Sunday Reflection: Crazy words

"I am the Bread sent down from Heaven." "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have eternal life."

Jesus, are you nuts?

The words of the Bread of Life discourse, as read throughout August, are really very odd. Let's see. If I eat this guy's flesh and drink his blood...is this some kind of metaphor? Some kind of sick joke? Some kind of intellectual puzzle that I need to figure out?

What does it mean to rip off a chunk of this guy's arm, or leg, or whatever, and eat it? And drink his blood? We're not supposed to drink blood, because it has the life in it that only God can give or take. Am I supposed to break the most fundamental taboos of my culture, because this guy says so? Maybe he's crazy. Sure sounds crazy.

But Jesus (and the Father) are self-emptiers, kenotics, if you will. They give until nothing is left. But there's never nothing left. The loaves and fishes replenishing themselves with food left over for all. The barrels or wine provided from jars of water. The signs of bringing healing out of nowhere. Surely, these are signs of an inexhaustible supply of provident love.

If I eat this man's flesh and drink his blood, there will be nothing left of him. Or will there? If I eat the bread and drink the wine--which he says are his body and blood--will I have consumed him completely? If I eat and there are leftovers in abundance, what does that mean?

Might it mean that I have enough to give? Might it mean that what I get is more than I need, and plenty to share? If I am nourished, can I nourish others with the overabundance? If I am strengthened, does not my strength return with enough to strengthen others>? If I am healed, does not my healing begin to heal others?

I am the Bread of Life. A little goes a long way. The God who gives so abundantly and without reservation. He gives in order to strengthen and to heal the world through us. We have more than we need to bring God's love to all the world. Should we hoard this nourishment? Or must we also empty ourselves, trusting that the larder will always be replenished?

Share in the eternal moment which is not constrained by the laws of entropy or of supply and demand. In which the pantry is filled by being emptied. In which the self is saved by being poured out. In which the soul lives by giving itself to service and suffering and death.

PopeWatch: B16 softening on divorce?

With B16 following so closely (slavishly, I might add) in JP2's footsteps, one might not have expected to see much change in the way things are done in the RC kingdom. But perhaps former Cardinal Ratzinger has a heart after all. I quote an article from American Chronicle, to let you make up your own mind.

Is B16 contemplating big changes? Or is just going to nibble around the edges of a scandalous separation of Catholics from the Eucharist that was instituted to sustain them, espcially in the wake of a failed marriage?

Pope Benedict's approach to divorce
Roland Flamini
August 16, 2005
Can things be looking up for divorced Catholics who re-marry? The late Pope John Paul II's approach to the problem was tough and uncompromising. Catholics who entered into a civil marriage following a divorce were in a state of "moral disorder, opposed to the precise requirements deriving from the faith," the pope declared in 1997. As such they were barred from taking Holy Communion.

But recent remarks on the issue by Pope Benedict XVI seemed like a small, flickering candle of hope that the old hard line on this problem was softening.

...In Italy's Aosta Valley, where he was vacationing last month, the pope discussed divorce at a closed-doors meeting with 140 local priests. Asked about administering to divorced Catholics who had re-married, the pope delivered one of those complex replies that have become familiar. Where Pope John Paul seemed to regard their situation with severity, Benedict XVI's response reflected compassion.

"I would say," -- he began, citing a specific situation -- "that a particularly painful situation is that of those who were married in the church, but were not really believers and did so just for tradition, and then finding themselves in a new, non-valid marriage, convert and find the faith only to feel excluded from the sacrament." He said he had thought, based on discussions in the past with several bishops, that the original church marriage could be considered invalid because the couple marrying had not believed it in the sacrament in the first place. But he added, "From the discussions we had I understood that the problem was very difficult, but given the suffering of these individuals, it needs to be studied further."

He said divorced Catholics who had re-married should go to Mass (something not explicitly mentioned by his predecessor) even if they could not receive communion. The Eucharist (Mass) without receiving communion is incomplete, "an essential element is missing," the pope said, "but it is not nothing."

He said the situation in the Orthodox Church was sometimes mentioned as a model because divorced members of the Orthodox Christian denomination were allowed to re-marry and to receive communion. "But only the first marriage was sacramental," he told the gathering. "Even (the Orthodox Church) acknowledges that subsequent marriages are not Sacraments, but marriages of a lesser kind." Such marriages were allowed at the discretion of the clergy to prevent a couple from continuing to live outside wedlock.

