April 27, 2017

Discarded Communion Host Leads to Conversion

Interesting reversion story from a guest poster at Catholic Bibles blog:
"I went to a good college and let my faith slip away due to the self consciousness of being semi-religious at an Ivy League school during the Bush years, when Christianity was mainly seen as the philosophical arm of the Republican party by many in New England.

-From there it was a fairly quick descent in drugs. I got that out of my system and got pretty heavily involved in left wing activism for a while.

-I was absolutely lost and depressed for much of the time between age 18 and 22, but after college I began to find my place in the world in some bohemian circles. I noticed, say, trees for the first time in my life and was intoxicated by the beauty of the world. I started thinking about Jesus a lot, but mainly in a "I wish it was all true..." sort of way. I had "natural happiness", but nothing supernatural.

-While dating an art student, I awoke in her apartment, quite hung over, and grabbed a strawberry. I bit it in half and was amazed to look inside and see the pith within the empty space of this overgrown hothouse berry. It came to me in a flash, as easy as if you look at a clock and know what time it is without knowingly processing the symbols: God exists.

-I excitedly told my girlfriend, who was quite horrified and dumped me. She wept in the entryway of her building as she walked me out. "There is no heaven," she kept repeating.

-I carried with me the knowledge of God's existence, but didn't know what to do about it. I certainly didn't identify with any specific religion or spirituality.

-In the summer of 2012 I stopped at a Stop n Shop in Johnston, Rhode Island to grab a meager dinner before I went to shoot pool with some friends at a dive bar. I looked down at some point and there on the ground was a very dirty communion host. I knew that it didn't belong there, and after thinking about it for a while, I picked it up and put it in my pocket. The entire rest of the night I felt charged--as if I'd been plugged into a battery or something.

-The knowledge of what this was dawned on me over the course of months and years, not all at once. I gave the host to my parents (who had returned to the Church with new enthusiasm a year or two before) who asked advice from their pastor on what to do with it. The suggestion, considering it was of unknown origin, was to dissolve it in water and feed a beloved plant with it. My mother poured it onto the soil around a sunflower.

-I knew my life was transformed. I knew the Church was who she claimed to be. I already knew God, but now I knew that he loved me and pursued me. Still, that knowledge of its importance, compared to the sinfulness of my life gave me pause and indecision.

-I returned to the Church Ash Wednesday 2013."

April 26, 2017

Q&A with Pope Benedict

Interesting excerpts from the Pope Benedict "Last Testament" interview book: 

Q: Do you experience the ‘dark nights’ of which the saints speak?
A: Not as intensely. Maybe because I am not holy enough to get so deep into the darkness. But when things just happen in the sphere of human events, where one says: ‘How can the loving God permit that?’, the questions are certainly very big questions. Then one must maintain firmly, in faith, that He knows better.

More and more it is a gift; you suddenly see something which was not perceptible before. You realize that you must be humble, you must wait when you can’t enter into a passage of the Scriptures, until the Lord opens it up for you.

Q: What are your thoughts about your resignation?
A: One objection is that the papacy has been secularized by the resignation; that it is no longer a unique office but an office like any other. I had to accept that question, and consider whether or not functionalism would completely encroach on the papacy, so to speak. But similar steps had already been made with the episcopacy. Earlier, bishops were not allowed to resign. There were a number of bishops who said ‘I am a father and that I’ll stay’, because you can’t simply stop being a father; stopping is a functionalization and secularization, something from the sort of concept of public office that shouldn’t apply to a bishop. To that I must reply: even a father’s role stops. Of course a father does not stop being a father, but he is relieved of concrete responsibility. He remains a father in a deep, inward sense, in a particular relationship which has responsibility, but not with day-to-day tasks as such. It was also this way for bishops. Anyway, since then it has generally come to be understood that on the one hand the bishop is bearer of a sacramental mission which remains binding on him inwardly, but on the other hand this does not have to keep him in his function for ever. And so I think it is also clear that the Pope is no superman and his mere existence is not sufficient to conduct his role; rather, he likewise exercises a function. If he steps down, he remains in an inner sense within the responsibility he took on, but not in the function. In this respect one comes to understand that the office of the Pope has lost none of its greatness, even if the humanity of the office is perhaps becoming more clearly evident.

