Deacon Dan Wright

Epiphany: the revolutionary light

The beginning of the year is a time traditionally to have resolve for the coming year. This seems to be even truer for the beginning of a new decade. Typically we reflect on the past, and perhaps on ways that we have been sidetracked and we make our resolve to make a difference or to do things differently.

While Epiphany celebrates the coming of the promised messiah and the visit of the Magi, it also speaks to us in the here and now and offers us opportunity to state our resolve in a way that goes beyond our personal or individual lives. Epiphany invites us to be a part of a future that is unlike anything that has been before. To make Epiphany happen in all of its promised splendor means that the inhabitants of the Earth join together in such a way that our actions are nothing less than foundation-shaking and even revolutionary. It sounds like quite a task, even one that might be impossible without something or someone to lead the way.

Epiphany celebrates the rising of a new star that shines a great light into the world. It is a light that is to illuminate every path; to show the way forward toward a future for generations upon generations ahead. While the prophecy of Isaiah in today’s first reading tells of the “wealth of the nations” being brought before Jerusalem, we recognize that the historic reality surrounding the birth of Jesus tells a different story altogether. It is the story of one who comes not to be glorified among the princes of the world, not one who is to celebrate wealth and political power, but rather one among the poor who brings reparation to the downtrodden.

Looking closely at the lectionary readings for today the idea of world power figures prominently. Epiphany challenges set notions concerning the ruling class and the dominant political and economic structures of the world. Does the light serve to glorify the power of wealth and kings or does it show a different way? Undoubtedly the invitation lies before us to change the structures of how things in our world work. We are to put ourselves into the workings of the world in such a way that we stand for the common good of our fellow people and put the future of the planet ahead of the concerns of amassing wealth, profit, and power.

An interesting question has to do with how we are to participate in rebuilding the world, in bringing reparation and planetary healing. It’s nothing less than sharing or participating in the salvific mission that we understand as a partnership, a duty, and an ethical obligation. In times past such participation may have taken on a much different theological understanding or approach, but part of what we always need is to interpret faith according to the demands of the times in which we live. Without such ongoing reinterpretation and engagement there is the threat of the loss of relevance. 

Surely our resolve comes into play as we look for ways to be partners in revealing justice to the world, as we look to making justice, and here we should read justice as reparation and restoration for the poor, the homeless, the marginal and struggling. Resolve requires courage if we are to change the world for the better, to light the world with the hope of lasting peace. 

Changing the world begins with changing ourselves individually. It requires that we see a bigger picture of where we live, what is important, and who is among our family. We move beyond being concerned about our personal interests alone. Rather, the resolve to have courage, to build a better world, means standing with others, as partners and co-workers with whom we share a common vision. 

Recent world events show clearly that we live in times when peace is threatened. Kings and demagogues make their ungodly play for power. We live in times where children cry out as the prophetic voice but the world fails to hear them. This new year the new decade offers the opportunity to follow a rising star, one that lights the way of peace and hope for all. Yet the question of who will find the courage to follow it remains to be answered.

On Tolerance

For some time I have considered writing a piece—even something brief—on tolerance. Tolerance seems to me to be something that goes along with Christian values in such a way that I wouldn’t necessarily expect it to be challenged. However, I don’t have to look far to find opposition. It seems that there’s not much tolerance for tolerance these days.

When I get an idea to write about something it typically comes from one of several sources. Often actual encounters—say, conversations with my family—are the source of inspiration. Generally I find my kids to be fairly tolerant people, though at times they’ll surprise me. Sometimes they cause me to wonder if there is a climate of intolerance overall, but with them it tends to be something as simple as not being able to tolerate the tastes in music of others.

At other times I get my inspiration from something I’ve seen in the news, but cases of intolerance that find their way into the news tend to be severe. Most recently I’ve been able to get ideas—at least for this post—from what I see people post on various forms of social media and blogs, and once in a while something from a friend on Facebook. Unfortunately in the attitudes of ordinary people I sometimes find a good bit of intolerance and occasionally it’s even directed at the notion of being tolerant itself.

When I see someone say something like, “I’m going to go ahead and say this even though I know the tolerance police are not far away” then I know the best thing to do might be to skip it, but I rarely do this. They hook me; I read what they have to say, and I rarely come away feeling like the world is becoming a more open-minded place.

