one day), God allowed for me to enter AMU's graduate program, study, and receive an MA in Theology. While studying there, we covered Ratzinger's book in Dr. Roger Nutt's Liturgy &; Sacraments class, which helped me to gain an even greater understanding of the book, the Mass (and our other liturgies), and led me to an even greater understanding of how desperately our Church needs to hear this message.

Recently, I have started re-reading the book, and I have decided to prepare a chapter-by-chapter explanation, so that everyone may hear and understand this great call to deeper and more beautiful liturgy "as the animating center of the Church, the very center of Christian life," [7] to inspire souls toward even greater relationships with God and to glorify Him with their lives. This has rekindled my desire to share the book with you. Today's first post will only cover the Preface. I will write a summary in black and I will make my extra comments in red. Without further ado, I present to you The Spirit of the Liturgy:

Preface

Ratzinger states his purpose for writing the book: to assist the renewal of the understanding of the liturgy by building on what Guardini wrote in his 1918 book The Spirit of the Liturgy, updating it for a contemporary setting, hoping to encourage a liturgical movement "toward the right way of celebrating the liturgy, inwardly and outwardly." [9] [Later, we will get into what the right way is.]

He mentioned that one of the difficulties that had crept into the Mass prior to the Second Vatican Council was the "instructions for and the forms of private prayer," [8] that distracted the faithful from seeing the beauty of the liturgy (which he likens to a fresco). The fresco, he states "had been preserved from damage [in Guardini's time], but it had been almost completely overlaid with whitewash by later generations." [7] [Those private devotions distracted the people and covered over the beauty of what was happening before them.]

Guardini's book "helped us to rediscover the liturgy in all its beauty, hidden wealth, and time-transcending grandeur" [7] and inspired a Liturgical Movement in Germany, which helped to preserve its beauty despite the white-washing. The Second Vatican Council again showed us the beauty of the liturgy, but

since then the fresco has been endangered by climatic conditions as well as by various restorations and reconstructions. In fact it is threatened with destruction, if the necessary steps are not taken to stop these damaging influences. [8]

I'm sure that many of us have been witnesses to destruction of elements of the beauty in the Mass: art, architecture, music, and (even more sadly) reverence. I will not dwell on them here because he treats them later, but I cannot stress enough the importance that we Catholics need to return to a sense of beauty, reverence, and majesty in our liturgies, for the sake of the souls in the pews. We need an inspiring liturgy--one that doesn't just speak to us where we're at (or worse: tries to entertain us), but one that draws us up out of our daily life and inspires us to look toward God and order our whole lives accordingly. Pope Benedict XVI has not changed his views since becoming pope. He has not made many top-down liturgical commands, rather he has led by example--restoring, in the Masses he offers, the beauty that had been damaged. He gave us Anglophones an excellent example of this when he celebrated Mass in Westminster Cathedral. Below is a video excerpt from that Mass. Note how beautiful and inspiring everything is and how different it is from our everyday lives--Mass provides us that time to step away from everyday life and focus on what is really important: God. Ask yourself: "how can my parish (with what resources it has) offer Masses more like that?"

I pray that God will bless me with a better understanding of this book, and the liturgy, and that what little work I am able to do will be done with love, and will help preserve the beauty of the fresco. I pray, too, that you, dear readers, will be inspired to give greater glory to God--particularly in the liturgy.


Trying to glorify God in my work,
- Casey

M.A. Thesis Presentation

Below is a video of the presentation of my M.A. thesis: Sacrificial Aspects Of The Eucharist And Marriage.

Part 1 (10:00)

Part 2 (10:00)

Part 3 (4:36)

Marriage: Validity & Indissolubility (Part 2)

Photo by Melissa Clayton

Last entry, I focussed intensely on what it takes for a marriage to be validly entered and gave examples of how my wife, Amanda, and I are able to be confident that we have a valid marriage.