What gives his remarks extra significance is the fact that improving relations with the Orthodox Church is one issue where Pope Benedict XVI has picked up where his predecessor left off. The conversation with the clergy was also typical of his emerging personal style -- learned, complex, and at the same time forthright.

In the News: I let no woman teach

From CNN:

WATERTOWN, New York (AP) -- The minister of a church that dismissed a female Sunday School teacher after adopting what it called a literal interpretation of the Bible says a woman can perform any job -- outside of the church.

The First Baptist Church dismissed Mary Lambert on August 9 with a letter explaining that the church had adopted an interpretation that prohibits women from teaching men. She had taught there for 54 years.

The good pastor based his decision on 1 Timothy 12, which reads, in part:

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet.

It's getting really irritating to have pastors quote this epistle out of context and only in part. Just a couple of verses before that one is this, from 1 Timothy 9:

...women should adorn themselves with proper conduct, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hairstyles and gold ornaments, or pearls, or expensive clothes...

But when's the last time you heard a pastor rant about beauty parlors, jewelry and nice clothes? Watch a televangelist lately? See many ladies in jeans and sweatshirts?

If pastors can ignore one but of Paul's advice, why not the other? Seems to me that if they are being faithful to the scriptures, they could at least be consistent. But no. It's easier to enforce scripture that backs up one's own prejudices than to apply it evenly and tick people off.

It's the same problem with Leviticus. No one wants to enforce death for adulterers (Leviticus 20:10), but everyone wants to enforce death for gays (Leviticus 18:22).

Tell you what. As soon as we start executing those who sleep with others' spouses, we can start killing homosexuals.

Sunday Reflection: Immaturity

I'll focus on the first reading today, since it features a character, Wisdom, who is unusual in several respects. Firstly, Wisdom (Sophia in Greek) is a female character from the Old Testament. That makes her interesting enough. Also she is an allegorical one. Thirdly, she is closely related to the principle which John writes about in his Gospel -- the Word made Flesh. In fact, this closeness of identification has promted Christian theologians and scholars to relate, if not equate the two.

In the first reading from Proverbs, we see Wisdom inviting the simple into her abode:

Wisdom has built her house,
she has set up her seven columns;
she has dressed her meat, mixed her wine,
yes, she has spread her table.
She has sent out her maidens; she calls
from the heights out over the city:
“Let whoever is simple turn in here;
To the one who lacks understanding, she says,
Come, eat of my food,
and drink of the wine I have mixed!
Forsake foolishness that you may live;
advance in the way of understanding.”

This hearty invitation echoes the ways of another woman of Proverbs -- the prostitute (see Proverbs 6) who also entices the simple, but into sin, and nothing more:

And I saw among the simple ones, I observed among the young men, a youth with no sense,
Going along the street near the corner, then walking in the direction of her house--
In the twilight, at dusk of day, at the time of the dark of night.

It's difficult not to contrast these two women and the worldviews they represent. Both entice the simple, but only one feeds them. Both invite, but only one fulfills.

What role does the prostitute play? Yes, she is the one who tempts the weak to indulge in sins of the flesh. But Wisdom’s does not condemn the simple for being sinful. She invites them to put away immaturity. What about the way of the prostitute is immature? Viewed literally, the prostitute invites men to share in pleasure without the concomitant responsibility. Men can enjoy her body without having to do the hard work of establishing a relationship with her. Their pleasure comes at little cost to themselves. They are encouraged not to think of the prostitute as a person, but as a pleasing collection of body parts. She can feign interest in them and claim to be impressed by their virility, but there’s nothing real there. If they are really dull, being with the prostitute does not require them to face their dullness. If they are unattractive, being with her allows them to pretend to be handsome. The men who frequent the prostitute play a game that allows them to hide from themselves. They choose to keep in the dark about their shortcomings.

No wonder she works “in the twilight, in the disk of the day”!

Wisdom, on the other hand is all light. Her house is prominent and her call is public. There is nothing hidden about her. In contrast to the prostitute who keeps the immature from growing, Wisdom seeks to change the simple into the wise. She seeks to advance them in the way of understanding. She seeks to move her charges from the way they have lived into new and more fruitful ways.

Unlike the prostitute, who offers the same weary sensation time after time, Wisdom calls us to a banquet that is ever varying and ever changing. The feast she offers is one that takes in experiences far beyond the familiar and the commonplace. She offers to introduce us to the whole world, made also in God's image, populated by his people, at a table that stretches from east to west and from north to south. The experience of all people is her menu. And the wisdom of the world is at her disposal. Come, taste the wonder that lives in the lives of your neighbors. Learn of their ways, dance their dance and share in the banquet of their lives. Take a step outside of yourself, not to indulge in immature pleasures that last but a moment, but to deepen your love and appreciation of those you hardly know.