Q: Pope Francis?
A:  From ad limina visits and correspondence. I grew to know him as a very decisive man, someone who in Argentina would say very firmly, this is happening and this is not. I had not experienced this aspect of warmth, the wholly personal connection to the people; that was a surprise to me…

One person might be somewhat reserved, the other a little more forceful than one imagined. But I do think it is good that he approaches people so directly. Of course, I ask myself how long he will be able to maintain that. It takes a great deal of strength, two hundred or more handshakes and interactions every Wednesday, and so forth. But, let us leave that to the loving God.


Q: How did you deal with rejection while a young adult in the ministry?
A: I believe that it is dangerous for a young person simply to go from achieving goal after goal, generally being praised along the way. So it is good for a young person to experience his limit, occasionally to be dealt with critically, to suffer his way through a period of negativity, to recognize his own limits himself, not simply to win victory after victory. A human being needs to endure something in order to learn to assess himself correctly, and not least to learn to think with others.


Q: Were you still able to get any sleep [during your papacy]?
A: Yes, yes, that is non-negotiable for me. [Laughs] I’ll never let that be infringed upon.  Seven or eight hours.


Q:  Is the new internal split, then beginning within the Church, and basically enduring to this day, to be considered as part of the tragic nature of the Council?
A: I would say so, yes. The bishops wanted to renew the faith, to deepen it. However, other forces were working with increasing strength, particularly journalists, who interpreted many things in a completely new way. Eventually people asked, yes, if the bishops are able to change everything, why can’t we all do that? The liturgy began to crumble, and slip into personal preferences. In this respect one could soon see that what was originally desired was being driven in a different direction. Since 1965 I have felt it to be a mission to make clear what we genuinely wanted and what we did not want.

Q: Did you have pangs of conscience, as a participant, one who shares responsibility?
A: One certainly asks oneself whether or not one did things rightly. Particularly when the whole thing unravelled, that was definitely a question one posed. Cardinal Frings later had intense pangs of conscience. But he always had an awareness that what we actually said and put forward was right, and also had to happen. We handled things correctly, even if we certainly did not correctly assess the political consequences and the actual repercussions. One thought too much of theological matters then, and did not reflect on how these things would come across.

Q: Was it a mistake to convoke the Council at all?
A: No, it was right for sure. One can ask whether it was necessary or not, OK. And from the outset there were people who were against it. But in itself it was a moment in the Church when you were simply waiting on something new, on a renewal, a renewal of the whole. This was not to be something coming only from Rome, but a new encounter with the worldwide Church. In that respect the time was simply nigh.


Q: You once said that you got to know this great man [Pope John Paul II] better by concelebrating the Holy Mass with him than by analysing his books. Why was that?

A: Yes, well, if you concelebrated with him, you felt the inward proximity to the Lord, the depth of faith which he would then plunge into, and you really experienced him as a man who believes, who prays, and who is indeed marked by the Spirit. This was more the case than if you read his books, although they also gave an image of him, but they certainly didn’t let the whole of his personality energe.

He was a man who needed companionship, needed life, activity, needed encounters. I, however, needed silence more, and so on. But precisely because we were very different, we complemented each other well.


Q: Describe your vision impairment.   
A: The day came, in 1984 I think, when I had a kind of embolism too, which spread to the whole eye. I was in Maria Eck hospital and went to the optician the very next day. It was already too late then, so my vision was very severely impaired. That was being treated for a long time, until finally – a third thing – macula [Macula lutea – also called ‘yellow spot’, a disease of the retina], so now I’m simply blind in the left eye.

Q: Completely?
A: Yes. I don’t even see light and dark.


Q: In the Vatican you never belonged to any cliques. You have an aversion to cronyism. Has your keeping a distance from the apparatus of power not earned you lots of enemies?
A: I don’t think so, actually. I’ve even had friends. Everyone knew that I don’t do any politicking, and that inhibits hostility. People know: he’s not dangerous.

