Spiritual Direction

This week’s first reading, from the Book of Wisdom, asks how we can know God’s will without the gift of wisdom that comes from the Holy Spirit. Our human worries, concerns and temptations to sin can blind us from seeing God’s will for us. Therefore it’s important to seek the wisdom from above to be our guide. St. Francis de Sales knew this, and told anyone who was serious about spiritual perfection to seek out a spiritual director, a trustworthy person with experience in the spiritual life to guide them. Once they found him or her, they should trust and follow, being obedient to the advice given. Of course we do need one very important condition: no one ever has the right to tell us to do something sinful or contrary to the teachings of Scripture and the Church. We should be open to the challenges presented to us and not expect the road to be easy, but at the same time if what is being asked of us or taught to us is not in keeping with the Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition we know we have the wrong spiritual director.

I wrote “him or her,” because a spiritual director can be a priest, religious brother or sister. But even if our spiritual director is not a priest, the first step on the path is to make a good confession. St. Francis recommends that we first make a general confession of our life, though this is not absolutely necessary. Again, I have to give a warning here. I knew a deacon (in another parish, in a different diocese) who made this recommendation and left the people very confused. Once we make an honest confession of our sins to a priest and receive absolution, our sins are forgiven. We do not have to keep on going back over the sins of our past life. This general confession St. Francis recommends is a way to examine our lives, to see where God has been working in us and how we haven’t cooperated with His will as we should. It helps to show us where our weaknesses are, and what sins we may still struggle with. It can also make us appreciate the mercy God has shown us in the past. If we do choose to do this it is a once or maybe twice in a lifetime event. While it is important to regret our sins, and yes even feel a healthy sense of shame, it is unhealthy to constantly relive the faults of the past. Instead we need to make a firm resolution to not sin in the future and trust in God’s mercy and forgiveness.

At this delicate stage of the spiritual journey we must avoid two extremes; one is to look back at our sins and become discouraged, thinking that progress is impossible, or that what we have done is so bad God could never forgive us. Because of this discouragement we either standstill, or worse yet, go back to our old life. The other temptation is to think that this purification will be quick and painless; that our sins are few and that we have little or no need to change. This can lead to pride, and keep us from really examining ourselves thoroughly. Our serious sins may be few, but conversion of life, as we shall see, involves more than eliminating sin. This is only the first step, and unless we are honest and open now, the future steps will be much harder to make. Next time we’ll discuss how to make a good examination of conscience.

TOB Intro: Part I

In the past I never read introductions, or almost never. I usually cut right to the “beginning,” treating the intro as something disposable. This is a mistake in general and most certainly a mistake where the 2006 edition of the Theology of the Body is concerned. Michael Waldstein, who translated the text, offers an introduction that, far from being disposable, could be a book by itself. Roughly the first half is an exploration of the philosophical roots of TOB and the second is concerned with the theological influences. I’ve finished the first part, and have begun the second.

It’s been a long time since I studied philosophy, and when I did I treated it little better than I did book introductions. It was strictly a means to an end. I needed 27 philosophy credits before starting theology study, and the quicker I got done with it the quicker I could begin preparing for ordination. In honesty, I did grow to enjoy it. I have many fond memories of sitting in the Mirage Diner or Mr. Taco with my friends Bill and Matt discussing Aristotle’s teaching on substantial change and how Descartes destroyed metaphysics, over a burrito and a coke. But once I moved on to the Salesians my contact with things philosophical grew less and less. Philosophy had served its purpose, and now it was time to move on to something else, shall we say, more practical.

In time I have come to see that this utilitarian attitude toward philosophy has been damaging. The philosophical moorings that made the content of faith understandable in the past have been torn out by the roots. This makes explaining the content of faith difficult, to put it mildly. Joseph Ratzinger (AKA Benedict XVI) compared the task of the theologian in our times to a clown trying to warn an unsuspecting village of an approaching wild fire. The people see the strange, if familiar, dress and assume it’s all part of the act. Like a clown, religion has been relegated to a particular place in the collective mind; it’s there to comfort and reassure in times of difficulty, maybe, and to be used when some service is needed, like a wedding or a funeral, but is otherwise irrelevant when faced with the deep questions of life and reality. In this way we can say that Nietzsche was right; God is dead and we killed Him.