Do we find ourselves in the immature rut of doing that is repetitive, dull or leaves us empty? Or do we find ourselves in an equally foolish habit of following every new fad and forbidden act? Either way, we have become customers of the prostitute’s lure toward the merely carnal.

The way of Wisdom is of a banquet that fulfills. It is not necessarily a popular eatery or a cheap one either. But it changes us, stretches us and brings us new ways to see ourselves, our neighbors and our Maker. Wisdom calls from the parapets in the full light of day. Will we heed her call, or prefer the slinking shadows that lead us toward the futile repetition of past pleasures. Will we find ourselves advancing in the ways of Wisdom, or as Edna St. Vincent Millay wrote, will we find that “Life isn't one damn thing after another. It's the same damn thing again and again.”

Sunday Reflection: Bread of Life

August has rolled around again, and with it comes readings about bread. Today, we are treated to Elijah in the wilderness, contrasted with the "Bread of Life" discourse from John's gospel.

Elijah the prophet is on the run from Queen Jezebel. The story comes quick on the heels of Elijah's great success on Mount Carmel, in which he bested 450 prophets of Baal by being the one on whose sacrifice fire rained from heaven. Not one to leave any job unfinished, Elijah ordered that his opponents be caught and executed. Now, Jezebel swears to do to Elijah what he did to her prophets. Elijah flees to the desert, leaving his servants partway, and continuing alone. His hysteria and panic have caught up to him. He is alone in a place where survival is an iffy prospect in the best of times. Now that he is being hunted by the entire army, he is about to give up, and prays for God -- the author of his life -- to take that life away.

Rather than to grant his wish, God sends Elijah a messenger, or angel, in a dream. The angel twice rouses the prophet and feeds him bread and water -- enough to sustain Elijah on a long journey to Mount Horeb, where he will encounter God. But that's a reading for another Sunday.

Elijah has been no shrinking violet. He has confronted the powerful, and is paying the price for telling them the truth. Though exhausted, hungry and despairing, he receives the strength he needs to take him to the next step in his journey.

In the gospel reading, John uses a favorite literary device that puts a discourse into Jesus mouth that Our Lord probably never uttered, but which contains deep truths about him and his identity. Jesus tells us that he is the bread that came down from heaven, and that those who eat this bread will never die. The manna or bread that nourished the Israelites after their escape from Egypt was meant only to save their bodies, and it did its work for the forty years that Israel wandered the desert. But the bread that Jesus gives is his own flesh, whose effect is not the survival of the body, but eternal life.

The parallels with the Elijah story are many, and they are quite beautiful. Elijah is strengthened in adversity by bread that comes from God's own messenger. Sustained by this bread, he is enabled to travel to his destination in Horeb, where God awaits to reveal himself. Jesus gives us his flesh as bread, nourishing us on our own journey, whose destination is also an encounter with God.

We Catholics tend to simultaneously overvalue and undervalue the Eucharist, which is the continuation of John’s insight into the nature of the bread given by Christ. We overvalue it by fetishizing it, becoming paranoid about its precise ingredients and valuing the ability of the communion host to break without creating particles. But we also undervalue it, taking for granted its power in our lives to transform us and to nourish us on our way. How many of us choose not to receive on Sunday? Or to take daily Mass as a standard and unremarkable facet of our day? Are we, as Saint Paul asks, eating worthily of the bread, becoming cognizant of the gift that Christ gives us? Or do we consider the Eucharist as a spiritual gas station, making the reception oft he gift of the Eucharist into little more than a business transaction?

Christ, who sees deeply into our hearts, knows the limitations of our worship. Always ready to forgive and to teach, he continues to accompany us on our journey of faith. May we return the favor of his gift by pondering it closely in our hearts, by asking for this nourishing bread to transform our hearts and make us more capable to reach our heavenly destination. May this bread that we eat, in Saint Paul's words, heal the bitterness, fury, anger, shouting, reviling and malice from our hearts, revealing the compassion and forgiveness that our in our grasp, and in the model of our Savior. Amen.

Explainer: Sex and the OTUB model

OK. I'm not going to be cute or flu off on tangents. In this entry, I am going to give you the key to Catholic teaching about sexuality. The key is in what I called the "OTUB" model of sexuality. It is vital that every Catholic know about the model. Why? Because it explains the sometimes bizarre teachings about sexuality that hit the news every once in awhile. And the model's elegance explains why it's so hard for the Church to give it up.

