Religion, Faith and Spirituality

#024 January 24

Anawim — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:17:17 +0000

Look beyond this moment. You with the anguish of a lost soul, seeking guidance, consolation, comfort and concern, look beyond this moment. I am with you. You are not alone. You are loved. Do you feel the promise of these words? Do you understand the message I am giving you? Do you realize I do not abandon any of my children? “But,” you may protest, “who has sinned as I have sinned, who has turned away from You, not once, but repeatedly? Who has doubted sometimes if You really existed and if so, why do You …

Faith and the Fun of it

Anawim — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:50:06 +0000

Is there such a thing as a theology of humor? I don’t mean the pious ‘joy’ that lies buried beneath layers of ecclesiastical platitudes. I mean the robust joy that a sense of humor begets, the joy that God transmits through music, art, literature, poetry, good companions, flowers, children, good food, warm summer breezes, snow white snow on mountainous mountain sides, shared experiences, resonant communities. I mean the joys that make us feel good, joys that stir those emotions that make us humans, joys that tell us that this world God has made and the life that he has placed in it, is a good thing and is exactly where we are meant to be in our personal ‘now’.

I wonder about such non-religious joy. I wonder especially about the kind of joy that springs from ‘humor’, not jokes and wisecracks, but ‘a SENSE of humor”. Where does our sense of humor come from? The rectory? The chancery? The Vatican? What is its purpose? Why does it seem to make some folks feel too good to feel bad and others too guilty to feel good? Why is it almost never discussed at any length, if at all, in the context of faith? Why is humor so completely ignored by formal religion? The word ‘humor’ does not appear in scripture or in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Pope has never issued a statement on it. I doubt if it is mentioned in Canon Law.

Isn’t it a valid charism? Wouldn’t it be nice if the Magisterium taught us something about the salvitic aspects of ‘felt’ joy and humor? Of course, they might have to sub-contract the writing of the syllabus, or develop a sense of humor. . .

/bob demers

What is Human?

Anawim — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:43:48 +0000

Does a creature have to look like a human to be one?

How can we know a human beng when we see one?

What, exactly, defines a human being?

Prayer is for the Pray-er

Anawim — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 01:57:57 +0000

It’s taken me a few years to understand prayer in the context of my spiritual life. For a long time whenever I prayed, I prayed because I was brought up to do so. Eventually I began to have difficulties, especially with prayers of petition. I asked myself, “Does God actually withhold his help in tough and tragic situations until someone with the right credentials thinks of prodding Him into action with a prayer?” The problem was with, “Ask and you shall receive . . .” [Luke 11:9-10]. I first got into trouble with this one when , many years ago, I prayed that my sister wouldn’t die of leukemia, that my mother wouldn’t die of pancreatic cancer, that my father wouldn’t die of cirrhosis of the liver, that I would find the ball point pen I lost in the back yard. They died, of course, all of them, from the specific diseases to which I so prayerfully called God’s attention, and I never did find the ball point pen.

The biggie was prayers of adoration. I think we can agree that God is one, entire, complete and omni-everything. He lacks nothing, thus needs nothing. This therefor must include, I concluded, my adoration.

Scripture and my Catholic faith, and my instincts emphasized the eternal importance prayer. So I searched my heart, of and on, but still didn’t get it. I felt that there had to be away to understand prayer that fully reconciled all these conflicting perceptions and allow me to adore my God without feeling that HE needed my adoration.

Well, not too long ago, the light dawned for me. I guess it was what is called an ‘epiphany’.

Praying, I’ve come to believe, is for the one who prays, an undertaking that is essential, vital, to the health and welfare of our spiritual existence, not in terms of ‘getting’ things, or of changing God’s mind or of filling God’s needs, or keeping Guardian Angels and the saints busy. The very act of praying is something of a supernatural nutrient. It enables us to accept God’s gifts of faith, hope and charity. It nourishes our ability to love and be loved, to know Jesus as man and God. In a curious way, prayer is a dialog between God and man, but a dialog that only One understands and the other can only intuit. In fine, could it be that prayer is, in some way, the language of paradise and bears no resemblence to the language of time and space?

Politicians Maybe, but a Bishop?!

Anawim — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:59:12 +0000

In the November 23 edition of the National Catholic Reporter, Crispian Hollis, Roman Catholic bishop of Portsmouth, England is reported as stating that he supports the legalization of prostitution but insists that he is not condoning prostitution itself. I can’t help wondering if the bishop could also support embryonic stem cell research while insisting that he does not condone using the results of that research itself, or support the legalization of marijuana while not condoning the use of marijuana itself, or support the ordination of women while not condoning women priests themselves. Maybe a politician could get away with with such irrational calisthenics, but a bishop? I wonder.

It’s About Time … and Eternity

Anawim — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 01:10:30 +0000

The scientists in the room may want to sit this one out and watch a layman who can hardly spell ‘scientist’ make a fool of himself.

What is Time? There seems to be some consensus that there are at least two ‘kinds’ of time, kronos and kairos, and since nobody really knows what time is, the door is open for some interesting speculation on the subject.

Kronos is time measured. It’s the most familiar kind, marked by clocks, sunrise and sunset, and orbiting planets. Personal experience indicates that the duration of unpleasant experiences is measured by kronos time, experiences like wondering when that toothache will end then counting the hours before a visit to the dentist, or waiting for your delayed flight to arrive at the gate, or watching the clock counting the minutes between contractions. Kronos time cannot be ignored, it imposes itself on everything we consciously do.

Kairos is time experienced. This is a bit more subtle. Who hasn’t put down a good book, returned from a walk through a cool green forest or enjoyed an absorbing discussion with a good friend, and later wondered, “Where did the time go?” Note that kairos time is almost always the UNmeasured experience of pleasant events. Kairos time is out of sight, out of mind. The instant we become conscious of it, it vanishes and chronos time closes in.

