RonRolheiser,OMI

Loneliness – Its Ultimate Agony

When I was 22 years old, a seminarian, I was privileged to have a unique kind of desert experience. I sat with my siblings in a palliative care room for several weeks, watching my father die.

My father was young still, sixty-two, and in good health until being struck with pancreatic cancer. He was a man of faith and he brought that to his final struggle. He wasn’t afraid of God, whom he had served all his life, nor of the afterlife, which his faith assured him was to be joy-filled. Yet he couldn’t let go of life easily, struggling almost bitterly at times to surrender. There was a deep sadness inside him, ultimately more soft than bitter, during his last weeks of life. He didn’t want to die.

But his sadness was not rooted in a fear of death, of God, or of the afterlife. His sadness had to do with leaving this world, leaving his wife, his family, his community, his dreams for his retirement years, and with his own enjoyment of life. He was sad at the bitter fact that he was dying while the rest of us and the rest of life were continuing on, without him.

I was reminded of this recently while reading an article in America Magazine by Sidney Callahan within which she shares about her own fear of dying.  Here’s the salient part of her text:

But less severe losses also seep into my fear of dying. Intense sadness arises over giving up one’s part in the ongoing drama of one’s daily life and one’s times. The familiar local round and love of one’s own family and people (including my adored dog) strongly bind us to our specific and beautiful world. To have this story interrupted is a painful prospect when we could go on forever. When your life is a blessed Sabbath banquet given by God here and now, leaving your place at the table can be hard – even for a more glorious celebration. In dying we will inevitably be entering into an unimaginable, novel existence, like a fetus being born. Despite the promised wonders in the world to come, I am afraid I identify with the happy, contented fetus in the warm womb who does not want to come out.

Before dismissing this as an immature or less-than-a-holy feeling, we might want to examine Jesus’ own fear of dying. The Gospels present his agony, his “sweating blood”, as a moral drama rather than as a physical one.  It’s Jesus in his humanity, as lover, who is sweating his death. The Gospels make this clear. In describing his death they highlight his intense loneliness, his isolation, his being “a stone’s throw away from everyone”, and his feeling of abandonment. The pain he expresses in the Garden isn’t fear about impending physical pain, it’s fear about impending abandonment, about his losing his place at the table, about the moral and emotional isolation of dying, of dying alone, of dying misunderstood, of dying as unanimity-minus-one.

It can be helpful to contemplate this for a number of reasons.

First, a deeper understanding of this can help us recognize and deal more openly with some of our own fears about dying. We need to give ourselves permission to be sad at the thought of death. As well, a deeper understanding of this can help us prepare ourselves for the loneliness we will one day all have to face. As Martin Luther put it: You are going to die alone. You had better believe alone.

Next, a deeper understanding of this can save us from making simplistic judgments about how other people deal with death.  Too common is the simplistic belief that if a person has real faith, he or she should be able to let go of life easily and die peacefully. There’s truth in this, but it needs tons of qualification: As Iris Murdoch once wrote:  A common soldier dies without fear, Jesus died afraid!”  Jesus, as the account of his death in the Gospel of Mark makes clear, did not go through the death-process, the process of letting go, serenely. He faced his death with faith and courage, but he also faced it with deep sadness, intense struggle, near bitterness, and seeming darkness at the center of his faith. Healthy people, people who love life, find it hard to give up their place at this world’s tables. Small wonder that Jesus struggled!

Finally, a deeper understanding of this can, paradoxically, help us to enter life more deeply. Jesus tells us that we must lose our lives in order to find them. Among other things, this means accepting that one day we will lose our place at this world’s tables. And that acceptance can give us a deeper appreciation for the tables of family, community, and enjoyment that we sit at now in this specific and beautiful world.

Life and love are precious, on both sides of eternity. Our fear of losing our place inside of them is a healthy, holy fear.

The Catholic Press Loses a Friend

No community should botch its deaths!  Those are the words of the famed anthropologist, Mircea Eliade, and I use them here to introduce a tribute to Otto Herschan, a long-time Catholic publisher, who died on July 12 at the age of 84.

For many years he was the publisher and Managing Director of a number of national Catholic weekly newspapers, including the Catholic Herald in England, the Scottish Catholic Observer in Scotland, and the Irish Catholic in Ireland. He brought an interesting background to Catholic journalism.

He was born in Austria and, at age 10, came to England as refugee with his mother just before World War II. His father, who put his wife and Otto on the Orient Express bound for London just before he died, had been an Austrian army officer and in the first chapters of Otto’s autobiography, Holy Smoke, he describes the trials of Catholicism in Austria as it was passing into Nazi control.

Upon arriving in England, Otto was educated by the Benedictines at their school in Herefordshire, Belmont Abbey.  After graduating, he worked briefly in accountancy and advertising, before enrolling for a college degree, but lack of funds obliged him to leave after a year. Otto then turned his energy to the theater, joining the Boltons Theatre, the best known of London’s theatrical clubs in the 1940s. He worked there in a number of capacities: scene painter, actor of small parts, and eventually as theater manager, becoming at the tender age of 21 the youngest theater manager in London. But financial troubles forced the Boltons Theatre to close in 1950. He then worked for a time in television, helping found the first commercial TV station in England.

This led him back to the theater where, in 1954 at a fundraising event, he met the chairman for the Catholic Herald who invited him to take over the management of the paper. He protested, saying that he knew nothing about running a newspaper and was told in reply:  “That may be a very good start!” He then served as Managing Director of the Catholic Herald for nearly 50 years.

Under his vision and guidance, the Catholic Herald evolved from serving a small, closed constituency within which the purchase of a copy was regarded as an act of piety to become a national and international Catholic weekly that appears on newsstands through the English-speaking world. He recruited talented journalists from the secular press and the Catholic Herald became a feisty and highly sought-after newspaper. As publisher of a number of Catholic newspapers both during and after Vatican II, he was always able to have his newspapers walk that fine tightrope between liberal and conservative ideologies. Invariably his newspapers were considered too liberal for the conservatives and too conservative for the liberals. Not a bad critique.

As a publisher with a very limited budget, Otto was good at spotting talented young  journalists, hiring them to edit his newspapers, and then after a few years giving them his fullest blessing as they moved on to more profitable jobs within the secular press. In this way, he helped launch the career of a number of very good young journalists; but it was a win-win situation for both, the aspiring young editors looking to make a start and for the Catholic press who benefited from their talent. During his years in publishing he also developed life-long friendships with leading church people everywhere, including Archbishop Denis Hurley of South Africa and Cardinal Franz Konig of Vienna.

I first met Otto in 1990, when he recruited me to write a column for his newspapers and, in the twenty years since, I have enjoyed a wonderful friendship with him and his wife, Marie. Despite being humble and approachable, he was always a little larger than life. He brought color into a room. He loved life, loved work, deeply loved his wife, and especially loved long, late-night dinners, stoked by good wine, ecclesial talk, banter, humor, and friendship, capped-off with good cigars. Time stopped during these dinners, a glance at your wristwatch was forbidden, and even though you paid a price for it in tiredness the next day, you knew that, during those hours at table together, you were doing what you are supposed to be doing your whole life, just enjoying friendship, love, food, banter, and holy talk together.  I will always treasure memories of those dinners in Otto’s various clubs, as well as of a couple of all-day drives through the English countryside in mid-summer, car windows wide-open, pipe and cigar smoke wafting about, and Otto’s eyes surveying the landscape, checking it out for its beauty and for the possibility of it containing a pub.