Some questions.

Why is the Church against using condoms to fight AIDS? OTUB.

Why is the Church against gay marriage? OTUB.

Why does the Church oppose birth control methods (like tubal ligation and vasectomy) that do not involve destroying a fertilized egg? OTUB.

So what is OTUB?

OTUB will not be found in any catechism or in any single church document. It can be inferred, however, by viewing the trajectory of teachings that emerge from the Church. Glimpses of OTUB can be found in various church documents, such as John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae. By reading enough church documents, it is possible to detect all the pieces of the puzzle.

It then requires only some wise and discerning invididuals (by which we mean ourselves, naturally) to put them together. Thank you. Thank you very much.

OTUB, the basic model from which all Church teaching on sexuality emerges, boils down to this:
1) The only valid form of sex is penis-vagina sex
2) All sexual acts must take place in the context of marriage
3) All sexual acts must at least be open to the possibility of procreation

Got it? So where does OTUB come from? Well, except for one, the letters themselves do not stand for anything. They are visually representations of the the components of sexuality described above.

The "O" stands for the marital context within which sex takes place.
The "T" and the "U" represent the union of the male and female sexual organs. Sorry, ick!
The "B" (for "baby") represent the openness of the sex act to children.

As I said, everything you need to know about the Catholic approach to sex is in this model. Shall I demonstrate?

Homosexual sex: violates the penis/vagina rule. It also violates the procreation rule, since homosexual sex cannot produce children.

Oral and anal sex: violates the penis/vagina rule -- even for married people! They also violate the procreative rule, for obvious reasons.

Hormonal birth control, tubal ligation and vasectomy: all violate the "open to procreation rule -- again, even for married people!!!

In vitro fertilization: aside from the issue of the destruction of embryos, there is another problem. Since fertilization occurs outside the body, this violates the penis/vagina rule.

By applying the OTUB model, can you figure out why surrogate motherhood and masturbation might be problems?

So that's the OTUB model. The next time you hear a bishop or pope or cardinal talk about sex, see if I'm right. Does the model fit? Does it help to explain the goobledygook you are hearing? Does it now make sense that bishops discuss the emotional, social or physical costs of sexuality only as secondary considerations?

The OTUB model is both a problem and an opportunity for Catholics. A problem because it embroils the Church unnecessarily in ridiculous arguments about sexuality -- arguments that distract it from more pressing concerns. It explains why conservative Catholics rank masturbation as high on the list of sexual sins as abortion and adultery. How can one, maintain some ultra-conervatives, validly differentiate between violations of OTUB? Are not all violations equally heinous?

So where's the opportunity? It lies in the fact that once they know about OTUB, Catholics will realize the source of their Church's problems with sexuality. It's not, as many think, that the Church has a problem with sex. This is the big-family Church, remember? It's that the Church has made OTUB its Golden Calf and dances around it at every opportunity. What the Church needs is another model -- one that recognizes that love is the fundmental determinant of Christian life, that love sacred in all of its forms, that stable relationships are integral to the growth of the partners and the raising of children, that the decision to procreate belongs (to some degree) to the parents, and that the planet is in danger of overconsuming its God-created resources.

After all, even God stopped creating after six days.

Sunday Reflection: My Son, the Beloved

This Sunday's readings focus on the Transfiguration. the gospel reading gives us Mark's version of the story, while the second reading, from 2Peter, makes Peter's claim to have been among "eyewitnesses of his majesty" when they accompanied him on the "holy mountain." The first reading ties in as well, giving us a picture of a fire-enthroned Ancient One giving to "one like a Son of man" "dominion, glory, and kingship" over "all peoples, nations, and languages."

The clarity of a message of the royal majesty of Christ is not easy to miss. But more than mere glory, Christ is given the title of "Beloved Son" with whom the Father is "well pleased." The accustomed paternal air of sanction is rather dull to Christian ears, but is unmistakable. God is pleased with Jesus. But why?

The last lines of the gospel reading tell us. "As they were coming down from the mountain, he charged them not to relate what they had seen to anyone, except when the Son of Man had risen from the dead." The majesty of the moment would only make sense in context of the Resurrection. And that would be obtained only be enduring the Cross.

Most poignantly, we are told of a manner of torment that was worse than anything Rome could device: "So they kept the matter to themselves, questioning what rising from the dead meant." Having been granted access to the divine dimension of glory, the three witnesses to the Transfiguration were given a key that could open no door that they knew of, but that would be held onto, almost forgotten, through suffering, defeat, humiliation and despair. It was a key that would one unlock mysteries as yet unfathomable. For only after the Resurrection -- when "rising from the dead" meant something: the heavenly manifestation of the Beloved Son, acclaimed from the highest reaches of Heaven -- would make perfect sense.