The fact is that tolerance isn’t a bad thing and we shouldn’t sit by quietly when someone tries to paint it as such. It reminds me of a few years back when the easy target was "political correctness." I always thought that those who were opposed to political correctness should preface whatever they’re going to say with “Excuse my bad manners, but…” Really, being opposed to tolerance is the same kind of thing. It comes from a failure to recognize the legitimacy of other people in their views, their self identity, and their essential humanity.

Tolerance is a Christian value, though I wouldn’t say that Christians have exclusive rights to it, and as such it’s one of the things that most attracts me to Christianity. Actually, I feel an obligation—a duty—to stand for tolerance because in doing so I am standing up for others and that is precisely what Jesus taught us to do. The truest meaning of the word “others” is that it refers to those who are most unlike us.

Sadly, it’s easy to find intolerance nowadays in values that some are putting forth as being Christian (though I doubt the label applies). Intolerance is also easy to find among those who feel they’re defending something patriotic or traditionally American. Christianity and the tolerance and love that Jesus taught demand that we learn to transcend our presupposed values and see through the eyes of those who are most unlike us. There has never been a time when it wasn't perfectly clear to me that the values taught by Jesus far transcend any notions or ideals of nationalism. I think we can learn to see the same thing when it comes to sectarian differences.

As Christians, one of the primary places we need to consider being tolerant is when it comes to people whose religion, whose expression of faith, is different than ours, and although I’m primarily thinking of Islam as an example it’s not hard to find religious intolerance directed—by so-called Christians—toward Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and perhaps as a recent trend toward liberal mainline Protestants. However with the latter the intolerance has taken the more subtle form of “They’re declining in numbers anyhow so who really cares?” It’s not hard to find this same kind of intolerance directed toward liberal or progressive Catholics who might be seen as being too concerned with social justice over other more "tolerable" positions.

We who follow Jesus have a duty to stand up against the oppression of others. For example, when we learn of a community that is trying to stand in the way of a house of worship being constructed, as has been the case in Murfreesboro, Tennessee recently, as well as other notable places, it’s time to speak out. It’s time to label groups who promote opposition to others faiths for what they are: hate groups. This is just one of the activities that has led me to value and support the work of the SPLC for many years.

Another area where legitimized intolerance—hate—is seeking to gain ground is in regard to the LGBT community. Regardless of what our particular religion has to say about sexuality, we do not have license to be against other human beings. This is as clear as I can say it. The Christianity that I have been taught has instilled the value that we are not to judge and condemn others. This is a sensitive area for me because as a deacon I have an obligation to be faithful to Church teaching. However, never has the Church taught me to have a closed mind or turn away from anyone. Never has the Church taught me to deny human rights or reject another human being on any basis. Intolerance begins as a subtle negative attitude and grows.

Years ago before my ordination to the diaconate, I volunteered at the University of Texas Catholic Center. I was helping with the fall ministry fair, which had been going all morning. One table was for a ministry offered for and by gay Catholic students. There was a sign up list and I noticed that no one who had visited that day had signed the list. I tried to put myself in the shoes of the fellow who had stood at that table all morning as students had walked by without signing. It was approaching late afternoon and most everyone had gone already. I walked over to the table and signed my name on the list for the ministry. I simply said, “However I can help let me know.” When I signed I did so somewhat reluctantly because I noticed that the pastor, who I knew well, and who likewise knew me, was watching. As I stepped away from the table I turned around momentarily just in time to see the pastor also signing the list. At least it had two names that day. Sometimes being tolerant may put us in an uncomfortable position, but tolerance is like faith: it is intertwined with courage.

One might be tempted to think that in the year 2012 racism isn’t as much an issue as it once was. To believe this would be incredibly blind. Racism still exists—sometimes hidden in our seemingly harmless attitudes or the jokes we hear and choose to laugh at—and we are called to recognize it and eradicate it. Intolerance toward those who are racially or ethnically different from us is easily recognized in attitudes that oppose immigration reform or that say those who were not born here do not belong here.  Christians are called to be givers, and this includes giving others the opportunity to live in our nation. We are called to give freely and completely, and there is absolutely nothing to fear in it.

