RonRolheiser,OMI

A Mini Treason

A A A

Thomas Merton once said that what he feared in his own life was not so much a massive betrayal of his vocation, but a series of mini treasons that lead to a different kind of death. And that’s the peril that I fear too, for myself and for our culture.

Sixty years ago Kay Cronin wrote a book entitled, Cross in the Wilderness, chronicling how, in 1847, a small band of Oblate Missionaries of Mary Immaculate came from France to the American Pacific Northwest and, after some bitter setbacks in Washington State and Oregon, moved up the coast into Canada and helped found the Roman Catholic Archdiocese in Vancouver and the Roman Catholic Church in significant parts of British Columbia’s mainland.

She describes these men, no doubt with some over-idealization and hagiography, as tough, totally dedicated, and completely without concern for their own comfort and health. They left their beloved France while still young, knew they would probably never see their loved ones again, and accepted to live constantly in danger both from the harsh elements of their frontier environment and from the threat of death from various Native tribes and various government forces and mercenary soldiers who distrusted them.

They were threatened many times, chased out of various missions, some were kidnapped for periods of time, and a number of their houses and missions were burnt down. They lived perennially on the edge of danger, never secure, never free from threat.

Moreover, they had very little in terms of creature comforts. They lived in log or mud hovels and ate bad food. They had virtually no access to doctors, little access to what might make for good hygiene, and often, while travelling, had to sleep outside without proper shelter from rain and cold, causing many of them to develop rheumatism and other such illnesses at an early age. As well, they were never able to sink roots, to get comfortable at any place, to make the kinds of friends and contacts who could be a comfort and support to them. They had faith in God and each other, and little else.

But they were able to take all of this in stride without undue self-pity or complaint. They wrote positive and idealistic letters to their motherhouse in France and to their families and kept journals in which they expressed mostly joy about their modest successes in the ministry, seldom uttering a complaint about the bad housing, bad food, and instability in their lives.

As an Oblate missionary myself, as a member of the same religious family, I am proud of what these men did, and rightly so. They were selfless to the point of death.

However, that being said, reading their story is also humbling. Looking at their radical sacrifice of all comfort is for me a mirror that I peer into with considerable trepidation and shame. I look at my own life and see far too much in the way of an addiction to comfort and safety. I don’t want what they had: I want healthy food, clean water, proper hygiene, regular rest, access to good doctors, access to news and information, access to travel, regular contact with family and friends, opportunities for retreats and vacations, access to ongoing education, and, not least, I want safety. I want to be a good missionary, but I want to be comfortable and safe.

I take some consolation in the fact that today times are much different than they were when these French missionaries landed in the Pacific Northwest. I couldn’t do the work I do today, at least not for a very long, without proper housing, proper food, proper hygiene, access to education and information, regular rest, and healthy recreational outlets. My life and my ministry are a marathon, not a sprint, and proper self-care is a virtue not a vice.

Still, it’s easy to rationalize and become addicted to comfort and safety. St. Paul, reflecting upon his own missionary life, once wrote that he was comfortable with whatever was dealt to him – much or little. I like to believe that too for my own life; but, and this is true for most of us, the more we live with plenty, the more we tend to protect ourselves inside that cocoon.

As children of our culture, I believe we can easily become addicted to comfort and safety. Once we have grown used to safety, good food, clean water, proper hygiene, access to good doctors and proper medicine, access to constant entertainment, access to instant information, regular connection with our loved ones, boundless educational and recreational opportunities, and wonderful creature comforts of all sorts, the danger looms large that we will not easily, or at all, be able to let go of any of these. Consequently, we can end up as good people, no big betrayals, though no big self-sacrifices either, good but not great, admiring the greatness of others from the comfort and safety of a snug armchair.

Science and Christian Faith – Friends Not Foes

A A A

During most of the two thousand years that Christianity has existed it has not been friends with science, and science has not been friends with it. From the Church condemning Galileo, to the Enlightenment thinkers declaring faith “a spent project,” science and Christian faith have been more foe than friend. Happily, this has changed.

Today Christian theology has been able to not only accept the legitimate findings of science but it has been able to integrate them healthily into a vision of salvation history. As a salient example of this we might look at the theological synthesis given us by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955).

Teilhard was a prominent scientist, a paleontologist recognized internationally for his scientific work. He was also a person of exceptional faith, a mystic, a Jesuit priest, and a gifted spiritual writer.

At the time he was doing his scientific work and writing his first theological treatises, the concept of evolution was still almost universally rejected by all the Christian churches, who saw it as in opposition to the story of creation in Genesis. Indeed, the Roman Catholic authorities forbid Teilhard to publish his theological writings, and for several decades his theological writings were circulated only privately among his Jesuit colleagues. Eventually, with the advent of Vatican II and a general (cultural and religious) softening of resistance to the concept of evolution, Teilhard’s theological treatises were allowed by Church authorities to be published; albeit they still came with a warning label as dogmatically unsafe.

What is that worldview? To my mind, it is one of the great syntheses of science and Christian faith that has yet been written. In essence, what Teilhard did was to take the findings of science, particularly the concept of evolution, and meld it with a Christian vision of salvation history to produce a framework within which to more deeply understand science, the Christian faith, and the place of Christ in history.

In brief, he fused, as a perfect fit, the scientific notion of creation and evolution (what we might today call the Big Bang hypothesis) with a Christian vision of salvation history and the place of Christ in that history.

Here, in brief, is his synthesis: God is love and fifteen billion years ago, God created the universe (ex nihilo) out of love. However, God didn’t create it as a finished product, as described in Genesis, but as a cosmic infant that would evolve and grow through some billions of years to reach maturity.