The Holy Father was writing, as a private theologian, over 40 years ago and in that time the disconnect has only gotten greater. What began as intellectual trends embraced by a certain elite class has trickled down to shape the popular mind. It took several hundred years for this to happen, but it has. Many critics of the contemporary scene like to blame the 1960’s for ruining the world, but in reality all that happened was that these various trends came to flower, not simply in the academy, but on main street, and without us really knowing it. I’ll save the how to the social scientists; I’m more concerned here with the what that changed. It’s that What we’ll look at next time.

Enough of the Drama

A couple of weeks ago I weighed in on the controversy surrounding Christopher West and his take on the Theology of the Body (TOB). To be honest, I’m backing away somewhat because I’m getting a bad feeling about the whole thing. Mr. West’s critics have many valid points, but there is an undercurrent of bitterness that’s palpable. I don’t want to accuse anybody of being uncharitable, but if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck…well, you get my drift. I am not a particular devotee of Mr. West but he and Janet Smith, who has also been the target of criticism, have been out there teaching the difficult message on pre-marital sex and contraception that few others in the Church have been willing to do. I think they deserve better than what they’re getting.

These then are my last unsolicited words on this controversy.

But these will not be my last words of TOB. A good thing that came out of my detour through this little imbroglio is that my interest in this relatively new field of theological inquiry has been renewed. I first heard about it back in the 90’s, and did some reading on it, and made it through about half of the 129 talks given by John Paul II that make up the guts of TOB. Pastoral work took me away from going much further, and while I’m still very much “on the front lines” (overused term, but it fits) I’m again tackling the late Holy Father’s work. There is a new translation, superior to the old one (better organized, more consistent use of language) with an introduction that’s served me well as a review of certain philosophical trends since Francis Bacon. As I work my way through I’ll share my reflections. I’ll still post my weekly bulletin letter and what ever musings on popular culture that hit me, but for the next few months I’ll be concentrating on TOB.

Now understand, I am not a professional theologian; I am a pastor in both the broad and strict application of the word. I don’t claim to offer a definitive interpretation of John Paul II’s theology, but rather very personal reflections based on experience and what I understand to be the mind of the Church.

And so, let the fun begin. And I really do hope it’s fun and, more importantly, helpful. Once I get through the introduction, which is so far proving to be worth getting the book for, I’ll begin the beguine.

Salesian Spirituality: What is Devotion?

We continue with our look at Salesian spirituality by looking at the most well known work by Francis de Sales, “The Introduction to the Devout Life.” St. Francis wrote a great deal, and today is the patron saint of authors and of the press. He wrote many topical pamphlets addressing controversies of his day that are not read much today. But he also wrote masterpieces that have endured for centuries, and the “Introduction” is one of them. So popular was this work that the Protestant King James I of England carried a jewel encrusted edition of the book, with all the “Catholic errors” removed, of course.

As we saw in the past a key to Salesian spirituality is that it is universal in nature. All people are called to be saints, but how they do it is going to depend on their state of life. The married person and the vowed religious have different responsibilities to fulfill, and so need to follow paths that will lead to holiness while also helping them fulfill their duties.

St. Francis first question is what is the devout life? While some associate the devout life with praying or fasting, he tells us that these are part of the devout life, but that these things by themselves don’t make us devout. He writes of people who fast, but have hatred in their hearts, or pray a lot, but then gossips and speaks badly about and among their friends and family. Some people may give money to the poor but then won’t forgive their neighbors. This type of devotion is really hypocrisy and possibly superstition. On the other hand St. Francis writes:

But, in fact, all true and living devotion presupposes the love of God;—and indeed it is neither more nor less than a very real love of God…Love while shining on the soul we call grace, which makes us acceptable to His Divine Majesty;—when it strengthens us to do well, it is called Charity;—but when it attains its fullest perfection, in which it not only leads us to do well, but to act carefully, diligently, and promptly, then it is called Devotion.