As a Christian I am called to see all people of the world as my brothers and sisters. Recently here in Texas I’ve seen political advertisements of a candidate who swears he will secure the borders. What is the source of this fear? What is it that would make others go on a campaign to hold up a halting hand of rejection rather than extend a hand of welcome? Christianity is about offering what we have and sharing it with others. It is social; it is progressive, and it is based on what Jesus taught us to be and to do.

The role of tolerance as I see it is twofold. First, tolerance asks us to be accepting of and open to all people, but especially of those whose values, whose faith or even lack thereof, whose sexuality, race, nationality, language, immigration status, disability, health or even level of education is different from our own. Second, tolerance demands that we speak the truth always and take a stand for those who are the object of intolerance regardless of how unpopular our stance may be.

Tolerance is a Christian value but it goes far beyond the confines of one religion. A sign of the success of Christianity, far from the numbers we attract on Sunday, is how faithful we are to our values and how we apply them to society as a whole. When we teach tolerance in time we will find that others may be much more willing to tolerate us. We can judge the success of Christianity by how committed we are to others. Our job, as Fr. Roy Bourgeois once said, is not to be effective but to be faithful. Thanks to many honest, courageous, and tolerant people, we may learn what it truly means to be faithful.

How Easter Killed His Faith: On Lee Strobel Responding to Ricky Gervais' Easter Message

As we begin Holy Week and move toward the celebration of Easter, the news gets really interesting. This is especially true if you, like me, have your news feed set to let you see stories on religion. Maybe the religion news isn't that important to you. If not, I respect that, but for me it's part of where I live as a deacon. 

Any time of the year, not just Holy Week, the religion news setting will catch a plethora of negative articles. Particularly this is true in regard to those who are opposed to the faith or perhaps who are militant in arguing from the viewpoint of non-belief. Typically I like their articles because they challenge me to give a good answer.   

Recently I found the following piece from a former militant atheist, now an evangelical apologist, the journalist Lee Strobel. He is writing in response to an "Easter message" by atheist comedian Ricky Gervais. Strobel says it was Easter that killed his faith:

It was the worst news I could get as an atheist: my agnostic wife had decided to become a Christian. Two words shot through my mind. The first was an expletive; the second was “divorce.”

I thought she was going to turn into a self-righteous holy roller. But over the following months, I was intrigued by the positive changes in her character and values. Finally, I decided to take my journalism and legal training (I was legal editor of the Chicago Tribune) and systematically investigate whether there was any credibility to Christianity.

Maybe, I figured, I could extricate her from this cult.

I quickly determined that the alleged resurrection of Jesus was the key. Anyone can claim to be divine, but if Jesus backed up his claim by returning from the dead, then that was awfully good evidence he was telling the truth.

For nearly two years, I explored the minutia of the historical data on whether Easter was myth or reality. I didn’t merely accept the New Testament at face value; I was determined only to consider facts that were well-supported historically. As my investigation unfolded, my atheism began to buckle.

Continue reading

I don't know that I would necessarily take the same strategy or tactic as Strobel in replying to Gervais, or even to others who doubt or who are opposed to Christianity. While proofs, in the sense in which they are presented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, are important to belief, and while faith and reason should not be opposed in any way, I don't really believe that traditional proofs are always effective tools for convincing nonbelievers, though certainly in the case of Strobel they amounted to something. However, if you read the comments that have been posted on Strobel's article, and can get past the haters, you can see that proofs mean very little to those who are convinced in their faith against God. 

Instead, I would look to my own experience of doubt and faith, and apply it accordingly.  Like Strobel, I too at one time was a nonbeliever.  Unlike Strobel, I went from being an evangelical Pentecostal as a teenager to being a questioning student of philosophy in my 20's who understood his Christianity best in terms of atheism.  That's right, at one time I defined myself as an atheist, albeit a Christian atheist. Bear in mind that this was many years before my journey to Catholicism.

Now this brings me to the point of Gervais, who in his Easter message says why he believes he is better at being a Christian as an atheist than believers are by being Christians. However, Gervais is making an attempt at humor rather than a true statement of belief. Gervais, in my opinion, is not a Christian atheist, rather he is relying on humorous irony to make his point.