No community should botch its deaths! And so it’s important to highlight that in Otto Herschan’s passing the church and the world lost a true gentleman, a good friend, a man of wit, and man who, like Jesus, tried to draw people of very persuasion together around a common table of friendship and faith. 

God and Sex

Our world thinks it understands sex. It doesn’t.  Moreover it is beginning to ignore and even disdain how Christianity views sexuality.

And we are paying a price for this, mostly without consciously realizing it: Sex, outside of its proper containers, respect, unconditional commitment, and love, isn’t bringing more joy into our lives, but is leaving us more fragmented and lonely.  Part of what’s happening to us is expressed in a haunting line in Leonard Cohen’s song, Famous Blue Raincoat, where a man reminds a friend of the consequences of his having had sex with a woman to whom he was not committed: And you treated some woman to a flake of your life; and when she went home she was nobody’s wife.  Casual sex: A flake of our lives. Frivolously given away.

There’s a lot of sex in culture, but it isn’t taking a lot of people home, home to that place where they feel fully respected, unconditionally safe, able to be themselves, comfortable, and confident that the joy of their love-making is making their hearts bigger, softer, more gracious, more joyous.

With this as a background, I would like to recommend a book, Sex God, by Rob Bell. He is pastor of a Christian church in Michigan and does something in this book that has been often tried, but rarely done well. What he does is take seriously the raw power, brute earthiness, and befuddling complexity of sex and sets that into an anthropological, biblical, and Christian perspective that properly honors both the earthiness and the holiness of sex. Unlike many Christian commentators, he accepts, without denial, denigration, or pious encrustment, our sexual complexity. But, unlike most secular commentators who do accept the full impact of our sexual complexity but then lose sight of its deeper meaning, he marries the earthiness and the holiness of sex into a perspective that is at once both earthy and holy. Here are some examples of his insights:

For too many of us, sex is a search for something we’re missing, a restless quest for an unconditional embrace; and so we go from relationship to relationship, looking for this.  But, as Bell suggests: Sex is not the search for something that’s missing. It’s the expression of something that’s been found. It’s designed to be the overflow, the culmination of something that a man and a woman have found in each other. It’s a celebration of this living, breathing thing that’s happening between the two of them.

In Bell’s view, sex inside of its proper containers (unconditional commitment, respect, love) is designed to counter the brokenness of our lives and the fragmentation of our world. The ‘oneness’ experienced in sexual embrace is meant to help bring ‘oneness’ into the world:  This man and this woman who have given themselves to each other are supposed to give the world a glimpse of hope, a display of what God is like, a bit of echad [oneness] on earth. Is that where the phrase ‘making love’ comes from? An awareness that something mystical happens in sex, that something good and needed is created? Something is added to the world, given to the world. This man and this woman together are in some profoundly mysterious way good for the wellbeing of the whole world.

And Bell is clear on the holiness of sex and how that in fact undergirds its unrelenting grip: In heaven we will be fully known … Which is what people crave in sex, isn’t it? To be known and still loved, still embraced, still accepted. Is sex in its greatest, purest, most joyful and honest expression a glimpse of forever?

Moreover he isn’t starry-eyed and naïve about what the grip of sex can do to us and how it can leave stains of regret on both our innocence and our baptismal robes. He assures us that God knew how powerful sex was going to be and so built in space for some misadventures.  He finishes the book with a story of a dream-marriage of an idealistic couple who, a few years later, break-up: I finish with this story because life is messy. Gut wrenching. Risky. Things don’t always turn out well. Sometimes they don’t turn out at all. Sometimes everything falls apart and we wonder if there’s any point to any of it. We’re tempted to shut ourselves off, fortify the walls of our hearts, and forge ahead, promising ourselves that we will never open ourselves up like this again. But we have to believe that we can recover from anything. I have to believe that God can put anything – anyone – back together. I have to believe that the God Jesus invites us to trust is as good as he says he is. Loving …. Forgiving …. Merciful … Full of grace.

The problem with sex is that the churches don’t take passion seriously enough, while the world doesn’t take chastity seriously enough.  Healthy sex is predicated on the vibrancy of both, passion and chastity, earthiness and holiness. Rob Bell’s book honors that.

The Preciousness and Joy of a Whole Number

Today we don’t attach a lot of symbolism to numbers. A few, mostly superstitious, remnants remain from former ages, such as seeing the number seven as lucky and the number thirteen as unlucky. For the most part, for us, numbers are arbitrary.

This hasn’t always been the case. In biblical times, they attached a lot of meaning to certain numbers. For example, in the bible, the numbers forty, ten, twelve, and one hundred are highly symbolic. The number forty, for instance, speaks of the length of time required before something can come to proper fruition, while the numbers ten, twelve, and one hundred speak of a certain wholeness that is required to properly appropriate grace.

Knowing that the ancients invested special meaning in certain numbers is critical to understanding a very challenging, and neglected, story in the Gospels, namely, the parable of the woman with the ten coins (Luke 15, 8-10). Without grasping the symbolism of the numbers, this parable loses its meaning.

Here is the parable as Scripture gives it: A woman had ten coins and lost one. She became extremely anxious and agitated about the loss and began to search frantically and relentlessly for the lost coin, lighting lamps, looking under tables, and sweeping all the floors in her house. Eventually she found the coin and her joy in finding it matched her agitation in losing it. She was delirious with joy, called together her neighbors to share in her joy, and threw a party whose cost far exceeded the value of the coin she had lost.

Why such anxiety and such joy over the loss a coin and the finding of a coin whose value was that of a dime? The answer lies in the symbolism of numbers: In her culture, nine was not a whole number; ten was a whole number. Both the woman’s anxiety on losing the coin and her joy in finding it have little to do with the value of the coin. They have to do with the value of wholeness. A certain wholeness in her life had been fractured and only by finding the coin could it be restored. In essence, this is the parable:

A woman had ten children and these constituted her family. With nine of them, she had a good relationship, but one of her daughters was alienated from her and from the family. Everyone else came regularly to the family table, but this one daughter did not. The woman couldn’t find rest in that situation; she needed her alienated daughter to rejoin them. She tried every means to reconcile with her daughter and, one day, in a miracle of miracles, it worked.  Her daughter reconciled with her and came back to the family.  The family was whole again, everyone was back at table. The woman was overjoyed, withdrew her modest savings from the bank, and threw a lavish party to celebrate the great grace that her family was whole again.

There’s an important lesson here: Like that woman, we are meant to be anxious, not able to rest, lighting lamps and searching, until our families, churches, and communities are again whole and those who will no longer sit at a table with us are back in the fold. Nine is not a whole number … and neither is the number of those who are normally at our family or Eucharistic tables. We need to be constantly uneasy:  Who is not at table with us? Who no longer goes to church with us? Who feels uncomfortable worshipping with us? Who will no longer join us in a conversation over morality or politics? And, most importantly, are we comfortable with the fact that so many people can no longer join us at our family, Eucharistic, moral, or political tables?

Sadly, today, too many of us are comfortable in families, churches, and communities that are far, far from whole. Sometimes, in our less reflective moments, we even rejoice in it: “Good riddance! Love us or leave us! She wasn’t a real Catholic in any case! His views are so narrow and bigoted it’s just as well he isn’t here! We are better off without that kind! There’s more peace this way! We are a purer, more faithful, family or church because of her absence!”  