This time, I wish to pursue my real goal behind this endeavor: discussing indissolubility. Last post, I stated:

“When entered into validly, nothing can break a marriage covenant, but death . . . 1) In order for the marriage covenant to truly exist, it must be validly entered [which I established]. 2) Once entered, the marriage covenant between the two people exists until one of them dies.”

. . . for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, ‘till death do we part. We commonly recognize these (or similar) words as the vows of those entering into marriage. My wife and I used the Catholic standard vows:

I, Casey, take you, Amanda, to be my wife. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.

. . . but it’s the same vow because it's entering into the same covenant. Have you ever stopped to think about what this really means? Let’s reflect for a minute.

Entering into the covenant of marriage is a great responsibility, which one professes before God, one’s spouse, and one's community. When we say we “are married,” my wife and I recognize that this is so on multiple levels:

1. First, the government thinks we’re married. The State of Michigan validated our marriage license application and it was signed by the priest, so, according to the state, we’re officially married: we have a legal bond with each other. This is, more or less, a formality and not really the major goal of what she and I were after.
2. Second, the Church thinks that we were married. As far as She is able, Holy Mother Church, from Her exterior view (and from the recommendation of the priest on our interior dispositions) thinks we are married. The Church thinks so highly of marriage that She assumes that all marriages are valid unless proven otherwise. [Who wouldn’t think a couple is married? They went through the ceremony; they said: “I do.” If those are your thoughts, please refer back to my previous post about validity for a few ideas about what would make a marriage invalid, even though the couple went through a ceremony.]
3. Finally, and most importantly, God thinks we’re married--in fact, God knows that we’re married. Moreover, He’s the One Who designed real marriage and allowed Amanda and I the opportunity to give ourselves to each other (such that we are married) to begin with. We are married not only in our thoughts, in the thoughts of our friends and families, in the eyes of the state, or even just in the eyes of the Church, but we’re married IN REALITY. Not only is there the legal bond between us, of which the state is in charge, but a REAL bond exists between us. This is what Catholics mean when we refer to a couple as being married "in the eyes of God."

Two bonds have come about from this union. The first (imparted by the state) is legal and pertains to legal things. The second (imparted by God Himself) is real and pertains to reality itself. If both spouses are baptized Christians, a real marriage also contains a sacramental bond, which pertains to grace (fuller participation in God's Life). This real bond is the real marriage; the legal bond is called marriage, but it's really just the state's signal that it thinks we're married.

Indissolubility

This real bond between Amanda and I is that for which we vowed. We recognize that nothing can break this bond (not the state, not us, not anyone else). We have been joined by God Himself and “what God has joined, no man can separate” (c.f. Matthew 19:6). We fully recognize that, no matter what happens, we are called to love and honor each other for the rest of our lives. Honoring our vows is a HUGE responsibility. Let’s say, God forbid, something really bad happens to us. No matter what, we still honor those vows. Let me discuss some extreme examples:

1. Major Injury/Disease - Let's say that Amanda were to get into a huge car accident (or developed some majorly debilitating disease) and she was comatose, barely alive and the doctors thought that for the rest of her life, she would be non-responsive. She has a normal life expectancy of at least another 50-60 years. This would mean that probably for the rest of my life, I would no longer have her conscious company and I would not be free to enter into any other relationship. I would still be married to her as long as we are both still living. This would be a great cross to carry for the rest of my life, but that is the vow I made before God and that is the vow I will honor as long as we both shall live. I will live out my role as her husband and pray for her soul that she may be spared the punishment that any sins she may have committed would have earned her. I would offer her soul to God and I would live a life (however lonely) by her side as long as I still breathe. God-willing, one day we will both be glorifying God together in Heaven (though, at that point we would no longer be married--c.f. Matthew 22:30). That would be the truly loving way to live out the vow.
2. Mental Disease - What if Amanda developed some form of mental disorder whereby she either didn't recognize me and was afraid of me or (worse) hated me? Even in this state, I would be called to love her. Even if she were to run/move away, I would be called to love her as my wife, even though she no longer recognized our relationship. I must still recognize our marriage, pray for her return to sanity and her return to me. That may or may not ever happen, but that would be my calling. That is the only way to live out the vow: for better, for worse, 'till death. That would be the proper way to love her.
3. Danger - What if that mental disease caused Amanda to become extremely violent to me and/or any children we may one day have? In this situation, I would be called to love her from a safe distance as long as the real threat of violence perdured. Temporary separation, for one reason or another is allowable. In this instance, it would be justified to have her committed or at least for me (and the kids) to move out during this time. We would still be married, but I would have to love her remotely for both of our sakes and/or any children's sakes. I would pray for her to return to sanity and hopefully she would be led there. The fidelity through such fear and strife is the way to truly love her and live out the vow.
4. Infidelity - This would never happen, but for the sake of illustrating the worst case scenario, allow me to push the envelope. What if Amanda were to be unfaithful to me? Worse, what if this were not an isolated incident: what if she were to run away with another man? She would obviously not be living out her end of the vow, but what would be my responsibility in that instance? I would be called to remain faithful. No matter how unfaithful she might be, I am called to live out my vow. I would be called to pray for her soul, for her conversion, for her return. It may or may not ever happen, but as long as we both should live, we would both be married and I would be called to act as her husband. Even if it has been 20 or 30 years since I had last heard from her, I would still be her husband. Again, it would be an arduously long and lonely road down which I must carry that cross, but I signed up for fidelity through thick or thin. I would still love her and all those years of bearing my burden of loneliness would be my sacrifice for her and for God. That would be my duty. That sacrifice (united to that of Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross) might be what ultimately saves her soul. That would be the way of true love.
5. Forced Separation - I don't know how this would happen, but let's just say that the US was invaded by some foreign country--for humor and proximity, let's use the Canadians. So, the Canadian army sweeps down into America and has a big problem with the Church (let's face it, Canada's government hasn't been to kind to her lately), so they start deporting all Catholic bishops, priests, deacons and teachers and separating them from their families. Even if I were taken into a Canadian concentration camp for the rest of my life, Amanda would be called to remain faithful to me (and I to her). This scenario would leave us both lonely and longing for each other. We would pray and work toward our reunion, and if God allowed it to be, it would be wonderful, but as long as we haven't heard otherwise, we would assume that the other still lives and would live up to our vows. This would be how to truly love each other in that setting.

In each of these scenarios I would be, in some way, left alone, but still married. Even if I were to meet other women, I would be able to have common friendships with them, but never would it be licit for me to even entertain thoughts of relationships with them, for that would be adultery in my heart (c.f. Matthew 5:28). No flirting, no dating, I would have no romantic companionship unless God allowed a change in the situation whereby Amanda could reunite. I would be a lonely married man, but I would still be a married man. The status of our "being married" will never change until one of us dies. My vow is to God, to her, and to our family, no matter how well or how poorly things are going, I must remain faithful (and so must she).

"What about a divorce?" one might ask. In our society of no-fault divorce (more or less on demand), there could easily be a situation whereby spouse #1 is living out the marriage vow while spouse #2 is not, and eventually #2 files for a divorce and receives it. What has happened? How does spouse #1 live this out? If we have a proper understanding of the two bonds in a marriage, we can understand what has happened in the divorce: the state no longer thinks that the couple is married. Does that mean that they're not really married? No. It means that the legal bond has been broken, but the real bond still exists. Does this free the spouses to marry? No, it doesn't. Although the state might consider them legally free to marry other persons, they are still, in reality, bound to each other. The state didn't create marriage and has no real say over what marriage actually is. No matter how hard they try, they will never be able to achieve a different real marriage bond unless the previous spouse has died. Divorce has no effect on the real bond. Knowing that Amanda and I are definitely married, we are comforted by the surety of knowing that nothing can ever take us apart, not even us.