Gervais says that he believes in the Ten Commandments and keeps all of them. To this I would point out, not so much in a judgmental way as much as an objective observation, that he sounds a little like the Pharisee in Jesus' time who went into the temple and prayed, "Thank you Lord, that I am not a sinner like that tax collector over there." Keep in mind that the tax collector, who wouldn't even come into the building all the way, stood back at a distance and prayed for mercy to God, of whose existence he surely had no rational proofs. Furthermore, out of the tax collector's situation of being aware of his sin, he was also probably acutely aware that he had no proofs. Rather, his viewpoint was from the sheer poverty of existence--the place I believe we are most likely to discover the sacred for ourselves. 

As Christians, should it matter all that much what we say about what we believe?  Are we really going to prove anything to anyone by way of talking?  Isn't what we do much more important, and isn't this the lesson of the story of the tax collector in the temple?  Did he not realize that in his life there had been an absence of justice?

The message to nonbelievers is that true religion isn't really about believing in things that are too big to grasp, things that can never be proven except perhaps subjectively. True religion isn't about fairy tales, nor is it about perfectly keeping the Ten Commandments. Rather, it's all about how you live and how you love others, even those who are most unlike you in what they do and believe.

Many years ago, back when I was a Pentecostal teenager, I heard a gospel song that went "If heaven never had been promised to me, neither God's promise to live eternally, it's been worth just having the Lord in my life." Sure it matters that we believe, but what's most important is that we learn to follow Jesus really.

Pope Benedict XVI's 30-year campaign to reassert conservative Catholicism - CSMonitor.com

In the past 30 years, the Vatican has moved strongly to reassert the authority of a traditional, even orthodox Roman Catholicism – to bring the notion of a "one true church" to Europe and then the larger world. The intent was to reverse the "open" or liberalizing trend of the church represented by Vatican II.

via www.csmonitor.com

If reasserting conservative Catholicism were to mean connecting to the richness and tradition of the faith, and it meant making the faith present in a clear and understandable manner to the world today, whose moral paradigms often differ sharply from those of the Church, then I would support it wholeheartedly. 

However, we need not look far to see a world ready to abandon what it may see as a religion that has not borne fruit. Any move that involves the Church retreating into its own system is sure to bring only further misunderstanding. My original embracing of Catholicism nearly 20 years ago came about because I saw a positive force at work in the Church, a force that held the potential to fulfill the deepest longings and questions of life. For me, it was an experience that I understood as somehow--perhaps mystically--connected to the experience of the first Christians. For me it was, frankly, a pentecostal experience. There was something in the Church that had the power to transform my life.

I believe that the same potential still exists, but we won't get it--and we won't be able to share it with others--by embracing ideology. Our world, both in the Church and outside it, tends to see religious conservatism as having a connection or kinship to the politics of the Right, and this worries me. It worries me not because my views differ from those of the Right--and they often do--but because of something I've known a for long time, and something that I've lived out in my own life, namely that being orthodox in one's religion doesn't mean that we have to buy into a political system that staunchly shuts the door in the face of whatever doesn't fit into the system. Orthodoxy, or conservatism, in faith does not necessarily equate with conservatism in politics.

Of course Christians are free to choose whatever system of politics they feel comfortable with, but we have an obligation to allow our faith to inform our politics rather than letting politics force itself on our faith. The Christian faith that I embraced long ago hasn't changed--it's still the same positive force in my life that it has always been. It's the forward-looking and open-minded love of my fellow human beings that compels me to desire fruitful dialog aimed at overcoming the biggest challenges of living in the world today: the differences between ourselves and others. It compels me to reach out to the world with the positive power of healing life's biggest injustices and wounds.

If purity and truth of faith are what the Church desires, the realization of such will be obtained not by prohibition but transformation. Many years ago I recall a sermon given by an Episcopalian priest on the marks of true Christian faith. Essentially she said that true faith can be easily recognized because it informs you of what it is for, rather than what it is against.

True faith may certainly be interested in the preservation of its most cherished values: It may be for the value of chastity for example, but does this necessitate a statement against anything in particular? Does the Church's definitions of what it values, say marriage, or perhaps ordination, need to be demanded of others before dialog or explanation occur? Especially this is true if the desire of the Church is to win others over to being receptive to the power that can transform life. If a religious system is truly universal then it needs to stand ready to embrace a universe of difference--a universe that may appear to be at odds with what it holds as sacred in some respects. Here, again, the obligation of faith is to better inform, and to do it in a clear and cogent manner.