Devotion in the highest sense of the word, then, is love of God, and of neighbor, or charity, which has become a habit, or virtue. This means that we do good without having to think about it, so much have we conformed ourselves to God’s will. This level of devotion is not arrived at overnight. It takes time and the purification of our desires and actions. In the end it is God’s grace working in us that will make this happen. But we also need to open ourselves and cooperate with God. This begins with making an examination of conscience and making a good confession. What is the best way to make an examination of conscience? This, along with the first stages of purification will be the topics of next week’s letter.

TOB Controversy, Take Two

Last Saturday I put up a post weighing in on the controversy surrounding Christopher West and his interpretation of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body (TOB). I have since taken it down because I’m afraid I wrote too quickly. The appeal of a blog is that it is immediate, and allows the writer the instant gratification of getting his or her ideas out right away. Most of my entries are written within an hour or two. Others might get tinkered with for a little longer, but they rarely sit overnight before I post them. I am usually writing about spiritual and theological matters that I have already reflected on for years, or are critiquing movies or music drawing on my inner core beliefs, as well as the admittedly modest knowledge I’ve acquired about these topics over the years. Which is a long way around to say that I avoid shooting my mouth off about things I know little or nothing about. I do not need to be reminded that our desire for instant gratification can be destructive. While the post I took down was certainly not “destructive” I do fear I didn’t put enough time in reflecting on the issue and taking a look at both sides.

The problem is that this whole controversy is between Catholic intellectuals who might otherwise be considered to be “on the same side.” These are people who consider themselves orthodox, working closely with the Church hierarchy, and drawing on Scripture and Tradition in order to conform to these two fonts of the single Divine Revelation. They are not “progressives” challenging traditional views, or criticizing the Magisterium. It’s difficult for me because I can see where both sides are coming from.

And so I am taking a few steps back, but will return to this topic, because I do believe that it is important. TOB is increasingly being incorporated into catechetical programs and religious education materials for young people and adults. John Paul II’s theology is dense, and so we rely on people like Mr. West to help “break it down” into a language that the common person can understand. The little I have read of TOB leads me to believe that it has implications for theological and spiritual discussions beyond marriage and sexual ethics. I would not want to see it fall into disrepute because of a misinterpretation. At he same time Mr. West has been a long time laborer in the vineyard, respected by bishops and Catholic academics who I hold in high esteem, and so should be treated fairly and get a proper hearing before passing judgment.

In the mean time I point you a lengthy article by Alice von Hildebrand and about Dawn Eden, who are critical of West’s approach. I also point you to Christopher West’s response and a defense by Janet Smith.

Salesian Spirituality Continued: What is Spirituality?

As we pick up again the theme of Salesian spirituality I’d like to look at what we mean by the term “spirituality.” Today we hear the word spoken a lot, but I’m not always sure the people who use it understand what they are talking about. How many times do we read or hear of actors and other celebrities who call themselves spiritual, or who have adopted some form of Eastern spirituality that no one has heard of and doesn’t seem to be connected to any concrete belief system. The aim quite often is the improvement of their emotional or psychological well being and not necessarily finding better ways to guide their actions and moral choices. In the contemporary world spirituality often gets reduced to achieving a feeling of peace through some type of meditation or prayer routine. As Catholics, when we speak of spirituality we are talking about something very concrete and practical. Spirituality is how we live out our faith in Jesus Christ in our everyday lives. Prayer and meditation are a part of this, but the goal is not simply to have our anxieties and stresses relieved. The ultimate goal is union with God.