Didn't Jesus say that divorce was okay in certain situations? No, He didn't. He said:

"For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for [porneia], and marries another, commits adultery." [Matthew 19:8-9]

What is this porneia? Is it some sort of exception? Some translate it as "unchastity," "adultery," "concubinage," or "immorality," but none of these really gets the idea of the Greek term porneia. The basic idea of porneia is that it is a situation so perverted that no real marriage could have existed in the first place. These would be relationships that are incestuous, homosexual, etc. In today's reading from Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (5:1-8), he also uses the word porneia. Paul is describing a situation where a man is living with his father's wife. Whether this is his mom or his step-mom, this man is in an incestuous or (at least) quasi-incestuous relationship with a woman who is already married to someone else. Their relationship is obviously not able to be a marriage. Because they are living as thought they are married, that relationship is described as porneia.

A relationship described as porneia would have been one which could never be a valid marriage in the first place. In such cases there is no divorce on the level of reality. There may be a legal divorce to make sure that no legal bond exists between the two, but such a divorce would have no effect on their reality because no real bond ever existed. "What therefore, God has put together . . . " [i.e. when there actually is a real bond] "let not man put asunder" (Matthew 19:6). Not even a divorce can change the real bond of marriage.

What about annulments; aren't they just Catholic divorces? No, an annulment is a statement that the marriage in question was never (at any point) valid. There never was a real bond between the couple. There are many ways in which one might go through a marriage ceremony, but not enter into a valid marriage (i.e. things brought up in my previous post). If someone believes he/she might have been invalidly married, they would bring it to the attention of the marriage tribunal of their local Catholic diocese. This tribunal will spend a great deal of time researching and collecting all the possible data they can on that marriage: interviewing, collecting records, etc. Throughout this entire time, the marriage is presumed to be valid. Through an exhaustive process, the tribunal comes to a decision whether the Church still thinks the marriage is valid. Perhaps there was a secret previous marriage that one partner was concealing; perhaps it was shotgun wedding and the people weren't really able to give their consent to the union; perhaps there was a lack of form; perhaps they were 1st cousins; perhaps there was something else that prevented the couple from entering into a real bond (even if they had been living in what they thought was a marriage for many years). In such cases, the tribunal would make a declaration of nullity (an "annulment"), stating that no real marriage ever actually existed. If an annulment is declared, then the couple is able to know for sure that they are not bound to each other, and that they are free to marry other persons.

Such is the case for my parents. They were married for many years and eventually divorced. Eventually my mom was interested in the possibility of getting married to someone else. Knowing that the Church still believed that she was married to my dad, she brought the case to the tribunal. After a long deliberation, the Church found that there was enough evidence to prove that my parents were only legally married all those years and that no real bond existed between them. Now, if my mom were to meet a good Catholic guy, she knows that she would be free to pursue a relationship with him. Whereas before the declaration of nullity, she would have to presume that her marriage with my dad was valid--all marriages are presumed valid unless proven otherwise. She knows that there is no real bond that unites her to my dad. This might also help to explain why they divorced in the first place--they had no backing: no real bond means no graces from marriage as a sacrament. With no sacramental graces and no real bond, it is much harder to live with each other and remain a solidly married couple.

Indissolubility

Through all of this, the real bond is never broken (if it ever comes into existence, it always remains, until one of them dies). If a couple prepares well for the sacrament of marriage, they can be confident that they have a valid marriage. Amanda and I have such confidence. We know that nothing can take us apart. We know that we will be true to each other through good times and bad, and that no matter how tough things get, we have given ourselves to each other, God has bound us together and we are a family--nothing can change that. This mutual knowledge and respect for our vows, for God and for each other, creates an environment of trust between us. Knowing Amanda's great love for God and knowledge of the covenant into which we have entered, I can rest assured that Amanda won't simply take off tomorrow (or some day down the road). I know that she and I will live out our vows to the best of our ability because we both know full and well just what it is to which we have vowed ourselves--and we are backed up by extra graces because our marriage is not only real, but because we are Christians, it is a sacrament--it instrumentally causes us to have a greater participation in God's Life.

Praise God for marriage! Praise God for His Church and Her sacraments! Praise God for Amanda, who is such an amazing woman! Praise God for our preparation prior to marriage! Finally, praise God for our love and our marriage!

Continuing in love,

- Casey