We Catholics have a tendency to leave things up to the hierarchy--especially in matters of faith and morals--but I believe there is an obligation for every Catholic, every Christian, to enter meaningful dialog and explore the difficult questions and real-life issues that exist. If the Christian religion is going to survive it will be because individual Christians will begin to shed the mask of ideology and embrace life completely with all the baggage that comes with it.

Intolerance, Broken Religion, Fear, and the Faith of Anne Rice

Ever since I added religion to my news feed I've been tempted to return to blogging my thoughts on stories more frequently. For a long time the majority of what I've posted has been Sunday sermons and occasional reflections--just mostly innocuous stuff with an interest limited perhaps to the parish. Seems that back during the presidential election year not all my opinions on the news were appreciated by everyone, and I was busy with other things, so I backed away from commenting on news--with the intention of it being temporary. With that being said, I'll go ahead and take the big risk of not keeping my thoughts and opinions to myself. 

I noticed recently that a friend remarked how the "Angry Bearded Catholic Bloggers Club" (ABCBC) were "going nuts" with Anne Rice's rejection of the faith that she returned to after having rejected it once upon a time long ago (I have to admit: I'm not a member of the ABCBC). I hope the title of my post today isn't too much, but I feel like it encapsulates what I've been seeing in the religion news.

Whatever the news brings us, or what others might comment in its regard, the response from people of faith shouldn't be driven by intolerance or fear. These are actually the antitheses, among innumerable others, of true faith. If we are secure in what we believe, we don't have anything to be afraid of. On the contrary, we ought to be willing to let others be who they are in their belief, and in their choice of how they practice it, or even the total lack thereof.

Having true faith, in my opinion, means striving toward what is positive and best in life, and it also means rolling up our sleeves and working to change what is negative or broken. True faith means taking a risk and reaching out to other people. For me, this doesn't include my having to get you to believe the same thing that I believe in terms of religion, and it certainly doesn't mean losing touch with sanity in order to recognize that life on earth is sacred.

Unfortunately, all too often people's experience of religion is that of something broken. Often they struggle within themselves and they feel that the bad relationship they have must be ended. It's like coming away from bad love relationship or a marriage that didn't work. You can give up on the relationship without giving up on love, and this is really where I think Anne Rice may be coming from. Her experience of religion is one that is broken. However, she still recognizes the validity of what was at the basis of it to start.

Where I want to end this, without it becoming too long, is by saying that Christians have an obligation to enter each others' struggles in a positive way. We have an obligation to apply the healing balm of friendship and acceptance, and always we have an obligation to meet people just where they are in life without any expectations of making them be like us in any way. In other words we have the duty to reach out with tolerance, to fix what is broken, to cast out fear, and to make the world a truly positive place by struggling to overcome its greatest challenges.

The Courage to Be Human

"I am going the way of all flesh.
Take courage and be a man.
Keep the mandate of the Lord, your God, following his ways
and observing his statutes, commands, ordinances, and decrees
…that you may succeed in whatever you do…

From 1 Kings 2

Of all the wisdom I learned, or perhaps it might be best said "of the little wisdom I learned," in my study of philosophy something that has always clearly stood out is the saying "To thine own self be true."

When we look at the great heroes and fathers in the faith, when we look at the patriarchs and prophets, indeed when we look at the Lord himself, we clearly see individuals who were true to their hearts. Certainly, in the Lord we see this perfected. It is his being true that stands out most clearly. That is, it is his truth to himself, his truth to who he was and what he valued that made the real difference in his world as he sojourned on earth as a man among us.

If we want to be imitators of Christ, if we want to follow his ways, and if we want to know him as he is, we need to understand that he lived a truth that transcended the truths of first century Palestine. Jesus took the notion of righteousness and showed his contemporaries what it really meant—he radicalized the meaning of faith, forgiveness, healing, disease, disability, justice…in his own person he showed us what it truly means when we speak of God.

Jesus intended for us to know and live with the same clarity of sight, with the same allegiance to the values of truth that he lived. Jesus stood clearly in opposition to the falsehood and hypocrisy of his times. As his followers we must learn to see his path clearly and to walk upon it ourselves. It is a path that demands the destruction of the falsehoods that pass for true faith. It is a path that invites us to walk upon it in a different pair of shoes than what we have become accustomed to wearing.