But it’s this attitude and lack of healthy solicitude for wholeness that, perhaps more than any other thing, explains the joylessness and hardness that is so evident everywhere today in our families, churches, and political circles. Unlike Jesus, whose heart ached with God’s universal salvific will and who prayed in tears for those “other sheep who are not of this fold”, and unlike the woman who lost one of her coins and would not sleep until every corner of the house was turned upside down in a frantic search for what was lost, we content ourselves with just nine coins, an incomplete set, instead of setting out solicitously in search of that lost wholeness that would again bring us completeness and joy. 

Unconscious Images that Deeply Influence Us

Among all the great stories in the world, the most common, best-known, and perennially intriguing, are those that deal with heroes and heroines. These are stories that describe someone, a man or a woman (though most often a man), who has to journey through danger, suffering, opposition, misunderstanding, and humiliation to achieve some noble goal.

These kinds of stories abound everywhere in classical mythology, scripture, epic novels, and in popular movies. The details of the stories vary enormously, but there is a common pattern in them: For noble reasons, the hero or heroine must descend into some underworld of suffering and endure that suffering, usually in the face of fierce misunderstanding and opposition, so as to eventually emerge victorious, a conqueror, a hero, an object of admiration, and as one who now somehow stands above others because of this achievement. As well, very importantly, in these myths and stories the world is better and somehow saved because of this person’s courage and his or her willingness to endure pain, misunderstanding, isolation, and humiliation.

Most commonly, in these stories, the hero or heroine accomplishes some feat in the world, a victory in war or in sports; but, at a deeper level, many of these stories are meant to be understood as journey inside of one’s own psyche and soul.  Mythically this is expressed as the quest for the “holy grail”, and ultimately the “holy grail” is something found at the end of an inner journey, namely, a rarified human maturity and sanctity.     

In a new book, Nature and the Human Soul, Bill Plotkin reflects on how, today, our understanding of this has become badly distorted; so badly in fact, that, for our culture, the “holy grail” is envisaged as little more than the glory of being a teen-idol.  

Here’s how he puts it: In recent decades, pop culture has diminished the mature form of the hero’s journey by confounding it with an egocentric, adolescent caricature. We’re all too familiar with the Hollywood story in which the valorous ‘hero’ or ‘heroine’ – from John Wayne to James Bond, from Superman to Mighty Mouse, from Batgirl to Bionic Woman – risks his or her life, health, or wealth, whether in sports, combat, espionage, or an impossible mission, in order to save the day, the damsel, or the planet and reap the rewards of personal triumph and acclaim. In this immature rendition of the hero’s journey, the protagonist goes forth to cheat death and becomes a ‘man’ or ‘woman’, or flaunts machismo or machismo, more in the manner of a celebrity icon or teen idol than a mature adult. The adolescent hero returns with a few scratches but is essentially unchanged as a person. Although often entertaining, this is Dungeons and Dragons, not a mature hero’s journey.

Both men’s and women’s paths to genuine maturity are distinct from juvenile, usually masculine, heroism. The mature hero endures a descent to the underworld, undergoes a decisive defeat of the adolescent personality (a psychological death or dismemberment) receives a revelation of his true place in the world, and returns humbly to his people, prepared to be of service to his vision. This is equally true of the mature heroine.

The hero’s journey is meant to transform adolescence into adulthood, to turn someone into an Elder, and this is not necessarily achieved by conquering invading aliens, out-muscling the bad guys, or by winning an Academy Award or a championship trophy. Too often these conquests have the opposite effect of deepening egocentricity and locking one even deeper inside of immaturity by reinforcing the adolescent daydream of being the hero or heroine who is set apart and above.

What is needed to kill the adolescent personality is precisely a defeat or a humiliation that cracks open and exposes the immaturity of our adolescent daydreams within which we are always the superstar, the admired idol, the conquering hero, the one who is brighter and stronger than others, and the one who is somehow immune from sickness, death, and the frailties of ordinary humanity. A true hero’s journey, one that transforms us from unhealthy pride and egocentricity to healthy humility and generativity, will always be a paschal journey within which we, like Jesus, drink the chalice of humiliation, albeit without growing bitter or losing hope. A true hero or heroine often looks a lot more like the humble, gentle, soft-spoken grandmother or grandfather (whose every wrinkle tells a story of work, worry, grief, and tears) than he or she looks like the man or woman who is triumphantly and glamorously hoisting a sports trophy or an Academy award.

Inside our culture today, celebrities are the new saints – and the magazines, television programs, and internet sites that photograph their persons and give us intimate details of their lives are, for large parts of our culture, the spiritual reading for our time. That is what it is, both for good and bad; but we need to realize how deeply we are swayed by these images of adolescence rather than of mature humanity. 

A Sufficient Creed

Several years ago, a friend of mine made a very un-Hollywood type of marriage proposal to his fiancé: He was in his mid-forties and had suffered a number of disillusioning heartbreaks, some of which, by his own admission, were his own fault, the result of feelings shifting unexpectedly on his part. Now, in mid-life, struggling not to be disillusioned and cynical about love and romance, he met a woman whom he deeply respected, much admired, and with whom he felt he would like to build a life. But, unsure of himself, he was humble in his proposal.

This, in essence, was his proposal: I’d like to ask you to marry me, but, I need to put my cards on the table: I don’t pretend to know what love means. There was a time in my life when I thought I did, but I’ve seen my own feelings and the feelings of others shift too often in ways that have made me lose my confidence in my understanding of love. And so, I’ll be honest: I can’t promise that I will always be in love with you. But I can promise that I’ll always be faithful, that I’ll always treat you with respect, that I’ll always do everything in my power to be there for you to help further your own dreams, and that I’ll always be an honest partner in trying to build a life together. I can’t guarantee how I will always feel, but I can promise that I won’t betray you in infidelity!

That’s not exactly the type of marriage proposal we see in our romantic movies and novels, predicated, as they are, on the naïve belief that the passion and excitement we initially experience when we fall in love will remain that way forever. But this is a mature proposal, one that doesn’t naively promise something that’s impossible to deliver.

But, beyond pointing us towards a more mature understanding of love, this is also a rich image for faith and how it works. Faith too, in the end, is more about fidelity in action than about fervor in feelings. Allow me an example:

When I was in the seminary, a classmate of mine set off one summer to make a 30-day retreat. His aim was precisely to try to acquire a more affective faith, one that he would feel with fervor and which would seep warmly through his heart. He suffered from what he self-described, as a “stoic” faith, a gut-sense of God’s reality and love, but one which didn’t translate much into any warm feelings of security about God’s existence and love. By his own admission, he lacked affectivity, fire, emotion, and warmth about his faith. And that’s what he went in search of.

He returned from the retreat still stoic, but changed nonetheless: “I never got what I asked for, “he said, “but I got something else. I learned to accept that my faith might always be stoic, but I learned too that this is okay! I don’t necessarily have to have warm and imaginative feelings about my faith. I don’t need to be full of passion and fire. I only need to be faithful in my actions, to not betray what I believe in. Now faith, for me, means that I need to live my life in charity, respect, patience, chastity, and generosity to others. I just need to do it; I don’t need to feel it.”

Faith and love are too easily identified with warm feelings, passion, fervor, affectivity, and romantic fire. And those feelings are part of the mystery, a part we are meant to embrace and enjoy. But, wonderful as these feelings can be, they are, as experience shows, fragile and ephemeral. Our world can change in 15 seconds because we can fall in or out of love in that time. Passionate and romantic feelings are part of love and faith, but not the deepest part, and not a part over which we have much emotional control.

Hence, unromantic as it is, I like the stoic approach that is expressed in the marriage-proposal of my friend, particularly as it applies to faith. For some of us, faith will never be, other than for short periods of time, something that fires our emotions and fills us with warm fire. We’ve already experienced how ephemeral that fire can be.