Q: When Joseph Ratzinger emerged before the faithful on 19 April 2005 on the loggia of St Peter’s Basilica as St Peter’s 265th successor, he looked almost like a teenager. After the long suffering of his predecessor, people weren’t accustomed to seeing a Pope not sitting in a wheelchair, who was able to recite texts fluently and to the end. The Popes passing the baton could not have been more different. One was mystical and Marian, the other learned and Christocentric. Here the actor, the man of gesture who wooed the stage. There, the shy ‘worker in the vineyard of the Lord’, the man of the Word, who wanted to renounce the prizing of mere effects over substance. This was already the third conclave you’d witnessed. Was it different to the others?

A: Well, with the first two I was still among the young and little-known cardinals, a novice shooter, so to speak, and in that sense I was in a quiet position. Here I had the responsibility of dean of the College of Cardinals. That means you have to conduct the Pope’s funeral, you have to manage the preparations and then even have a responsibility in the conclave itself. At the end, it is the dean who asks the one selected whether or not he accepts. Through a good twenty years in Rome I was no longer an unknown quantity, my position this time was different from before. And finally, I was now seventy-eight years old, which was of course reassuring. If the bishops stop at seventy-five, you cannot hoist a seventy-eight-year-old onto the chair of Peter.

Q: Why did you not name yourself John Paul III?
A: I felt that would be inappropriate, because a standard had been set there which I couldn’t match. I could not be a John Paul III. I was a different character, cut from a different cloth; I had a different sort of charisma, or rather a non-charisma. Suddenly: Christ’s vicar on earth. What inner change was going on there? Yes, there was the thought: no, I need still more help from him. One knows: I really am not that. But if he lays the yoke on my shoulders, he must also help me bear it.

Q: You spoke of the cardinals’ ballot as the falling of a ‘guillotine’. Did you regret that later?
A: No, the feeling was just like that, a guillotine.

Q: Do you feel you were too much of a professor as bishop?
A: One only realizes afterwards that a professor is accused of approaching the contexts of life too theoretically, which is a danger when it comes to action. But he is gradually schooled in dealing with practical matters by the people around him, and this enables him to become something different; less theoretical and more capable of grasping practical tasks.


Q: Will it take centuries to Christianize the continent of Europe again?  Were you deluding yourself to have preached there so much?

Q: It is not permissible simply to give up proclaiming the gospel. Indeed, it seemed completely absurd in ancient times that a couple of Jews went out and sought to win the great, learned and knowledgeable Graeco-Roman world for Christianity. There will always be great failures too. We do not know how Europe will develop, or the degree to which it will still be Europe if different strata of the population newly structure it. But to proclaim this Word, which bears power in itself, to build the future which makes the lives of human beings meaningful, that is independent of any calculation of success, and absolutely necessary. The Apostles could not make sociological investigations, that happens or it doesn’t, but they had to trust in the inner power of this Word. At first, very few, lowly, people joined. But then the circle grew. Of course the Word of Gospel can disappear from continents. Indeed we can see now that the Christian continents of the beginning, Asia Minor and North Africa, are no longer Christian. It can even disappear in places where it was dominant. But it can never remain unsaid; will never be unimportant.

Q: Were you too focused on debates on the “historical Jesus”?

A: If we no longer know Jesus, the Church is finished. And the danger that we will just destroy him and talk him to death with certain types of exegesis is overwhelming. Therefore I had to get a bit stuck in to the battles over the details. It is not sufficient just to interpret the texts spiritually with dogma. One must enter into the disputes, and do so indeed without losing oneself in the exegetical details, but go far enough to recognize that the historical method does not prohibit faith.
The question ‘is it really proven?’ comes to one again and again. But then I’ve had so many concrete experiences of faith, experiences of the presence of God, that I am ready for these moments and they cannot crush me.


Q: How was it with Obama?
A: A great politician of course, who knows what it takes to be successful, and has certain ideas that we cannot share, but he was not only a tactician to me, but certainly a reflective man too. I felt that he sought the meeting between us, and that he listened.  What was generally impressive about these encounters was discerning that – although these people indeed think very differently to us on many issues – they certainly try to see what is right.