We should always look from the positive; that is, from what is in order to decide what to do. We may look to those whom Jesus chose to embrace. Might we find a mission among them? Might we find a thread in common with those who cry for mercy, yearn for grace, pray for healing, and long for acceptance? Might we find Christ by looking deep into the eyes of the poor, the sick, the sinner, the convict, the enemy?

To follow the way of Christ is to take the courage to be human. It is to take the courage to be true to yourself, to be true to your calling. In doing so we find real meaning in life, and certainly it is not without its risks to stand with humanity; to stand without the benefit of being veiled by the falsehoods and presuppositions, by the fully accepted half-truths and no truths of our day. The Lord calls us to walk in light and to be who we are. The path begins to unfold slowly…we begin to see what lies ahead.

Meditation on the Memorial of St. Ephrem: The Sacraments

Living within a Christian milieu that consists of ideas tempered strongly with evangelicalism, we sometimes miss or overlook our rich heritage of the sacramental understanding of the faith. Having grown up in an evangelical household I can tell you that the word "sacrament" was not mentioned ever. It wasn't until I began exploring Catholicism that I began to consider the Sacraments as the means to grace.

It's not uncommon to find that Protestants, especially Evangelicals—with the exception of the old "mainline" denominations to a degree—reject the idea of sacraments and sacramentality.

Years ago, when I was working toward a theology Masters at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, I had a conversation with a woman who was in the process of being ordained to the United Methodist Church. She asked me about my theological interests. I mentioned Rahner, though at the time I had only just begun to read his works. My interest in Rahner sprang from what I perceived as his similarity to the European phenomenological philosophers whom I had studied as an undergraduate.

"You know," she told me, "that's good, but he's sacramental." I replied that a sacramental approach was exactly what I wanted. In her "…but he's sacramental" I perceived an implicit rejection of the notion that God works through sacraments as a means to provide the grace needed unto salvation. I suppose this type of rejection is what runs behind ideas such as the evangelical doctrine that baptism is not necessary for salvation, but rather that it is merely a church ordinance. In an evangelical view the same might be said in regard to the Lord's Supper, marriage, etc.

My classmate's objection to Rahner's theology as "sacramental" was ironic given that Rahner's theology might have helped her to see a connection between an individualist or personal view of grace and the certainty of grace available made possible in each of the Sacraments.  Sacraments and sacramentality in general are not such that they should appear as somehow foreign to or not belonging to biblical Christianity, even from a merely biblicist point of reference.

So this morning, as I happened to look at the Office of Readings for the Memorial of St. Ephrem (born 306 A.D.), I was delighted to find rich sacramental language dating from the early days of the Church.

In your sacrament we daily embrace you and receive you into our bodies; make us worthy to experience the resurrection for which we hope. We have had your treasure hidden within us ever since we received baptismal grace; it grows ever richer at your sacramental table.

Indeed it is refreshing to find such early affirmations of the faith we have come to know and depend upon. However, over the years I have noticed that frequently the idea—the truth—of sacramental grace often does not get the attention it deserves.

I have frequently wondered whether the Sacraments are still understood as the primary means of grace, or if we, like our Evangelical neighbors, understand salvation as a purely individual concern, defined only in terms of one's personal relationship with God. A question that concerns me is whether as Catholic Christians we are beginning to embrace a way of believing which is lacking in the communal dimension of the Sacraments as the primary means to receive the grace that leads to eternal life.

I ask this only because I frequently fail to see much attention given to teaching and sharing the understanding of the idea of the Sacraments as the normal means to grace. Perhaps it's a local phenomenon that comes from being literally surrounded by non-denominational churches, bible churches, storefront churches--some less than a mile apart, some back-to-back.  Surely there is influence.  I see it several parishes.  There is undoubtedly a tendency to be less sacramentally-centered and more emphasis put on the personal or individual dimensions of faith. 

It seems as if, in terms of importance, we risk transposing the knowledge of the importance sacramental participation with individual prayer and bible study, which of course in themselves are good.  However, personal prayer for forgiveness of sins is not a substitute for Penance.  Nor is bible study or preaching a substitute for Eucharist.  While we receive grace and forgiveness in personal prayer we do not receive it as a sacrament.  The same might be said for receiving the presence of God in bible study.  Sacraments offer us the certainty of grace beyond the limits of personal doubt.