Hence, like my colleague with the “stoic” faith, some of us might have to settle for a faith that says to God, others, and ourselves: I can’t guarantee how I will feel on any given day. I can’t promise that I will always have emotional passion about my faith, but I can promise that I’ll always be faithful, that I’ll always act with respect, and I will always do everything in my power, as far as my human weakness allows, to help others’ and God’s cause in this world. I can’t guarantee how I will always feel, but I can live in the firm resolve to never betray what I believe in!

That’s a sufficient creed. 

Some Personal Mini-Creeds

We are all familiar with the Nicene and the Apostles’ creeds, the two great faith-summaries that anchor our faith. Without them, eventually we would drift off the path and lose our way. Creeds anchor us.

But the great creeds are like huge rivers that need smaller tributaries to bring their waters into various places. Thus, we also need mini-creeds, short, pithy truth-statements that anchor us morally and spiritually.  We all, no doubt, have our own favorite mini-creeds.  Here are some of mine:

·       Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic.  Jack Layton, leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, in a letter to the people of Canada, just before dying of cancer.

·       The great challenge is living your wounds through instead of thinking them through. It is better to cry than to worry, better to feel your wounds deeply than to understand them, better to let them enter into your silence than to talk about them. The choice you face constantly is whether you are taking your wounds to your head or your heart. Henri Nouwen, journaling while working through a clinical depression.

·       When something hard happens to you, you have two choices in how to deal with it. You can get bitter, or better. Donald Miller, challenging young people to a higher ethic.

·       When I despair, I remember that all through history, the way of truth and love has always won. There have been murderers and tyrants, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it, always. Mohandas K. Gandhi, asserting his belief in the ultimate triumph of truth and goodness.

·       Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope. Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we must be saved by love. No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as it is from our standpoint. Therefore we must be saved by a final act of love, which is forgiveness. Reinholt Niebuhr, on the complexities of sanctity.

·       This is how we grow: by being defeated decisively by constantly great things.  Rainer Marie Rilke suggesting that a defeat by the other world is better than a victory in this one.

·       Our faith begins at the very point where atheists suppose that it must end. Our faith begins with the bleakness and power of the night of the cross, abandonment, temptation, and doubt about everything that exists. Jurgen Moltmann on the dark night of faith and the cross.

·       There comes a time in one’s life where the question is no longer: What can I still do to remain productive and to make a contribution in this world? Rather the question becomes: How can I live now so that when I die my death will be an optimal blessing for my loved ones, for the church, and for the world? Henri Nouwen on the difference between giving our lives away and giving our deaths away.

·       Don’t be afraid to suffer, give the heaviness back to the weight of the earth; mountains are heavy, seas are heavy. Rainer Marie Rilke writing to a friend grieving the death of a loved one.

·       Love must wait for wounds to heal. It is this waiting that we must do for each other, not with a sense of mercy, or in judgment, but as if forgiveness were a rendezvous. Novelist Anne Michaels on empathy.

·       In this life there is no such thing as a clear-cut pure joy. But this intimate experience in which every bit of life is touched by a bit of death can point us beyond the limits of our existence. Henri Nouwen on how we live now, “mourning and weeping in this valley of tears”.

·       Wake up lovers; it is time to start the journey! We’ve seen enough of this world; it is time to see another. Rumi, suggesting that mostly we are asleep to the other world and to the deeper things of this one.

·       Don’t surrender your loneliness so quickly. Let it cut more deep. Let it ferment and season you as few human or even divine ingredients can. Hafiz, Fourteenth Century, Sufi Mystic poet.

·       To reach satisfaction in all, desire satisfaction in nothing. To come to possess all, desire the possession of nothing. To arrive at being all, desire to be nothing. To come to the knowledge of all, desire the knowledge of nothing. To come to enjoy what you have not, you must go by a way in which you enjoy not. To come to the possession you have not, you must go by a way in which you possess not. To come to what you are not, you must go by a way in which you are not.  John of the Cross on finding life by giving it away.

Christ as Cosmic

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, in one of his dialogues with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, was once asked: “What are you trying to do?” His answer was something to this effect: I’m trying to write a Christology that is large enough to include the full Christ because Christ isn’t just a divine savior sent to save people; Christ is also a structure within the physical universe, a path of salvation for the earth itself.

What is meant by this? How is Christ a structure within physical creation?

Perhaps the most neglected part of our understanding of Christ, though clearly taught in scripture, is the concept that the mystery of Christ is larger than what we see visibly in the life of Jesus and in the life of the historical Christian churches. Christ is already part of physical creation itself and is integral to that creation. We see this expressed, for example, in the Epistle to the Colossians:

Describing the reality of Christ, the author writes: He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation, for in him all things were created in heaven and on earth; everything visible and everything invisible … all things were created through him and for him. He exists before all things and in him all things hold together … (Colossians 1, 15-18)  

As well, in the Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul tells us that just as human persons groan within our mortal limits and ache for immortality, so too does all of physical creation. The earth too longs for salvation. And the mystery of Christ is its path to immortality, just as it is our path to that same end.

The mystery of Christ is wider, deeper, and more encompassing than what can be seen simply within the visible life of Jesus and the visible history of the Christian churches. Granted, what we see visibly in the life of Jesus and the history of the Christian churches is something very precious and very privileged. The Christian churches are (like Mary, the Mother of Jesus) the place where God visibly, concretely, tangibly, and historically enters this world. But, as scripture and Christian theology affirm, the mystery of Christ is more encompassing than what we can see visibly and historically. It also includes what the Epistle to the Colossians teaches, namely, that physical creation itself was somehow created through Christ, that Christ is what holds it together, and that Christ is what gives it an eternal future. The mystery of Christ is not just about saving us, the people on this planet, it is also about saving the planet itself.

Incorporating this into our understanding has huge consequences both in how we understand our planet, earth, and how we understand other religions:

If all things were created through Christ and for Christ, then our planet, earth, and all of physical creation have value in themselves and not just in relation to us. The earth too is God’s child, not self-conscious as we are, but with its own proper rights and right to respect. Simply put, the earth is not just a stage for us to play on. It too is part of the mystery of Christ and the mystery of salvation. We must respect it for its own sake, and not just because our health depends upon its health. The deep roots for any eco-theology lie deeper than in the practical concern for a continued supply of healthy air, water, and food. Nature too is inside the mystery of Christ.

There are huge implications from this for how we view other religions. As Christians we must take seriously Jesus’ teaching that Christ is the (only) way to salvation and that nobody goes to the Father except through Christ. So where does that leave non-Christians and other persons of sincere heart, given that at any given time two-thirds of the world is not relating to the historical Jesus or the Christian churches?

Unless we understand the mystery of Christ as deeper and wider than what we can see visibly and historically, this quandary will invariably lead us to either abandon Jesus’ teaching about being normative or lead us into an exclusivity that goes against God’s universal will for salvation. If, by the mystery of Christ, we mean only the visible Jesus and the visible church, then we are caught in a dilemma with no answer. If, however, by the mystery of Christ, we also mean the mystery of God becoming incarnate inside of physical creation, beginning already in the original creation, continuing there as the soul that binds the whole of physical creation together, and being there as both the energy that lures creation towards its Creator and the consummation of that creation, then all things have to do with Christ, whether they realize it or not, and all authentic worship leads to the Father, whether we can see this or not.

In the words of Kenneth Cragg: It takes a whole world to understand a whole Christ.

