RonRolheiser,OMI

What is Purgatory?

A A A

Most Christian denominations do not believe in purgatory. This is specifically a Roman Catholic belief. And in the popular Catholic mind, purgatory is too often mistakenly conceived of as a place distinct from heaven, a place where you are purified and made ready for heaven.

But purgatory is not a place distinct from heaven and hell. Protestants and Evangelicals are right in pointing out that scripture attests that there are only two states after death, heaven and hell. So how can Roman Catholics postulate a third state, purgatory?

Because purgatory is not a geography, a place distinct from heaven, it’s the pain of being purified by love and the pain of giving up the illusion of self-sufficiency.

Here’s an example of each.

Several years ago, I was counselling a young man who was experiencing an intense pain which was new to him. He had fallen in love with a wonderful young woman and was preparing to marry her. Prior to meeting her, he had been living irresponsibly, been sexually promiscuous, and had been comfortably smug and insensitive in that state. The woman he had fallen in love with was aware of his past but was not throwing this into his face. The opposite. She was loving and forgiving him unconditionally.

 But there was the rub! Being in love with this wonderfully good, generous, and moral person made him see himself in a clearer way. Her love was a prism through which he began to see his own immaturity (which is what unconditional love always does). Her love was a light that gave him new eyesight and what he saw inside himself (his selfishness, his irresponsibility, his smugness) caused him a lot of pain. To his credit, he sought help – confession, spiritual direction, psychological counselling.

Her loving him, purely and unconditionally, caused him the deepest pains he had ever endured. It was his first taste of purgatory.

Here’s a second example: A number of years ago, I attended the funeral of a man who died at the age of ninety. From every indication, he had been a good man, solidly religious, the father of a large family, a man respected in the community, and a man with a generous heart. However, he had also been a strong man, a gifted man, a natural leader, someone to whom a group would naturally look to take the reins and lead. Hence, he held a number of prominent positions in the community. He was a man very much in charge.

One of his sons, a Catholic priest, gave the homily at his funeral. He began with these words: Scripture tells us that the sum of a man’s life is seventy years, eighty for those who are strong. Now our dad lived for ninety years. Why the extra twenty years? Well, it’s no mystery. He was too strong and too much in charge of things to die at seventy or eighty. It took God an extra twenty years to mellow him. And it worked. The last ten years of his life were years of massive diminishment. His wife died, and he never got over that. He had a stroke which put him into assisted living and that was a massive blow to him. Then he spent the last years of his life with others having to help him take care of his basic bodily needs. For a man like him, that was humbling. But it mellowed him.

In those last years, whenever you visited him, he would take your hand and say, “help me.” He hadn’t been able to say those words since he was five years old and able to tie his own shoelaces. By the time he died, he was ready. When he met Jesus and Saint Peter on the other side, I’m sure he simply reached for a hand and said, “help me.”

That’s a parable that speaks deeply and directly about a place we must all eventually come to, either through proactive choice or by submission to circumstance. We all must eventually come to a place where we accept that we are not self-sufficient, that we need help, that we need others, that we need community, that we need grace, that we need God – and the pain we experience in giving up our illusion of self-sufficiency is the pain of purgatory.

Purgatory is not a place, a geography separate from heaven. It’s the pain, metaphorically, of having the grain of wheat fall into the ground and die to come to a new fruitfulness. And it’s the lot of everyone and everything that’s mortal, not just of Roman Catholics.

When we die, unless we have so totally hardened our hearts to reject the embrace of unconditional love itself, God embraces us – fully, affectionately, passionately, and unconditionally. Inside that embrace, to the extent that we are not yet fully saints, we will, like the two men whose story I shared, experience some purgative pain.

Paradoxically, in the ecstasy of embrace comes the agony of purification.

Unfinished Business and the Communion of Saints

A A A

When I was growing up, as part of our family prayer we used to pray for a happy death. In my young mind, I had a certain conception of what that might look like. A happy death would be to die inside of grace, warmly cradled in the loving arms of family and church, fully at peace with God and others, having had time to speak some final words of love and gratitude.

Unfortunately, not everyone gets to die that way.

Accidents, unfortunate circumstances, and the complexity of human relationships sometimes conspire in nefarious ways so that people die in less-than-ideal situations: angry, compromised, unforgiving, bitter, immature, unreconciled.

Sometimes too the very cause of death speaks of a less-than-happy parting: drunkenness, an overdose of drugs, depression, recklessness, suicide. Death often catches people before they have had the chance to say and do things that make for a peaceful farewell. Invariably there’s unfinished business.

We all know examples of this: A man dead in an accident whose last words to his family were ones of anger; a woman dead of an overdose who hasn’t talked to her family in years; a colleague dead by his own hand; a friend who dies bitter, unable to forgive; or even simply the loved one who’s taken away by a sudden heart attack before he or she has had the chance to speak some last words of love and farewell. Rarely do people die without any unfinished business.

The pain of this can linger for a long time. I remember once counselling a man in his fifties who still carried pain and guilt from his mother’s death more than forty years previous. He had been taken to his mother’s bedside in the hospital; but was unaware that she was dying. She had asked him to give her a hug and he, a child, frightened and reticent in this tense situation, had backed away. The next day she died so his last memory of his mother was his refusal to hug her. Forty years later and he still hadn’t made peace with that.

Many of us have had people close to us die with whom we had unfinished business, a hurt never reconciled, an injustice never rectified, a bitterness that never softened. Death has now separated us, and the unfinished business remains precisely unfinished and we are left saying: “If only there was another chance!”