Q: How was the meeting with Putin?
A: Very interesting. We spoke with each other in German; he speaks perfect German. We didn’t go very deep, but I certainly believe that he is – a man of power of course – somehow affected by the necessity of faith. He is a realist. He sees how Russia suffers from the destruction of morality. Even as a patriot, as someone who wants Russia to have great power again, he sees that the destruction of Christianity threatens to destroy Russia. A human being needs God, he sees that quite evidently, and he is certainly affected by it inwardly as well. He has now even, as he gave the Papa [Pope Francis] an icon, made the sign of the cross and kissed it.

Q: Describe your papal visit to Berlin.
A: Berlin is somehow different to the Catholic tradition, and the city is an expression of the Protestant world. Catholicism is indeed there, and it is lived too, but it is somehow marginal.  So it’s clear that one could not expect that Berlin would be like Madrid, or even like London or Edinburgh. There are other cities which are not at all Catholic, but the people are somehow different there . . .

Q: How did you find the meeting with Fidel Castro?
A:  It was touching, somehow. He is of course old and unwell, but certainly very with it and he has vitality. I don’t think he has, on the whole, yet come out of the thought-structures by which he became powerful. But he sees that through the convulsions in world history, the religious question is being posed afresh. He even asked me to send him some literature. Did you do it? I sent him Introduction to Christianity, and one or two other things too. He is not a person with whom one must expect a major conversion, but a man who sees that things have gone differently, that he has to think and ask questions about the whole again.

Q:  Pope Benedict, in the 1950s you predicted an enormous loss of faith across much of Europe. That won you a reputation as a pessimist. Today one sees how your vision of the ‘small Church’ which would lose many of her privileges, which would be opposed, and around which fewer and fewer believers in the strict sense would gather, has come true.
A: Certainly, yes. I would say the dechristianization continues.

Q: How do you see the future of Christianity today?
A: That we’re no longer coextensive with modern culture, the basic shape of Christianity is no longer determined, that is obvious. Today we live in a positivistic and agnostic culture, which shows itself more and more intolerant towards Christianity. In that sense, Western society, or Europe in any case, will no longer simply be a Christian society. Believers will have to strive all the more to continue to form and to bear the awareness of values and the awareness of life. A resolute faith among individual congregations and local churches will be important. The responsibility is greater.

Above all, we see how the dechristianization of Europe progresses, that in Europe things pertaining to Christianity are increasingly disappearing from the character of public life. So the Church must find a new kind of presence, must change her way of being present. There are seismic periodic changes in process. But we do not yet know at which precise point we can say that one era begins and another starts.

Q: You know the prophecy of Malachy, who in the Middle Ages predicted a list of future popes even to the end of time, at least the end of the Church. According to this list, the papacy ends after your pontificate. Is that an issue for you, whether it can actually be that at least you are the last of a series of popes, as we have known the office so far?
A:  Anything can be. This prophecy probably arose in circles around Philip Neri. And he simply wanted to say – in contrast to the Protestants, who were then saying the papacy is at an end – through an endlessly long series of popes yet to come: ‘No, it is not at an end.’ But you don’t have to conclude that it really ceases then. His series was never going to be long enough.

Q: But are there not also lonely hours, in which one can feel terribly alone inside?
A: Certainly, but because I feel so connected to the Lord, I’m therefore never entirely alone.
Q: He who believes is never alone?
A: Yes, genuinely. One simply knows, I’m not the one doing things. I also could not do it alone, He is constantly there.

Q: Were you happy then, being Pope?
A: [Laughs] Well, I would say so; I knew that I am carried, so I am grateful for many beautiful experiences. But it was always a burden too, of course.