Feeding Off Life’s Sacred Fire

See the wise and wicked ones, who feed upon life’s sacred fire. That’s a lyric from a song by Gordon Lightfoot that tries to interpret the struggle going on in the heart of Miguel de Cervantes’ mythical hero, Don Quixote. Goodness separates him from the world, even as he understands that wickedness has the same source.

And there’s perplexing irony in this, both the wise and wicked, saints and sinners, feed off the same, sacred source. The same energy the fuels the dedicated selflessness of the saint who dies for the poor fires the irresponsible acting-out of the movie star who proudly boasts of thousands of sexual conquests.  Both feed off the same energy, which, in the end, is sacred.  Godliness in this world is just used for very different purposes. But it’s easy to misinterpret this.

For example, one of the major criticisms made of religion and the churches is that they too frequently use God to justify every kind of war and violence. We commonly see terrible violence being fueled by faith and religion, as is the case with extreme Islam today. But Christianity is hardly exempt. In the crusades and the inquisition we have our own history of violence in God’s name and there is more violence than we have the courage to admit still being done today by Christians who draw both their motivation and their energy from their faith.  We can protest that, in these cases, the energy is misguided, perverted, or usurped for self-interest, but the point remains the same. It’s still sacred energy, even if it is being perverted.

John Lennon (Imagine) famously suggested that we would move more easily towards love and peace if religion were eliminated (“Nothing to kill or die, and no religion too”). There’s a dangerous naiveté in that, but he’s right in saying that the sacred energy found in religion often works against peace and love in this world. Misguided religious zealots also feed upon life’s sacred fire.

However what this criticism, and many others, do not see is this: Misguided, misused, and perverted religious energy does not witness against God’ existence. The opposite: The very awfulness of its power, its blind grip, its capacity to totally take over someone’s life, and its sick over-confidence, point precisely to its godliness, its awe, its sacredness, and it roots within a reality and energy that dwarfs our own. Sick religion is so powerful precisely because it’s real, not a fantasy. It may be sick, but it’s real. That’s also why religious cults are dangerous. They’re dangerous because they’re real, monstrously so. People often die in cults because the divine fire that its misguided leaders channel is as real as the electricity that burns up a body when someone sticks a knife into high voltage electrical outlet. Religious cults feed upon life’s sacred fire; but tragically they do so without the proper precautions and filters that the great spiritual traditions have taught are necessary in accessing the divine. Cults are naïve to why scripture warns us to approach the divine with care: “No one can see God and live!”

What we see in bad religion is true too in our personal lives. This is sometimes hard to see (and often difficult for religious people to admit) but what’s wild and wicked in the world is also fueled by life’s sacred fire.  Our over-restless energies for creativity, sexuality, achievement, enjoyment, and to know and be known within human community, are often used irresponsibly, excessively, narcissistically, manipulatively, and destructively.  The wild and wicked ones, those with sufficient nerve and insufficient conscience, often simply take what they want from life, without regard for morality or consequence. And thus our world is often driven by wild, powerful, creative, and erotic forces that can look like the very antithesis of sacred energy.

But, again, the very power, seeming irresistibility, and wildness of this energy is not an indication that our sexual and creative energies are secular and devoid of holiness, or, worse still, at odds with what is holy and sacred within us. The opposite is true: Their power and seeming irresistibility lie precisely in their godliness and sacredness. Their fire is so powerful because it is sacred, divine, God’s energy inside of us.

Scripture tells us that we carry within us the image and likeness of God and that this is really our deepest identity and the source of our deepest energies. But we should not picture God’s image within us as some beautiful, Andrei Rublev-like, icon stamped inside our souls. God is fire, holy energy, infinite creativity, infinite freedom, wildness beyond our imaginations, and an energy that is boundless and fuels everything that is, that lives, that breathes, that searches for meaning, that loves.

Sacred fire fuels all of life and infuses everyone, saint and sinner alike. And God has given us the freedom to use it as we choose, wisely or wickedly. We feed on sacred fire and we become a saint or a hedonist, a peacemaker or a warmonger.

A Canopy Under Which to Pray

Do we ever really understand or master prayer?  Yes and no.  When we try to pray, sometimes we walk on water and sometimes we sink like a stone. Sometimes we have a deep sense of God’s reality and sometimes we can’t even imagine that God exists. Sometimes we have deep feelings about God’s goodness and love and sometimes we feel only boredom and distraction. Sometimes our eyes fill with tears and sometimes they wander furtively to our wrist-watches to see how much time we still need to spend in prayer. Sometimes we would like to stay in our prayer-place forever and sometimes we wonder we even showed up. Prayer has a huge ebb and flow.

I remember an incident, years back, where a man came to me for spiritual direction. He had been involved for several years in a Charismatic prayer-group and had experienced there powerful religious emotions. But now, to his surprise, those emotions had disappeared. When he tried to pray, he experienced mostly dryness and boredom. He felt that there was something wrong because his fiery emotions had disappeared. Here’s how he expressed it: “Father, you’ve seen my bible, seen how most every line is highlighted with a bright color because the text spoke so deeply to me. Well, right now, I feel like pitching my bible through a window because none of that means anything to me anymore! What’s wrong with me?”

The quick answer could have been: “God is wrong with you!” I pointed him towards the experience of Theresa of Avila who, after a season of deep fervor in prayer, experienced eighteen years of boredom and dryness. Today, I would have him read the journals of Mother Theresa who, like Theresa of Avila, after some initial fervor in prayer, experienced sixty years of dryness.

We nurse a naïve fantasy both about what constitutes prayer and how we might sustain ourselves in it. And what often lies at the center of this misguided notion is the belief that prayer is always meant to be full of fervor, interesting, warm, carrying spiritual insight, and carrying the sense that we are actually praying. Coupled with this notion is the equally misguided notion that the way to sustain feeling and fervor in prayer is through constant novelty and variety or through dogged concentration. Classical writers in spirituality assure us that, while this is often true during the early stages of our prayer lives, when we are neophytes at prayer and in the honeymoon stage of our spiritual lives, it is becomes less and less true the deeper we advance in prayer and spirituality.

Much to the relief and consolation of anyone who has tried to sustain a prayer life over a long period of time, the great mystics tell us that once we are beyond the early, honeymoon, stage of prayer, the single greatest obstacle to sustaining a life of prayer is simple boredom and the sense that nothing meaningful is happening. But that doesn’t mean that we are regressing in prayer. It often means the opposite.

Here’s a canopy under which to pray even as we struggle with boredom and the sense that nothing meaningful is happening: Imagine you have an aged mother who is confined to a retirement home. You’re the dutiful daughter or son and, every night after work, for one hour, you stop and spend time with her, helping her with her evening meal, sharing the events of the day, and simply being with her as her daughter or son. I doubt that, save for a rare occasion, you will have many deeply emotive or even interesting conversations with her. On the surface your visits will seem mostly routine, dry, and dutiful. Most days you will be talking about trivial, everyday, things and you will be sneaking the occasional glance at the clock to see when your hour with her will be over. However, if you persevere in these regular visits with her, month after month, year after year, among everyone in the whole world you will grow to know your mother the most deeply and she will grow to you know you most deeply because, as the mystics affirm, at a certain deep level of relationship the real connection between us takes place below the surface of our conversations. We begin to know each other through simple presence.

You can recognize this in its opposite: Notice how your mother relates to your siblings who visit her only very occasionally. During those rare, occasional visits there will be emotions, tears, and conversations beyond the weather and the trivia of everyday life. But that’s because your mother sees these others so rarely.