Biblically, initial creation, as described in Genesis, was a “formless void.” In an evolutionary view, it took more than six days for human beings to appear; it took fourteen to fifteen billion years. And creation unfolded this way: After the initial creation (the Big Bang), God, at the center of everything, began to draw all things to Himself through love, and through billions of years, as creation responded to that invitation, it increased continually in complexity, consciousness, and unity, moving freely in love towards God.

And this went through four stages, always with God at the center, drawing creation into the mystery of love:

First, geology, earth, rocks, and water formed (“Geogenesis”). Second, from these, eventually life comes forth (“Biogenesis”). Third, some millions of years later human beings with self-reflective consciousness and free will emerge (“Noogenesis”). But, for Teilhard, there is still a fourth stage, the coming of Christ (“Christogenesis”).

 For Teilhard the birth of Christ is the penultimate culmination (spiritually and cosmically) of the evolutionary process. The unfolding of evolutionary history eventually brings us Christ, not just as the historical Jesus but also as a cosmic reality. For Teilhard, Christ is both a person and a cosmic structure within the universe which, like the person of Jesus, invites everything (humans, animals, plants, rocks, water) to an “omega point,” namely, to a community of love inside of God.

This might sound complex, but perhaps it can be explained more simply by folding Teilhard’s vision of creation into the early Christian hymn in Ephesians, 1,3-10. Here science and Christian faith (not least about the centrality of Christ) blend seamlessly:

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. … In love hepredestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ … God has given us the wisdom to understand fully the mystery, a plan he was pleased to decree in Christ. A plan to be carried out in Christ, in the fullness of time, to bring all things into one in him, in the heavens and on earth.

Salvation history and evolutionary history both point to the unfolding mystery of how God is bringing all things into unity through Christ. Teilhard wonderfully folded the cosmic history of this planet into the mystery of Christ.

Science and Christian faith are friends, not foes.

A Soul Friend

A A A

One of the saints who speaks to me is Therese of Lisieux, commonly known as the Little Flower. This wasn’t love at first sight. For years I was put off and left cold and uninterested by how her person and her image have become encrusted in an overly saccharine piety. She was too sweet, too pious. Not a saint for me! That changed, thanks to a friend who told me, “Don’t read books about her – read her!” I read her and found in her a soul friend.

Who is Therese of Lisieux? She was a Carmelite nun who died from tuberculous in 1897. She was only twenty-four years old when she died, and as a Carmelite nun hidden away in a convent in rural France, she died in anonymity, probably known by fewer than a hundred people. However, during the last two years of her life, as she lay dying from tuberculous, she kept several diaries. After her death, her Carmelite sisters sent her unpublished diaries to a few other convents, intending to let a small circle of religious women know of her death and a little about her life.

The rest is history. The manuscripts were leaked to a wider public and in less than ten years, printing presses were literally having trouble meeting the demand for her autobiography. Her little convent in Lisieux was receiving more than five hundred letters a day, and people from all over the world were beginning to come to Lisieux on pilgrimage. A hundred and thirty years later, little has changed. She remains extraordinarily popular.

Why? Why this perennial intrigue about Therese? Because there is something about her that touches the soul in a particularly empathic way. How so?

Therese had an anomalous background that produced an extraordinary character. Her life as a child was in many ways tragic. Her mother got sick at the time of Therese’s birth and was unable to care for her during the crucial first year of her life. She was cared for by a nurse and an aunt. As a one-year-old she was returned to her mother, but her mother was already terminally ill and when Therese was four, her mother died. Therese then chose her older sister, Pauline, to be her new mother. Five years later, Pauline entered the convent and as a nine-year-old Therese again lost a mother.

Shortly after this she took ill and almost died. This was triggered by a visit to Pauline who was then a Carmelite nun. Together with her three other sisters and her father, she had gone to visit Pauline in her convent. After Pauline had spent some time focused on her little sister, she naturally became preoccupied in adult conversation. Left out, in sheer frustration, little Therese stood right in front of her big sister and, shaking her dress, began to cry.

“What’s the matter?” asked Pauline. “You didn’t notice!” cried Therese, “I’m wearing the dress you made me!”

She then became disconsolate and on returning home took to bed and for some weeks; despite the best efforts of various doctors and every kind of cajoling by her family, hovered between life and death. Eventually she recovered. Such was the tragedy and oversensitivity of her childhood.

Yet, and this is the great anomaly, as a child, Therese was doted on and loved in a way that few children ever are. Her father, her sisters and her extended family considered her their little queen and she was cherished and made to feel extraordinarily precious and unique. Her sister Celine photographed her every move. Few children ever grow up as nurtured in love and affirmation as did Therese.

And her personality bore out the effects of both the tragedy and the love. On the one side, she could be heavy, dark, withdrawn, and otherworldly. She made easy friends with mortality, was a mystic of darkness, the austere adult, the little girl-woman, who, wounded early, grew up fast. But, on the other side, she always remained the magical child, Cinderella, who, because she was so loved and graced, developed a very robust self-esteem, a confidence and a capacity to love as few others ever have.

So loved as child, a part of her remained ever the little girl, the puella, the incarnation of childlikeness, innocence, and gaiety. Only a Therese of Lisieux could end all her letters with the phrase: I kiss you with my whole heart!

In a soul so formed lies her mystique, that is, her unique combination of depth, insight, and other worldliness, even as she desperately clings to the tiniest gifts from her family and every small token of earthly affection. Only a soul so formed could, at age twenty-two, have the complexity and wisdom to write a mystical and theological treatise that rivals that of great theological doctors, and only a soul so formed could be both a study in hyper-sensitivity and human resilience.

A saint so pathologically complex can be a soul friend to our own complex souls.