Time is neither good nor bad, but the kronos-kairos comparison reveals a stunning spiritual dimension. If chronos time is the world’s measure of misery and kairos time underlies all pleasant experience, then kairos time might be the unmeasured time of eternity where chronos time doesn’t exist because, there is nothing to measure. And maybe the experience of the Beatific Vision for those who die in God’s graces, is such that kairos time simply never crosses the mind so they never reach the point of asking, “Where did the time go?”

Kronos time, on the other hand, is merely that which it takes for matter to move from point a to point b. No matter, no movement, no time.

Body and Soul But Truly One

Anawim — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:38:26 +0000

“The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.” Catechism of the Catholic Church [365]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches unequivocally [362 - 368] that the human person is not a body animated by a separate soul or a soul inhabiting a separate body, but a bodysoul unity. Yet the empirical evidence is that the body dies. But the human person is not dead, because the body alone, though dead, is not a human person. On the other hand, the human person cannot be alive because the soul alone, though living, is not a human person.

Speculation (And we do this cautiously with the intent of avoiding conflict with any matters of faith or dogma). With our body in the grave and our spirit elsewhere we cannot exist as a human person, so could it be that though we die at different points in time, we all arrive at the general judgment simultaneously? What might be the subjective experience of the interval between the moment of our death and the resurrection? Perhaps the soul passes the interval in a state of non-consciousness, (sleep?) and the human person, bodysoul reunited as one at the resurrection, would experience that resurrection immediately upon death. This speculation seems to accommodate the notion of a personal and a general judgment being not two separate events, but two aspects of a single event.

“By virtue of our apostolic authority, we define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints . . . who died . . . already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment . . . have been, are and will be in heaven, in the heavenly Kingdom and celestial paradise with Christ, joined to the company of the holy angels. Since the Passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and do see the divine essence with an intuitive vision, and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature.” Benedict XII Benedictus Deus (1336) from CCC [1023]

Some questions begged by this teaching

If the souls described above are not human persons, (and without a body they can’t be human persons) what, I wonder, are they?

Could it be that our understanding of what is meant by ‘the body’, at least in the context of the Resurrection, needs adjusting?

Freewill, Choice and Responsibility

Anawim — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 04:09:25 +0000

Free Will is certainly one of the most awesome gifts of God. It is the most powerful and the most dangerous of human faculties. Of all the characteristics that define us as humans, with Free Will, God has bestowed upon each of us the power to thwart his very will, at least in the short term. It’s by the exercise of Free Will that we make the choices that move us towards salvation as well as the choices that can lead to the loss of our very soul. The gift of Free Will demonstrates how eternally important to each of us God considers our love for him to be.

Those who march under the banner of Freedom of Choice may not be too far off the mark in one sense. We do indeed have freedom of choice. We can freely choose to drive a hundred miles per hour through a school zone. We can freely choose to ignore the pain and poverty of an aging parent. And we can freely choose to have an abortion. But choices of that ilk carry inherent consequences that can destroy us.

The fact that we have Freedom of Choice is no guarantee that all our choices are right. The greater the gift, the greater the responsibility to make good and moral use of that gift , and surely there are few gifts greater than Free Will. In his infinite generosity, God has provided us with all the resources necessary to help us across the minefield of life and to avoid the choices that can destroy our spirit. These resources have familiar names and are available to all. Here are a few: The Word of God the Father expressed in scripture, Jesus Christ the Son embodied in the church and it’s teaching, and conscience formed in the Holy Spirit.

Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Creationism

Anawim — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 00:53:15 +0000

Evolution
How awfully prideful it is to presume to know how God should or should not go about his supernatural business! How can we be so arrogant as to declare that God could not possibly have chosen to create his universe through a process we call evolution.

Intelligent Design
A perfectly good phrase completely mis-applied. Once we manage to get past the non-problem of evolution, could creation be anything but the result of intelligent design? Or do we simply declare that God is not intelligent?

Creationism
Well, there are still those who believe the world is flat five hundred years after Magellan circumnavigated it, so I guess we can expect to have Creationism with us for quite a long time.

Our greatest scientists haven’t been able to create a microbe to say nothing of true intelligence, artificial or otherwise, or to postulate a plausible first cause of the big bang or anything else. Most scientists acknowledge the parallel existence of science and the supernatural and many have come to understand that, ultimately, scientific truth and spiritual truth will prove to be a perfect unity.

Perhaps we should think very carefully before limiting God in the name of religion.

Celibate and/or Unmarried

Anawim — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:05:47 +0000

Which of the following most accurately applies to a Catholic priest (select one): “celibate”, “unmarried”, “celibate and unmarried”, “celibate or unmarried”, “________________”?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church devotes around eighty words to the subject of priestly celibacy in the Western Rites [1579]. Paragraph [1580] acknowledges a different discipline in the Eastern Churches where priestly celibacy is held in high esteem though not required . But “In the East as in the West,” it states, “a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry.” This subtle segue from the positive sense of the term “celibacy” to the negative sense of the word “marry” begs some interesting questions.

Isn’t every unmarried male (or female) morally bound to a life of celibacy? Isn’t any unmarried priest likewise bound to celibacy? Isn’t any additional ordination-related celibacy rule redundant when a ban on marriage achieves the same ends?

If celibacy, and not marriage, is the real issue, then we must conclude that the Church is teaching that a celibate marriage is not valid. This is, of course, incorrect as affirmed by the marriage of Mary and Joseph. The Church could, it seems, simply require priests to be unmarried and let the issue of celibacy take care of itself . This could make the entire debate more interesting.