Q: Your bishop motto comes to mind: ‘Co-worker of the truth’. How did you actually come to that?
A: Like this: I had for a long time excluded the question of truth, because it seemed to be too great. The claim: ‘We have the truth!’ is something which no one had the courage to say, so even in theology we had largely eliminated the concept of truth. In these years of struggle, the 1970s, it became clear to me: if we omit the truth, what do we do anything for? So truth must be involved. Indeed, we cannot say ‘I have the truth’, but the truth has us, it touches us. And we try to let ourselves be guided by this touch. Then this phrase from John 3 crossed my mind, that we are ‘co-workers of the truth’. One can work with the truth, because the truth is person. One can let truth in, try to provide the truth with value. That seemed to me finally to be the very definition of the profession of a theologian; that he, when he has been touched by this truth, when truth has caught sight of him, is now ready to let it take him into service, to work on it and for it.

To be loved and to love another are things I have increasingly recognized as fundamental, so that one can live; so that one can say yes to oneself, so that one can say yes to another. Finally, it has become increasingly clear to me that God is not, let’s say, a ruling power, a distant force; rather he is love and he loves me – and as such, life should be guided by him, by this power called love.

April 24, 2017

Favorite Gospel Writer

Be cool if there was a book or article on the favorite gospel writer of various saints and historical personages.  A google search revealed the following: 


On a Catholic web forum:

Many of us have a favorite Gospel writer—wouldn’t it be interesting if that Gospel is the one that relates most closely to our own temperament? In fact, many Christian writers have speculated about the temperaments of the Gospel writers, as each seem to reflect a unique–and slightly different–perspective. To the extent that each of the Gospels offers a slightly different perspective on the Paschal mystery, it may be possible to characterize each one’s “temperament.”

Matthew demonstrates definitively that Christ is the Messiah, the fulfillment of all the prophecies of the Old Testament and emphasizes the Kingdom of God. St. Luke highlights Jesus’ relationship with the Father, especially through prayer, as well as the poor, women (especially Blessed Mother), the lowly and the suppressed. Mark is the least “scholarly” and tells a straightforward fast-paced story; he shows Christ’s urgency and his conquering action. John is the most mystical, poetic, and theoretical of all the four. To hazard a guess, we would propose that St. Matthew is choleric, St. Luke the relationship-oriented sanguine, St. Mark the straight story, simple and unadorned (phlegmatic), and St. John (the truth will set you free; the only Gospel where Christ carries the cross alone, the most poetic and mystical of all four gospels) –idealistic, melancholic.


Father James McIlhone, priest-scholar, professor at Mundelein Seminary for 23 years, author, recipient of academic honors, and the director of biblical formation for the archdiocese:

 “I think it’s a toss up between Mark and John. Mark gets a bum rap. I try to show people he’s not this little school kid who doesn’t know what he’s talking about and had to be corrected by Matthew and Luke, but rather a prominent theologian in his own right.  And of course, John is just spectacular. The depths and wonder of what he says. The line we say over and over again, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” When you read that in Greek, “The Word became flesh” -- in a definite moment of time God became one of us. ‘Dwelt among us’ isn’t a good translation. ‘Pitched his tent among us’ is the meaning of the Greek. And of course the tent is the dwelling place of God.  The tent ultimately becomes the temple of God, and then the next line is, ‘We have seen his glory,’ and the glory is the presence of God. So Jesus in becoming one of us, becomes for us what the temple was for Judaism, and then that just develops throughout John’s Gospel.”


Ordinary Christian commenters:
My favorite is Mark. He writes and shows us “Jesus as an Action Hero.” When I finish mark I always sit back and think, “Wow, Jesus was amazing.”


I’ll take Luke. Hasn’t always been, but right now … Luke. The prominence of women, the poor, and the forgotten make me want to learn from the parts of Jesus’ teachings I ignored for most of my life.


John has a sense of the mystical and talks a lot about love. With John, I get the feel that he writes with a sense that this is only the tip of the iceberg.


I’m with Fajita— John’s my man. I like the thought of him being the “best friend”. I know if someone was going to write my story, I’d want it to be my best friend.


I’ll put my vote in for John too! I fell in love with this Gospel in Ross Cochran’s class at Harding and it has been at the top of my list since then!


I have to go with Luke on this one. Jesus gets his hands really dirty in Luke’s gospel. At times I am a Matthew guy, but I love Luke’s storytelling.


I’m a big fan of John. I like knowing it was written by Jesus’ best friend. I really love hearing Jesus share his insights into why he came and what his mission was all about.