True spirituality takes into account our moral lives. We achieve union with God by purifying our actions and desires so that they are in conformity with God’s will for us. Then, when we come to a knowledge of God’s will, to go about doing it. It sounds simple, and in truth it is. But, as we all know, actually doing it can be difficult. This purification entails eliminating mortal sin from our lives, and then working on the venial sins that, while not completely breaking our relationship with God, keep us from truly soaring to the heights we were created for. This is not just a matter of not sinning, but of purifying our desires, to eliminate the attachment to sin. Catholic spirituality seeks to grant us inner peace, true, but it also seeks to make us moral people attentive to the needs of our brothers and sisters. We are to become like Christ, united to Him in a deep, intimate way.

One of the great beauties of the Catholic Church is that we have been given many different roads by which to reach this goal. These gifts of the Holy Spirit, also known as charisms, are represented by the various spiritual families that have grown up in the Church over the centuries. Benedictine, Franciscan and Jesuit schools are three of the major spiritual traditions that have enriched the Church. They along with a myriad of others offer unique perspectives how to unite our selves with God and fulfill His will in our lives. Salesian Spirituality was developed by St. Francis de Sales and adopted by Don Bosco, and is followed by a variety religious orders, congregations and lay groups including, of course the Salesians of Don Bosco. It is this brand of Catholic spirituality we will be exploring in the coming weeks.

Less Than Zero

I wanted to like Edward Sharpe & the Magnetic Zeros. I wanted to like their single, Home, that’s been getting fairly heavy airplay on alternative rock stations. It’s quirky and catchy. It’s folkie, but interestingly produced. It reminds me vaguely of the duet between Peter Yorn and Scarlett Johansson from last year, but this is more original, I think. I wanted to go to iTunes and download it, then add it to a mix I’m working on. Maybe burn it for a friend. But then it happened, probably on the third listen. I’m guessing I hadn’t heard it from the beginning, or just wasn’t listening to the words closely enough, but it happened. Before the chorus kicked in for the first time they went there, and for no good reason. Amid a list of decidedly banal objects that our hero likes less than his beloved, he inserts the Name above all other names. Why did he have to do that? (and don’t go complaining to Edward Sharpe, he doesn’t exist. Think “Lynyrd Skynyrd.”) I wanted to like it, but I just can’t.

I don’t know what the song writer’s motivation was. Maybe he was trying to be blasphemous. Maybe he was just trying to be cute or, more likely, shocking. Maybe he wanted to show that the Alpha and the Omega of our faith has no more value or meaning than pumpkin pie of chocolate candy. Anyway you cut it, the inclusion of the Messiah in this litany of the mundane is sad and cheap, and yes, offensive. Since Our Savior’s name doesn’t even rhyme within the line's context I have to conclude that he was determined to make his point, what ever that point is, no matter how self defeating.

For those who will protest, that it’s just words, and they have no meaning, it’s just a silly pop song, what’s the big deal? I say, words have meaning. They always have and they always will. No matter how contemporary intellectuals try to tell you otherwise, words have a power beyond our understanding.

There is a common notion, made popular by the late Lenny Bruce, that words have no inherent meaning. If we find a word offensive we need to put it into common usage. Sheer repetition will render the word ordinary and so lose its power to offend. He was referring to a particular word that African Americans tend to take issue with. His desire was for the President to start referring to black members of his cabinet by this name publicly as a way of dulling its impact (Yes, I understand Bruce was a comedian, but I think he was, in this case, trying to shock rather than be completely ironic). It’s almost fifty years later, and Mr. Bruce’s hypothesis simply doesn't hold up . Not only is this word unutterable outside of certain corners of the hip-hop community, in the halls of the mainstream media it is only mentioned by it’s first letter, the fear of giving offense is so great. The irony is that many of the same people who have rendered the “N” word unutterable hold Lenny Bruce as a hero.

Why has this word not been mainstreamed? Because it is ugly and hateful, and it projects a hate and ugliness beyond the intent of the speaker. Words have meaning. Yes, meaning can change over time. But that change comes in more organic ways. It can’t be decided on by a committee, it evolves without our knowing it. Words have a history of their own, and reflect the history they were born out of. Words have power. I would like to see one of those white intellectual college professor types get off the train at 125th Street in Harlem, descend the platform and begin to use that word with the people he meets. Then, let me know where to send the memorial bouquet.