Prayer is the same.  If we pray only occasionally, we might well experience some pretty deep emotions in our prayer. However, if we pray faithfully every day, year in and year out, we can expect little excitement, lots of boredom, regular temptations to look at the clock during prayer … but, a very deep, growing bond with our God.

On Not Bracketing the Essentials during our Moral Battles

Today, both within society and the churches, we are finding it ever more difficult to resolve our differences because our conversations are shot-through with non-civility, name-calling, character-assassination, and disrespect.

What’s particularly worrying is that we are doing this in the name of truth, cause, the gospel, and Jesus. We are giving ourselves permission to hate, demonize, and disrespect each other in God’s name. Our cause seems so important to us that, consciously or unconsciously, we give ourselves permission to bracket some of the essentials of Christian charity, namely, respect, graciousness, love, and forgiveness.

This is wrong: No cause allows me to exempt myself from fundamental charity, even if I see myself as a “warrior for truth”. There is a gospel imperative to fight for truth and ultimately we all need to be prophets who fight for what is right; but even war has its ethics. Even in war (perhaps especially in war) disrespect may never be rationalized on the basis of claiming that God is on our side. Indeed, if God is on our side we should radiating respect for others.

Respect, graciousness, love, and forgiveness are non-negotiable essentials within Christian charity. They are also part and parcel of all that’s noble within humanity. Whenever we step outside of these, as we often do today in our discourse with those who are not of our political or ecclesial mindset, we should not delude ourselves into thinking that the high cause we think we are serving justifies this fundamental lapse in our humanity and charity. Whenever our words or our actions show disrespect we are not serving Jesus or truth, no matter how high the canopy under which we put our reasoning. Rather we are serving some ideology or, worse still, working out some personal angers and pathologies.

Some years ago at a theological college at which I was teaching we had a student who was so obsessed with defending Catholic orthodoxy that he became such a negative presence in every classroom that none of the faculty wanted to teach a class within which he was enrolled. Eventually the situation became so intolerable that the faculty, after considerable and pained discernment, asked the dean of the faculty to ask him to leave the college. Immediately after his expulsion he wrote a letter to his bishop complaining that our college had expelled him because he “was too conservative and too orthodox” to fit into our ethos. He copied the dean with the letter. The dean wrote his own letter to the young man’s bishop, telling the bishop that the college had asked him to leave, not because he was too conservative and orthodox … but because he lacked basic courtesy and respect for others.

The example here is one of a conservative pathology, but liberals do this just as well. Neither side should delude itself: Whenever we lack basic respect and basic manners the real issue is never orthodoxy or cause, but bad health.

We live in bitter, highly-polarized, times both inside of society and inside of our churches. The causes are real and what’s at stake is critical: war, injustice, abortion, poverty, the ecology, racism, immigration, multi-culturalism, the economy, democratic principles, law and order, freedom of speech, proper authority, proper dogma, proper ecumenism, legitimacy within ministry, Christians relating to other religions, and the proper freedoms and limitations within secularity itself. All of these are, in the end, life and death issues which, precisely because of their importance, are invariably emotionally-inflamed. Anyone who has any real concern for the world and the church and their future will sometimes find himself or herself at odds with others, sometimes bitterly so, over some of these issues.

And the perennial temptation, especially when the issue at stake is critical one, is to bracket the essentials (respect, graciousness, love, and forgiveness) on the basis of cause and, in essence, fall into a way of thinking that says: This issue is so important that I need not be respectful, gracious, and loving. I may demonize my opponent, assassinate his character, name-call, and use everything in my power, perhaps even violence, to have my truth win out. Because I am right and this is so important, I can bracket basic respect!

What’s wrong with that? Beyond deluding ourselves that lack of charity and respect may be justified in the name of the gospel, all that’s best within our humanity and all that’s best within Christian principle call for the exact opposite: The urgency of a situation and the bitterness already inherent within it call for more, not less, care in our rhetoric and in the actions we undertake. The more we encounter anger, hatred, disrespect, demonizing, name-calling, refusals for real a conversation, and spoken and unspoken threats, the more we are called to bear-down on the essentials of charity: respect, graciousness, forgiveness, openness, and the offer of a true, mutual conversation. Why? Because in the end, we don’t win moral battles by beating someone, we win them by winning someone over.

A Prophetic Mantra about the Poor

Nobody gets to heaven without a letter of reference from the poor! That’s a quote attributed to James Forbes, an interdenominational pastor in New York City, and it wonderfully captures something that the ancient prophets of Israel underlined many centuries ago.

The great prophets of Israel had coined this mantra: The quality of your faith will be judged by the quality of justice in the land. And the quality of justice in the land will always be judged by how “widows, orphans, and strangers” are faring while you are alive. That phrase, “widows, orphans, and strangers”, was code for the three weakest, most-vulnerable, groups in society at the time. For the great prophets of Israel, ultimately we will be judged religiously and morally on the basis of how the poorest of the poor fared while we were alive.

 That’s a scary thought which becomes scarier when we see how Jesus strongly endorsed that view. While this needs to be contextualized within Jesus’ message as a whole, we have in Matthew’s Gospel the famous text about the Last Judgment where Jesus tells us that, at the end of day, when we stand before the great King on the day of judgment, we will be asked only one set of questions and they all will have to do with how we treated the poor: Did you feed the hungry? Give drink to the thirsty? Welcome the stranger? Clothe the naked? Visit the sick? Visit prisoners?  I doubt that any of us would have the raw courage to preach this, just as it is written in the gospels, from any pulpit today.  And yet Jesus meant it. Nobody gets to heaven without a letter of reference from the poor.

Now there’s a whole series of challenges in this.

First: The demand to live lives that reflect justice and real concern for the poor is an integral and non-negotiable part of Christian discipleship. It’s not something that is grounded in some particular ideology which I can buy into or neglect, as long as I am living honestly and prayerfully in my private life. It’s an essential part of the gospel, equal in demand to praying, going to church, and keeping my private moral-life in order. For a Christian, it is not enough just to be pious, good, and church-going. We need too a concrete letter of reference from the poor.

Next: What that mantra of the prophets and Jesus’ teaching on the Last Judgment also teaches is that charity alone is not enough. Charity is a great virtue, integrally part of the greatest virtue of all, love. It may never be downplayed. But charity isn’t necessarily justice. I can be a wonderfully charitable, kind, moral, and generous person in my own life and still be unfairly profiting from an historical, social, political, and economic system that is unduly rewarding me even as it is unfairly burdening and robbing others. The things that I attain honestly through my own hard work and which I am very generous with in terms of sharing with others, can at the same time be the product of a system which is unfair to others. Taking care of “widows, orphans, and strangers” requires not just personal goodness and charity, but requires too that I have the courage to look at how my honest wealth may also be partially the product of a dishonest system. Who loses while I gain?

Finally: The mantra of the prophets and the teachings of Jesus about the Last Judgment should be a challenge to perennially scrutinize myself with the question: Am I actually reaching out to the poor? Do I have real “orphans, widows, and strangers” in my life? Is my commitment to the poor something only in theory, an ideal that I uphold but something that never actually impacts the poor? It is easy to pay lip-service to this ideal and it is even easier to write it into my curriculum vitae so that I look good to others and feel good about myself. However, as Ruth Burrows asks: Does our rhetoric about the poor actually help them or does it just help us feel better about ourselves?

I concede that these are not easy questions and we should be slow to answer them. Sometimes all we can do is admit our helplessness. I was once at a talk given by Gustavo Gutierrez where, after the presentation, a man stood up and, with pained honesty, shared about his own helplessness in reaching out to the poor: What can one person do in the face of all the global issues of injustice that beset us?