I suppose it all goes along with shorter lines at confession, which in turn makes me wonder how much understanding accompanies those who are in the long lines for communion. From time to time at Baptism meetings I have caught doubtful glances or confused looks when mentioning that Baptism is something that we do in order to receive grace unto salvation and begin the sacramental life.  Occasionally I have gotten the unintentional negative nodding gesture.  I have heard from couples in mixed faith marriages that their baby will be christened now and then baptized as an adult if he or she chooses to do so.

I would never want to deny that grace is freely available in our world through belief and trust in Jesus Christ. I would never tell a Pentecostal that he or she has not received the Holy Spirit because of not having received Confirmation. However, if we approach the Sacraments without faith, without the belief that they offer us the fullness and certainty of grace, we are no better off—even less so—than those who deny the need for the Sacraments altogether.

Today, especially in the times and world in which we live, we might pray with St. Ephrem, "Teach us to find joy in your favor! Lord we have within us your memorial, received at your spiritual table; let us possess it in its full reality when all things shall be made new."

The Vatican and Darwin

As an educator I enjoyed finding the article I'm including on today's post, though I know that this is the sort of thing that's bound to bring out negative feelings--especially where Catholic-Evangelical relations are concerned.

I recently heard of an educator who had regretfully decided not to return to her job next year because the state was going to "make her teach evolution" (Texas recently changed it's ruling on evolution--at least for the time being).

Interestingly, it was only a couple weeks ago that I had a conversation with an evangelical friend who works in the public schools.  We were talking about dinosaur extinctions and I mentioned that the age of the dinosaurs, the Mesozoic era, ran from 250 million to 65 million years ago.  She told me that was interesting theory but couldn't be true since the planet is only 6 to 10 thousand years old.

Needless to say, literal interpreters of the Bible are going to have problems with the Vatican's conference on Darwin.

The Vatican is hosting a conference to mark the sesquicentennial of Darwin's book, On the Origin of the Species, and taking a fresh look at Darwin's evolution theory. The Vatican is implying that Darwin's ideas are compatible with Christianity. The Vatican's upcoming conference will discuss intelligent design as a "cultural," not scientific issue.

A century and a half after Charles Darwin published his revolutionary study of nature, On the Origin of the Species, one of his most ardent foes is taking a fresh look at his theories.

Although the Roman Catholic Church never formally condemned Darwin or his theories (thus demonstrating some significant progress from Galileo's time), there is no question that for decades, it was openly hostile to Darwin's theory because of its apparent conflict with the teachings of the church.

Next month, however, the Vatican will host a conference to mark the sesquicentennial of Darwin's book. The gathering will be held March 3-6 at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, Italy.

Not only have church officials declared that the naturalist's views are "compatible with Christian faith," they have even argued that Darwin's ideas can be traced to great theologians like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Both observed, for instance, that various forms of life on Earth have changed over time.

According to Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, the teachings of the Church and Darwin can be reconciled: "In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God," the archbishop said recently.

The upcoming conference is the culmination of more than a half century of slowly easing tensions between the Catholic Church and the chief proponent of evolution. In 1950, Pope Pius XII declared that evolution was "a valid scientific approach." Just a decade ago, Pope John Paul II went further and said that evolution was "more than a hypothesis."

....the organizers did not invite supporters of creationism or intelligent design because it was "not feasible" to include ideas "that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology."

Source

Pope Prays for Unity Among Christians

The desire for unity and reconciliation are nothing new, but recently I've started seeing a different dimension of it.  Often the differences between Christians is so marked that it goes far beyond doctrinal and historical disputes.  Often the differences strike at the heart of our greatest values and even makes it hard to see how some who claim Christianity as their faith can rightly do so.

Before I became a Catholic the idea of unity and reconciliation wasn't all that important to me.  Indeed as an Evangelical unity with Catholicism wasn't high on my list of things to pray for--at least from the viewpoint of one having a Protestant ethos, though deep within I heard my spiritual home calling me for years.