But I digress.

Words have power. And of all the classes of words out there, names are the most powerful. As a teacher if I see a group of students on the playground doing something they are not supposed to, and yell out, “Hey, you guys, cut it out,” you know what’s going to happen? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. They are going to continue with what ever misbehavior they’re engaged in. If, on the other hand, I yell, “Pete, Nick, Bruno and Sasha, cut it out,” the odds are they stop quickly. If I include their last names, I guarantee they cut it out, stand at attention, and begin to look at their shoe laces in embarrassment.

Names have power. An exorcist is not supposed to engage the demon in conversation, except to find out how many there are, how long they plan on staying and what their name is. The demon does not give that last piece on information us easily because the exorcist will then have a powerful weapon to use against him.

The ancient Hebrews knew this thing about names. When Jacob wrestled the angel he asks for the mysterious visitor’s name. The “angel” tells him to pound pavement, punches him in his hip socket and changes Jacob’s name to Israel. Only God changes names in the Bible, so I’ll leave you to connect dots on that one. God gives Moses that mysterious answer of “I AM WHO AM,” in response to his request to know the divine name. Scholars still debate whether this was meant to be a proper name, a descriptor of God’s nature, or God’s way of telling Moses to mind his own business; no one controls the Almighty. In the Gospels it’s Jesus who changes Simon’s name to Peter, to denote the function the Apostle would have in the Church. Names have power, and the divine name is the most powerful of them all. This is why observant Jews to this day have such a respect for God’s name as revealed in scripture. It is not to be spoken; it is not to be even written down.

We have become sloppy, and throw the Lord’s name around as if He were an ordinary Joe (no offense to any Joes out there). But names have power, and Jesus’ name is holy and full of power. His words give us hope: Your sins are forgiven. His words have power: Go, and sin no more. His words give us a mission: Go and teach all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. His words give us a command: Do this in memory of me. His words give us His very Self: This is my Body, this is my Blood.

Our faith is based on the fact that words have power and it is by a Name that we are saved. I am a patient man. I believe that it's important to give generous leeway to the artist. I try to give the benefit of the doubt. I think we can be too quick to judge a song like John Lennon's God, for instance. Not that we agree with the sentiment, but to understand the pain, disillusionment and heart break that went into him writing that piece. But this particular number deserves no such consideration. This was just a sloppy attempt to be hip and Jesus' expense. I'm pretty easy, but don’t be sloppy with the Name. I may like quirky off beat pop, but I can’t take blasphemy, no matter how well produced and packaged; no matter how much I want to like it.

Insipid

Inception  OO 1/2
Rated PG-13 for sequences of violence and action throughout.

I took a rare trip to the multiplex this week and saw Inception. I walked away thinking that there was much less there than met the eye. Oh, yes, there was plenty of fancy CGI footwork going on, creating fantastic images that were truly amazing for their realism. It is in the realism that lies the problem. Dreams don’t make sense, and too much of this film made perfect sense to me. The dreams seemed too concrete sequential in there organization and layout. For all the money and technology obviously put into making this movie, there was terribly little imagination. I know that there are many people debating about what parts of the film were dreams and what parts were reality, but I never really questioned it while watching the movie because there was never any sense of doubt put into my mind by the film makers as to what I was watching. Plus, I never understood why I should care to know the difference to begin with. The entire premise served as nothing more than an elaborate excuse to make a shoot'em up action picture while feigning art.

Without going into too much of the plot, Leonardo DiCaprio and his intrepid band of dream crashers set about to plant an idea in someone’s mind instead of taking information out, which is their usual job. This is supposed to be impossible. Why it is such is never explained to my satisfaction, but I quibble. This plot devise is really a classic McGuffin (I defy those who saw the film to remember a week after seeing it what this “idea” was). What becomes the more dominant theme is the internal emotional conflict within the DiCaprio character’s mind.