Gutierrez acknowledged the complexity of the question and sympathized with the man’s helplessness, but then added: “Minimally, make sure that you always have at least one concrete poor person in your life to who you are specially attending. This will ensure that your commitment will always at least have some concrete flesh!”

A single letter of reference from the poor is better than no letter at all.

Struggling to Understand Suicide

Recently a friend attended the funeral of a man who had taken his own life. At the end of the service the deceased man’s brother spoke to the congregation. After highlighting his brother’s generosity and sensitivity and sharing some anecdotes that helped celebrate his life he went on to say something about the manner of his death. Here, in effect, are his words:

When someone is stricken with cancer, one of three things can happen: Sometimes doctors can treat the disease and, in essence, cure it. Sometimes the medical professionals cannot cure the disease but can control it enough so that the person suffering from cancer can live with the disease for the rest of his or her life. Sometimes, however, the cancer is of a kind that cannot be treated. All the medicine and treatments in the world are powerless and the person dies.

Certain kinds of emotional depression work the same way: Sometimes they can be treated so that, in effect, the person is cured. Sometimes they cannot ever really be cured, but they can be treated in such a way that the person can live with the disease for his or her whole life. And sometimes, just as with certain kinds of cancer, the disease is untreatable, unstoppable, no intervention by anyone or anything can halt its advance. Eventually it kills the person and there is nothing anyone can do. My brother’s depression was of that kind, the terminal kind.

This can be helpful, I believe, for any of us who have suffered the loss of a loved one to suicide. All death unsettles us, but suicide leaves us with a very particular series of emotional, moral, and religious scars. It brings with it an ache, a chaos, a darkness, and a stigma that has to be experienced to be believed. Sometimes we deny it, but it’s always there, irrespective of our religious and moral beliefs. Indeed, as part of its darkness and stigma, suicide not only takes our loved ones away from us, it also takes away our true memory of them. The gift that they brought into our lives is now no longer celebrated. We never again speak with pride about their lives. Their pictures come off the wall, photos of them get buried deep inside drawers that we never open again, their names are less and less mentioned in conversation, and of the manner of their death we rarely speak. Suicide takes our loved ones away from us in more ways than we sometimes admit.

And there is no easy answer for how to reverse that, though a better understanding of suicide can be a start.

Not all suicides are of the same kind. Some suicides come about because the person is too arrogant and too hard-of-heart to want to live in this world. But that, I submit, is the exception not the norm. Most suicides, certainly all the cases that I have known, come about for the opposite reason, namely, the person is too bruised and over-sensitive to have the resiliency needed to continue to cope with life. In these cases, and that is the vast majority of suicides, the cause of death can pretty accurately be termed as cancer, emotional cancer. Just as with physical cancer, the person dying of suicide is taken out of this life against his or her will. Death by suicide is the emotional equivalent of cancer, a stroke, or a heart attack. Thus, its patterns are the same as those of cancer, strokes, and heart attacks. Death can happen suddenly or it can be the end-product of a long struggle that slowly wears a person down. Either way, it’s involuntary.

As human beings we are neither pure angels nor pure animals, but are always both body and soul, one psycho-somatic whole. And either part can break down.

This can be helpful in understanding suicide, though a better understanding will not necessarily mean that the darkness and stigma that surround it will simply go away. We will still feel many of the same things we felt before in the face of suicide: We will still feel awful. We will still feel conflicted and be given over to guilt-feelings and second-guessing. We will still feel uneasy about how this person died and will still feel a certain dis-ease in talking about the manner of his or her death. We will still feel a certain hesitancy in celebrating that person’s life in the manner we would have had the death been by natural causes. We will still go to our own graves with a black hole in our hearts. The pain of a suicide leaves its own indelible mark on the soul.

But at a different level of understanding something  else will break through that will help us better deal with all those conflicted feelings, namely, empathy for and understanding of someone whose emotional immune system has broken down. And that understanding will also bring with it the concomitant consolation that God’s empathy and understanding far exceeds our own.

A New Challenge

When I began writing this column, I shared that occasionally I would do a column that was more exclusively about my personal life. I have tried to limit myself in that and, in the 28 years I have been writing this column, have probably done less than ten pieces whose main focus was my own life. When I have done so, it was almost always to share with readers a major transition in my life.

This column is one of those personal pieces. My personal life is again undergoing a major transition, though this one does not concern a move to a new job or to a new city. It has to do with my health:

In early May I went for a routine colonoscopy and the doctor discovered a cancerous tumor in my colon. The good news was that it was discovered relatively early, before there were symptoms. They scheduled me for surgery in early June and removed the affected area, along with a series of lymph nodes. The operation, while pretty invasive, went well, but some of the lymph nodes had already been affected, meaning that the cancer was not necessarily fully contained in the tumor. I have recovered very well from the surgery, though this took some weeks. An oncologist advised me that prudence dictates that there be a follow-up treatment to the surgery, namely, six months of chemotherapy. He also assured me that the long-term prognosis is good, but that, as with all cancer, nothing is really sure until it’s sure. A cure is most likely, but not assured.  I start the chemotherapy treatments in early August and will be facing a certain desert-experience for the next six months.

This is not a plea for sympathy. I share this with you because one shares this with one’s family and you are my family of readers. I will appreciate your prayers, even as I trust you not to deluge me with emails, cards, and letters. What we give to each other inside the mystical body of faith, family, and friendship, need not be announced to be effective.

Where am I with all of this?

Initially, especially before the surgery and subsequent scans revealed more precisely the limit of the cancer, there was understandably a good amount of fear and paranoia. One’s thoughts and fears aren’t easy to control when one’s next visit to the doctor might mean a death-sentence. Eventually though, and not just because the long-term prognosis now appears quite positive, I have begun to find a deep peace within all of this. I trust in God and know that I am in safe hands, irrespective of whatever happens. I also trust the medical professionals with whom I have been dealing. They have been marvelously competent and infinitely gentle. What a grace for us all, the skill of doctors!

But that peace of soul is also predicated on a number of realizations that were only abstract theories for me before this illness. Some things are infinitely more real to me now: I now know existentially that life is fragile, that health is precious, and that it’s to be appreciated rather than taken for granted. I know too existentially that we cannot safeguard our own lives, no matter how carefully we try. Faith and hope are flooding into my life as never before.

So too is love. Family and friends are mostly taken for granted when we are young and strong and under the illusion that death is not really a reality for us. We realize how deep a grace family and friendship are only when we are fully attuned to our own vulnerability; mostly, too, it only then that we actually allow others to love us. 

And there are other deep lessons in this for me: I have been driving my engines hard for a long time, dodging bullets as I overwork and am over-extended. So many times in the past years, in a trance of overwork, I promised God that I would slow my life down, just as soon as this particular task was finished. Indeed, often, explicitly in prayer, I asked God to let me do this slowdown willfully, and not have some health breakdown force it on me.  Like the young Augustine, I was praying: “Slow me down, but not yet!”  My cancer diagnosis is finally doing for me what I couldn’t do for myself. My prayer now is: Let me receive this gracefully, and as a grace!

One last lesson: Should I land on my feet, healthy and my old self again after the chemotherapy, I hope to have the strength to not return to my old life, grateful to have dodged a bullet and ready for business as usual. Instead, like the one leper who returned to give thanks to Jesus rather than going back to normal living, I am praying that the grace of this visitation will be the alchemy I have long needed to make me turn instead habitually in gratitude towards Jesus and towards the present moment.