I like Matthew’s geneology of Jesus showing God uses both men and women who have made mistakes to bring about a perfect messiah.


I’ve been hanging out in Matthew for so long these days, and love his rich Jewish slant. So, for now he’s my favorite. I sat at the feet of a good friend years ago as she taught through Mark, and at the time that was my favorite.


John… or Luke… I could go with either, but I think I’ll stay with John because of all the poignant teaching from Jesus during the last supper.


The Book of Mark is underlined & scribbled with more notes in my Bible than the other Gospels, with Matthew marked up as a close second. I’m not sure that means I like Mark the best, but maybe his telling of “The Story” speaks to me more plainly.


Luke, hands down.


John.  He brings me to my knees in worship of the King like few others


I would pick John. I love the fact that John is more theological than historical.


Gospel of Luke. For two reasons.
Reason #1: The parable of the Good Samaritan
The single best articulation of the Christian ethic.
Reason #2: The parable of the Prodigal Son
The single best articulation of the Heart of God.
Within those two stories is the whole of the Christian story.

I am addicted to Matthew right now because it lays out most clearly to me what a disciple of Jesus would do. It is a story that you appreciate much more clearly if you understand the back story and the things going on in the first century. I love the time dedicated to the question, “If Jesus is the Messiah, why are things going so bad right now?”

I like how Matthew grounds me and Luke provokes me.  Matthew drives me back to the OT to find the Kingdom of Heaven there. In that way, for me, it serves as a recommendation of the radical behavior of Jesus in Luke. It’s as if Matthew says “Jesus is a totally legit prophet, because he preaches the word of God as faithfully as anyone before.” Then Luke comes along and says “‘Totally legit’ will blow your mind.”

I don’t know if I have a “favorite”, because I appreciate them all so very much……..BUT, if I was pushed to the wall at gun point, I think I would have to go with John. It’s an adventure every time I read it!


JOHN.  I’ve always loved the amazing ‘little’ details he throws in to flesh the stories out. (NT Wright is brilliant in ‘John for Everyone’, Parts I and 2)


I mostly relate to John. In the synoptic gospels, Jesus is teaching things and everyone seems to nod their heads and say, “Oh, now I get it.” But in John, everytime Jesus teaches something, people walk away confused or angry. The message seems to be this, now that you are thoroughly confused by Jesus, you have a question to ask yourself, “Am I going to follow Jesus because I understand him or am I going to follow him because I trust him?” That’s not an easy answer. If we follow because he makes sense to us, then we are really worshiping our ability to figure it out.


Calvin Coolidge:  “John was a particular favorite of Coolidge's, and he took the oath with the Bible open to the gospel of John.”


Saint Madeleine Sophie Barat (1779-1865): John


John Bunyan, author of “Pilgrim’s Progress”:  John


Fr. Stephen Salocks, Dean of Faculty at Boston Seminary: 

“Fr Stephen answered that his favorite is St John, the fourth Gospel – a very rich Gospel, plus it’s a bit of a luxury to have a full course to teach about that Gospel! Scot asked Fr Salocks to explain what the difference between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John are. Fr Salocks began by saying that he always says the biggest problem with studying the Synoptic Gospels is that they have already read John’s Gospel. In the 21st century we have a defined portrayal of Jesus, a Christology – in the 1st century coming out of the life, teaching, suffering death and resurrection of Jesus, the Apostles go out and proclaim. Towards the end of the 1st century, the original eyewitnesses start to die out – Jerusalem is destroyed by the Romans, there is a breach between Christianity and Judaism; all this created a need for a concrete way to preserve the Tradition. Fr Salocks noted that are always called a people of Scripture and Tradition because of this. From this desire to record the tradition, a disciple of St Peter in Rome writes down everything he knows and has heard about Jesus – this is the first Gospel, Mark, written from Rome to try to help Christians in Rome understand who Jesus is. This isn’t a bed of roses either – it’s suffering, serving, being a disciple. Within the next ten or fifteen years, that Gospel and other sources of Tradition are present perhaps in Antioch where Matthew likely wrote his Gospel. Matthew is addressing a different situation than Mark – how do we understand Jesus as God with us? The end of Matthew, Chapter 28, encapsulates the entire theme of the Gospel – “I am with you to the end of the age.” But Jesus now is emphasized as the authoritative interpreter of the Scripture – this is a reaction to the dialogue between the Christian and Jewish faiths about who the authentic interpreter of the Tradition is. Roughly the same time, in a place that is a bit more fuzzy, Fr Salocks continued, Luke is writing a Gospel. But right from the start, Luke emphasizes that he is not an eyewitness but rather is drawing on the experiences of others (Luke 1-4). He also has a copy of Mark’s Gospel and some resources from Matthew. Luke’s focus is Jesus as the Savior, and how Salvation becomes known through the peace and forgiveness that Jesus brings. Luke believes that the message to “take up the Cross daily and follow” Jesus is so important that he writes a second volume – what we know as the Acts of the Apostles, Fr Salocks concluded.