Before I go into what I found wanting in the film, I will say, I was entertained. I had mixed feelings about seeing this thing knowing that it was two and a half hours long, and it did begin to drag a bit at the end. That said, it moved for the most part and didn’t leave me bored.

Where the film broke down for me was on the level of how the dreams worked. Real dreams function on a surrealist level. People, places, things, even the dreamer’s own identity can shift, morph, drop in or out of the mental picture without any rhyme or reason. Sometimes we figure out why things went the way they did, many times we don’t, that is if we can even remember the dream to begin with. Here, it’s all very planned out. The “architect” creates a maze like cityscape or building for the action to take place in and the only danger comes from mental projections that serve as defenders of the host’s subconscious. Things are predictable and incredibly safe. At least in The Matrix if something went wrong death was a possibility. Here the worse thing that can happen is a person stays in a perpetual dream state that really didn’t look half bad.

I guess that was the greatest problem for me; there was no risk involved. No risk to the characters and no risk for the viewer. The one time there was any sense of true menace was when a freight train came barreling out of nowhere (and even this ended up having a logical explanation). DiCaprio freaks out on poor Juno, I mean Ellen Page (the architect), because this wasn’t supposed to happen since this detail wasn’t in the design. All I could think of was, “well Leo, it’s a dream, of course stuff comes flying out of nowhere. Suck it up, you wus.”

There is no risk for the audience because nothing is really left dangling. Everything is served up on a silver platter. There is no ambiguity, no consequences, nothing is real and nothing to get hung about. And no, I don’t consider the ending all that suspenseful or clever. Since how one progresses through the various dream levels was clearly delineated, I never had a problem, outside of the opening sequence, and then only slightly, figuring out when they were dreaming and when they were awake. So the film’s own internal logic told me the story was resolved in the “real” world. That this little twist was added at the end did nothing to alter that conclusion. And even so, by the end I really didn’t care all that much.

This gets me back to where I started. The film fails because it is far too logical. It is a standard action/ heist movie masquerading as something more. Is it a bad movie? No. Like I said, I was entertained. I am and always will be a sucker for a well crafted summer blockbuster. But please, don’t tell me it was more than that. It just wouldn’t be logical.

St. Francis de Sales and Salesian Spirituality II

This week we continue our look as St. Francis de Sales and Salesian spirituality. Last time we saw that all Christians have the call to be saints, but how we go about it is going to depend on the state of life we live in. As St. Francis wrote in his most well known book, Introduction to the Devout Life, the housewife in her kitchen is going to live the devout life differently than a contemplative nun, and a lawyer can’t spend hours in church like a monk in a monastery. Each has their own place, and own way to pray. Instead of spending long periods of time in prayer, active people need to find the little moments throughout the day to raise their minds and hearts to God.

In practical ways this can mean making sure we start the day with a Hail Mary or Our Father as soon as we wake up or praying before meals, even the when we eat in public (you’d be surprised at the positive witness this gives). Some of us commute to work, so playing a CD of holy music or of a spiritual talk in the car, or bringing a holy book to read on the bus or train can be a way of filling otherwise empty time. The church here is open until about four in the afternoon, so stopping by to pay a short visit to the Blessed Sacrament as you’re walking to the store or driving by is a way to make the day holy. And, of course, ending the day with prayer before bed is a must. Don Bosco always recommended three Hail Marys for the salvation of our souls.

Prayer is only the first step in the devout life. For life in Christ to be truly alive it must be lived out in action. Prayer allows us to transform our minds to be more like Jesus. The more we read and reflect on Sacred Scripture and read the lives of the saints and their writings the more we are to let them challenge us to be better, more faithful disciples no matter where we find ourselves in life.

But I must admit, there is one step that I did forget to mention. Before we can do any of this we must be honest with ourselves. We need to know who we are; our strengths and our weaknesses. Before the devout life can really be lived in its fullness we should make a good examination of conscience and go to confession. More on the Sacrament of Reconciliation and it’s place in Salesian Spirituality next time