Things Hidden from the Learned and the Clever

I’ve lived and worked within academic circles for most of my adult life, studying in various universities, teaching within university circles, and having university professors as close friends and colleagues. What’s that world like? What kind of folks inhabit academic circles?

Perhaps my experience is atypical because most of the scholars under whom I studied and most of the theologians and other scholars who have been my colleagues became professors and university lecturers in function of ministry, as a vocation, rather than as a career.  Thus, instead of struggling with faith and church, they were driven to become academics in function of their faith and church commitments. In some ways, professors in theology schools and schools of ministry aren’t typical of academic circles.

But an academic is an academic and graduate and post-graduate studies, whatever the motivation for doing them, have some of the same effect on people. And so I suspect that the circles I have been part of, in the end, are more typical than atypical. And what is typical?

 Academics, scholars, and university professors, like any segment of society, are a complex mix: In university circles you will find some of the most humble, gracious, faith-filled, and genuinely good people you will ever meet; just as you will also find some of the most arrogant, self-absorbed, amoral, and cynical people in the world. The academic world looks like the rest of the world.

Given that truth, I have long been haunted by a saying of Jesus that, often times, the deep secrets of life and of faith are hidden from the learned and the clever and revealed instead to children, to those of a less-complex mind.  I don’t doubt the truth of this; I wonder why.

Why? Clearly intelligence and learning are good things. Intelligence is the gift from God that sets us apart from animals and access to learning is a precious right given us by God. Indeed, ignorance and lack of education are things every healthy society and every healthy individual strive to overcome.  Scripture praises both wisdom and intelligence and the health of any church is partly predicated on having a vigorous intellectual stream within it. Every time in history that the church has let popular piety, however sincere, trump sound theology it has paid a high price. The Reformation arose out of just that and one of the first things that the Council of Trent mandated for Roman Catholics was that its priests be better trained intellectually.

Intelligence and learning are good things. God did not give us intelligence and then ask us not to use it. Naiveté is not a virtue and should never be confused with innocence. So why is being “intelligent and clever” something that can work against our understanding of the deeper secrets within life and faith?

The fault is not with intelligence and learning, both good things in themselves, but in what they can inadvertently do to us. Intelligence and learning often have the unintended effect of undermining what’s childlike in us, that is, the very strength that they bring into our lives can allow us to unconsciously claim a superiority and have us believe that, given our intelligence, we have both the need and the right to isolate ourselves from others in ways that the natural neediness of children does not permit them to do. Children are not self-sufficient even though they fiercely want to be. They need others and they know it. Consequently they more naturally reach out and take someone’s hand. They don’t have the luxury of self-sufficiency.

When we are “learned and the clever” we can more easily forget that we need others and consequently don’t as naturally reach for another’s hand as does a child. It’s easier for us to isolate ourselves. When we are less aware of our contingency we more easily lose sight of the things to which God and life are inviting us. The very strength that intelligence and learning bring into our lives can instill in us a false sense of self-sufficiency that can make us want to separate ourselves in unhealthy ways from others and understand ourselves as superior In some way.  And superiority never enters a room alone, but always brings along a number of her children: arrogance, disdain, boredom, cynicism. All of these are occupational hazards for the “learned and the clever” and none of these helps unlock any of life’s deep secrets.

But we must be careful not to misread the lesson. Faith does not ask us to not stretch our minds. Neither ignorance nor naiveté serve faith. Faith not only doesn’t fear the hard questions it invites us to ask them. The depths of infinity are never threatened by finite intelligence. And so it’s never a bad thing to become learned and sophisticated; it’s only a bad thing is we remain there. The task is to become post-sophisticated, that is, to remain full of intelligence and learning even as we put on again to the mindset of a child.

The Internal Battle for our Souls

Two contraries cannot co-exist inside the same subject. Aristotle wrote that and it seems to say the obvious, something can’t be light and dark at the same time.

However, in terms of what’s happening inside our souls it seems that contraries can indeed co-exist inside the same subject. At any given moment, inside us, we are a mixture of light and darkness, sincerity and hypocrisy, selflessness and selfishness, virtue and vice, grace and sin, saint and sinner. As Henri Nouwen used to say: We want to be great saints, but we also don’t want to miss out on all the sensations that sinners experience. And so our lives aren’t simple.

We live with both light and darkness side us and for long periods of time, it seems, contraries do co-exist inside us.  Our souls are a battleground where selflessness and selfishness, virtue and sin, vie for dominance. But eventually one or the other will begin to dominate and work at weeding out the other. That’s why John of the Cross picks up this philosophical axiom and uses it to teach a key lesson about coming to purity of heart and purity of intention in our lives. Because contraries cannot co-exist inside us, there’s something vital we need to do. What?

We need to pray regularly. Contraries cannot co-exist in us so if we sustain genuine prayer in our lives eventually sincerity will weed out insincerity, selflessness will weed out selfishness, and grace will weed out sin. If we sustain genuine prayer we will never, long-term, fall into moral rationalization. If we sustain genuine prayer in our lives we will never grow so blind to our own sin that we will begin to have morally exempt areas in our lives. Being faithful to prayer will ensure that we will never, long-range, live double lives because what prayer brings into our lives, a genuine presence of God, will not peacefully co-exist with selfishness, sin, rationalization, self-delusion, and hypocrisy.  Simply put, at some point in our lives, we will either stop praying or stop our bad behavior. We won’t be able to live with both.  Our biggest danger then is to stop praying.

And this advice is eminently practical: We cannot always control how we feel about things. We cannot always control how we will be tempted. And none of us has the strength to never fall into sin. Our incapacity to fully actualize ourselves morally leaves us always short of full sanctity. There are things beyond us.

But there is something that we can control, something beyond the wild horses of emotion and temptation. We are beset by many things, but we can willfully, deliberately, with discipline and resolve, show up regularly to pray. We can make private prayer a regular discipline in our lives.  We can commit ourselves to the habit of private prayer. And, if we do that, irrespective of the fact that we will have to work through long periods of dryness and boredom, eventually what that prayer brings into our lives will weed out our bad habits, rationalization, and sins. Two contraries cannot co-exist inside the same subject. Eventually we will either stop praying or we will give up our sin and rationalization. Nobody can be praying genuinely on a regular basis and be blind to his or her own sinfulness.

Our task then is to sustain private prayer as a habit in our lives, even if we have neither the insight nor the courage to see and address all the double-standards and moral blind-spots in our lives. What comes into our lives through prayer, often more imperceptible than visible, will eventually weed out (“cauterize”, in John of the Cross’ words) both our sin and our rationalizations about it.

This is akin to what Ronald Knox once taught about the Eucharist. For him, the Eucharist is the singular, vital, sustaining ritual within Christian life. Why? Because Knox believed that, as Christians, we have never really lived up to what Christ asked of us. We have never really loved our enemies, turned the other cheek, blessed those who cursed us, lived fully just lives, or forgiven those who hurt us.  But we have been, he submits, faithful to Christ in one major way: We have been faithful in celebrating the Eucharist, to that one command.

Just before he left us, Jesus gave us the Eucharist and asked us to continue celebrating it until he returned. For two thousand years, awaiting that return, we’ve been faithful in doing that, no matter how unfaithful we have been in other ways.  We have continued to celebrate the Eucharist and, in the end, more than anything else, that has been the one thing that has called us back, again and again, to fidelity.

The habit of private prayer will do the same thing for us. Since two contraries cannot co-exist inside the same subject, eventually either we will stop praying or we will stop sinning and rationalizing. The greatest moral danger in our lives is that we stop praying!