As a contrast, I recall 15 years ago, a couple years or so after becoming a Catholic, the idea of ecumenism and unity were utmost in my mind.  I remember having an overwhelming desire to work for unity with those seperated from us.  Perhaps it was because I knew the faith that I had come from was a real faith, though its beliefs and values were quite different from those I had come to claim as my own as a Catholic.

I consider the article I'm blogging today to be timely in that there's been a lot to say recently about the situation of diversity in America--and world abroad too.  Specifically the differences highlighted in the practice of faith and American politics comes to mind.

On Saturday afternoon, at the Roman basilica of St. Paul's Outside-the-Walls, the Holy Father marked the end of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity by presiding over the second Vespers of the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul. The Pope reminded his audience that is only by allowing ourselves to be conquered by the love of Christ that true unity can be achieved.

The ceremony, which this year coincided with the two thousandth anniversary of the birth of the Apostle, was attended by cardinals and bishops, as well as by representatives from other Churches and ecclesial communities.

In Pope Benedict’s homily, he reflected upon the conversion of St. Paul, saying "it presents us with a model of, and shows us the way to, full unity" which, "calls for conversion: from division to communion, from a lacerated unity, to a restored and complete unity."

The conversion of the Apostle to the Gentiles "was not a move from immorality to morality, from an erroneous faith to a correct faith, rather it was the fact of being conquered by the love of Christ, of renouncing one's own perfection. It was the humility of one who placed himself unreservedly at the service of Christ for his brothers and sisters. And it is only in this self-renunciation, in this conformity to Christ, that we also become united to one another, that we become 'one' in Christ. It is communion with the risen Christ that gives us unity."

Read the whole story here.

Italian Rabbis Boycott Dialogue

It is truly disappointing to find in an age that claims to be tolerant and enlightened, that there can still be intolerance expressed over the continuance of a historically traditional way of praying.  Such oppositional fervor can only be seen as an example of intolerance against the most basic and foundational of Christian beliefs.

ROME (Reuters) - A leading Italian rabbi Tuesday accused Pope Benedict of wiping out 50 years of progress in Catholic-Jewish dialogue and announced that Italian Jews will boycott an annual Church celebration of Judaism.

Elia Enrico Richetti, chief rabbi of Venice, said in an editorial in a Jesuit journal that the main reason for the rabbis' decision to boycott was the reintroduction last year of a Holy Week prayer for the conversion of the Jews.

"If (to the prayer) we add the pope's recent statements on dialogue being useless because the Christian faith is superior, it is clear that we are moving toward the cancellation of 50 years of Church history," he wrote in the Jesuit journal Popoli.

Last year the Vatican revised a contested Latin prayer used by traditionalist Catholics on Good Friday, the day marking Jesus Christ's crucifixion.

But Jews criticized the new version because it still says they should recognize Jesus Christ as the savior of all men. It asks that "all Israel may be saved" and Jews said it kept an underlying call to conversion that they had wanted removed.

Read the whole story

It seems obvious that with last year's revision of the traditional prayer the Church made a monumental gesture of good will.  To demand that Christians not pray that all might recognize Jesus Christ as the savior is in effect tantamount to insisting that we no longer recognize Jesus as God incarnate.

The spirit that rejects Christ has been in the world since the time of Christ, and because it's nothing new we should keep in mind that there's no real reason to take a reactionary stance.  Rather patience, tolerance, and, somewhat ironically, prayer is often the best way to deal with assaults against our traditions and beliefs.

A great deal of truth comes through in the Church's celebration of Judaism, which the article mentions. Certainly such a celebration respects and serves to lift up the prayers and traditions of Judaism that we too see as a vital source of nourishment to our faith. 

There is also wisdom to be had in knowing that the Catholic prayer for conversion to Christ does not necessarily entail conversion from Judaism.  Rather the heart of the prayer for conversion is the hope that Christ will be revealed within all human cultural expressions that search in truth for God.

Despite the current boycott and others that are sure to come, dialogue will continue and progress toward mutual understanding and respect will also continue.  However, it's realistic to expect that opposition to Christianity will continue as well.  In fact it may even grow to such a degree that being intolerant of the Catholic faith will be accepted by many as a virtue.  However, again, this is nothing new to us--we are called to have faith and to hope for the coming of the day when all will know the Son of God as the savior of the world.