Well, there is another chance. One of our most consoling (albeit neglected) Christian doctrines is our belief in the Communion of the Saints. It’s a doctrine enshrined in the Apostle’s Creed itself and it asks us to believe that we are still in vital communication with those who have died. Moreover, it tells us that the communication we now have with them is free from many of the tensions that colored our relationship with them while they were alive.

Hence, to believe in the Communion of Saints is to believe that we can still tend to unfinished business in our relationships, even after death. Simply put, we can still talk to those who have died, and we can, even now, say the words of love, forgiveness, gratitude, and regret that ideally should have been spoken earlier. Indeed, inside the Communion of Saints the reconciliation that eluded us while that person was alive can now more easily take place. Why?

Because inside the Communion of Saints our communication with the one deceased is privileged. Death washes clean. It clarifies perspective and takes away a lot of relational tensions. Why do I say this? Because both faith and experience teach us this.

For example, all of us have experienced situations where, inside of a family, a friendship circle, a community, or a group of colleagues, a bitter tension with an individual can arise and fester so that eventually there’s an unresolvable rift. Things have happened that can no longer be undone. Then the one who has been at the source of the tenson dies and his or her death changes everything. In a strange way the death brings with it a peace, a clarity, and an understanding which, prior to it, were not possible.

Why is this? It’s not simply because the death has changed the chemistry of the group or because, as we may simplistically conclude, the source of the tension or bitterness has died. It happens because, as Luke teaches in his Passion narrative, death can wash things clean and release forgiveness in the same way as Jesus forgave the good thief upon the cross as he died.

This should be an immense consolation. If we are attentive to the Communion of Saints, what we can’t bring to wholeness and peace in this life can be completed afterwards. We still have communication, privileged communication, with our loved ones after death.

Among the marvels of that is the fact that we still have a chance to fix the things, after death, that we were powerless to mend before death took a loved one away.

Our Sometimes Stingy Hearts

A A A

John Muir once asked, “Why are Christians so reluctant to let animals into their stingy heaven?”

The same might be said of us as churches: why are we so reluctant sometimes to welcome others into God’s mercy and to our communion tables?

We certainly can’t use Jesus as our model in doing this. Looking at the Gospels, there is never a recorded incident where Jesus laid down some moral or religious condition to sit down at table with him.

Our model is rather the well-meaning disciples of Jesus, who, like us, tried to protect Jesus by sheltering him from various groups, including little children. But always in the face of this we hear Jesus saying clearly: Let them come me! Small wonder he sent his disciples away so he could have a meeting with the Samaritan woman who had been married five times.

What I am about to suggest is a risk since, admittedly, the issue of intercommunion is more complex than can be resolved simply by saying Jesus welcomed everyone (even as we may never ignore that).

Regarding the question of intercommunion: There is wide agreement theologically that baptism gives you access to the communion table. As Christian denominations, we recognize the validity each other’s baptisms. So why can’t any Christian go to any Christian church and be welcome at the communion table?

Because each denomination is its own family – and normally families eat at their own tables. Normally you go to your own denominational family for communion. But this is a pastoral consideration not a theological one.

However, occasionally we do eat at someone else’s home and table. Most mainline theologies of the Eucharist draw on this distinction and distinguish between “Occasional” intercommunion (funerals, weddings, faith gatherings) and “Regular” intercommunion. The former makes sense pastorally, the latter doesn’t. You only eat regularly at someone else’s table if you are a member of the family or household.

Given that pastoral concern, churches have had varied norms, ranging from wide welcome to strict exclusion, depending on how their leadership accesses the situation. For example, in the Roman Catholic Church, throughout the nineteen sixties and seventies, Roman Catholics generally welcomed others to receive communion on special occasions. Then, during the nineteen eighties and nineties, more and more, those presiding the Eucharist on those occasions were asked not to publicly invite those from other churches to receive communion. Further, after the year 2000, those presiding the Eucharist were asked to publicly disinvite those from other churches from receiving communion. More recently, there has been a growing shift back to a more welcoming stance.

What’s to be said about this shift back and forth? First, that this is a pastoral rather than a theological issue, and pastorally it can be argued legitimately in different ways. Where there is common agreement is that everyone wants the various Christian Churches to someday be one family with one communion table for all. The disagreement is on how to get there.

Some believe and argue that having to “fast” from intercommunion will make us hungrier to become one Church and will help motivate us to work more proactively for ecumenism. Others disagree and argue that being more welcoming about intercommunion will motivate us to work proactively for ecumenism. Who’s right?

There’s a logic in both arguments, but I confess that my heart lies with the latter group. In my experience, excluding each other from the Eucharist table tends to harden rather than soften our divisions, just as welcoming each other at the Eucharist table tends to soften the suspicions of each other we have nursed for the last five hundred years since the Reformation.

As well, I disagree with the belief and argument that any one church (in my case the Roman Catholic Church) is the only fully authentic expression of Church and that other denominations somehow lack authentic discipleship and therefore we would in some way cheapen the Eucharist and the real presence by allowing non-Roman Catholics to receive it at our communion table.

Here, like the well-meaning but mistaken disciples of Jesus, we are trying to protect Jesus from persons we feel are somehow not ready to have this encounter and intimacy with him. We need to remember that Jesus always met this with the words: Let them come to me! Jesus doesn’t need nor want our protection.

Moreover, the love, mercy, and embrace of God which Jesus incarnated and preached, was the antithesis of stingy. It was wide, inviting, and embracing of everyone universally. God has no favorites, except that everyone of us is God’s particular favorite. God is not a private or tribal deity, owned and controlled by any one faith, religion, denomination, or Church.

This is not to say that all faiths, religions, and Churches are equal and all the boundaries that separate them should be erased. No. But it is to say that we must not be so reluctant to incorporate others in our stingy understanding of Jesus’ universal embrace.