We walk in darkness, doubt and fear in so many ways. We sometimes walk alone, misunderstood and lonely. We ache for those nearest to us to reach out, to share our troubles, just to listen. Often, we are disappointed in what our families, friends and communities can do for us. We make the lonely walk through illness and death with no one to provide even a touch or a word that will soothe our anguished souls.

The mystery of the Transfiguration shows that Christ, too, walked the lonely road of despair. Even after a revelation of his divinity, he faced the daunting task of continued obedience to the Father, even unto the Cross. Our lives our troubled sometimes and we feel alone. May we, also beloved sons and daughters of the Father, learn to walk the path of Christ, encouraged that in spite of the sorrows of the present, we will rise to new life. Amen
_____________________________________________________________________________
Image from http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Father-and-Son-Posters_i411005_.htm

Book Review: By Their Works

You would be forgiven if this book's subtitle - Profiles of Men of Faith Who Made a Difference - made you think of William Lloyd Garrison, Martin Luther King, Jr. or Mohandas Gandhi. But this book is only about the Roman Catholic men of the Knights of Columbus, or "KofC." Covering the period from the organization's founding in 1882 to the present day, the book profiles 60 men whom the author feels exemplifies the Knights' mission of charity and patriotic values. The reader might be surprised to learn that notables such as Babe Ruth, John Kennedy and Vince Lombardi were in the KofC.

Unfortunately, the short profiles are superficial and uneven. JFK and the Babe might have been Knights, but it's hard to see their membership reflected in their work. Side by side with martyrs and presidents are stories of quite modest men. The profiled men earned their place in the book by selling lots of KofC life insurance, having a military job of calling the families of soldiers wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq, or by dying in the World Trade Center collapse on 9/11. Each man, great and small, is shaped into a paragon of virtue and piety.

What made the book disappointing is that the backbone of the KofC is made up of humble and ordinary men who make relatively modest contributions to their communities. The book should have ignored the chancery, the Oval Office and the history books to focused on yard sales and Tootsie Roll drives. Telling the stories of these fallible flesh-and-blood men, as opposed to the plastic variety, would have been a better testament to the value of this organization.

In the News: Mad Mel strikes again

Mel Gibson really put his foot in it this week. After being pulled over for driving drunk, he inexplicably let fly with an anti-Semitic torrent of abuse.

Accoding to CNN,

Gibson, the director of 1995's Oscar-winning "Braveheart" and 2004's controversial "The Passion of the Christ," was picked up by Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies early Friday with a blood-alcohol level of 0.12 percent, the department said. California's legal limit is 0.08.

During his arrest, Gibson asked the arresting deputy whether he was a Jew and said, "F---ing Jews. The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world," according to a sheriff's report obtained by the entertainment Web site TMZ.com.

Bad enough. But by way of apology, Mel offered this baffler:

"I am in the process of understanding where those vicious words came from during that drunken display, and I am asking the Jewish community, whom I have personally offended, to help me on my journey through recovery," the statement continued.

Ah. So Mel seems baffled by the source of his anti-Semitic remarks. Where, oh where, did these vile words come from? Well, Mel, words spoken in anger (especially words unprovoked by the circumstances) are usually signs of highly-charged emotions just beneath the surface. An event unleashes a verbal expression that pretty accurately reflects what the person is thinking or feeling. Humor works the same way. When people "joke" with you about the same issue, there's usually a concealed message included, like a brick inside a cushion.

So, Mel, where could your ridiculous tirade have originated? Could it be from your membership in a right-wing fringe version of the Catholic Church that rejects every Church teaching since Vatican II? That would including the landmark 1965 document -- Nostra Aetate -- that put an end to official Church persecution of Jews. Could it be that your father denies the Holocaust, and you have refused to refute his stand?

Or is your dentist named Goldstein? What?

Mel's anti-Semitism is a sad by-product of his hateful community -- both family and Church. Neither based in reality or experience, it informs his artistic work (The Passion of the Christ in particular), his general thick-headedness and his drunken tirades. It's unfortunate that his association with a breakaway sect of the Roman Catholic Church impugns the rest of us. Sadly most people think he's a hyper-pious RC, when he's becoming a plain old nutjob.

Mel needs a shrink and a catechist, and the order doesn't matter.