It’s fascinating to see how well all three Gospels tie together, Fr Salocks noted – even the spelling is coherent in many ways, not just the phrasing and wording. They are truly of the “same eye” – “Synoptic.” It wasn’t until the 18th century that someone drawing up columns to study the Scripture put all three Gospels side by side and saw the incredible similarities between the three. John, of course, is the non-Synoptic Gospel, called by one scholar the “maverick.” John is the spiritual Gospel, one that delves more deeply – miracles are fewer, and not even called that – they’re “signs,” emphasizing John’s focus on Revelation throughout his Gospel. Fr Salocks said he likes that idea, as he feels that Scripture itself is incarnational, the Word of God and the human words about the Word. Scot emphasized that most people think “synoptic” is more related to “synopsis” – to think that all three Gospels were written from the “same eye” is a great way to explain the similarities and emphasize the reality of Inspiration. Scot asked Fr Salocks to explain a bit more about the Inspiration in the Catechism. Fr Salocks explained that the phrase “Word of God” in Greek or Hebrew – the whole sense of “word” is more than a verbal sense, it is the reality of God, the experience of God. When a prophet said “the Word of God came to me thus,” they were saying that the reality of God had touched them. We can imagine, Fr Salocks continued, a prophet being overwhelmed, or the people of Israel escaping slavery, and the reality of God overwhelms them as much as the Red Sea overwhelmed chariots. Inspiration is a heavy theology course in and of itself, Fr Salocks commented, but the Scriptures are the object of God’s Inspiration and not a “divine download” from God to the evangelist or to a prophet, where the bars go to 100% the Gospel is complete! No, it is rather a process whereby a people together with a gifted individual in their midst collaborate to record how God has revealed Himself to them, and how do we understand that. As soon as a person or a people being to think about and talk about their experience of God, they are interpreting it, Fr Salocks said – we look at the Scripture and we understand that this is a record of our ancestors in the faith interpreting their experience of God, putting it into words in their time. Because it is the Word of God, we approach it with faith in the context of the Church. There is an allegorical sense to Scripture – how does each passage help us understand Jesus or help us to know how to act?”

April 13, 2017

Happy Triduum

Kathryn Jean Lopez goes on a 30-day retreat./

That's hardcore.


I tend think people who for Lent give up social media and/or reading the news are engaging in a 'win-win': a win for God, and a win for man. (Giving up chocolate or coffee is a win for nobody.)

I say that after gluttonously consuming news after earlier-than-normal 6am wakeup. In this case I got all fired up over the dragging of a "volunteer" off a United flight for insubordination. I fired off emails to both senators asking that the fraud the airlines pull (that of intentionally overbooking) be banned. As if that's the most important thing in the world. As if the Egyptian Christians shouldn't be news item number one. Oy. I'm so easily roiled over the wrong things.

You get the feelings Christians in Egypt (and Europe, long term) are like the Indian tribes of this country circa 1840. Soon to disappear. Which means it's a good time to double up our faith and hope.

April 05, 2017

Causes of White Despair

It's sort of like the chicken or the egg--whether "white despair" was first triggered by economic issues or a spiritual malaise.

Not surprisingly this WaPo article points higher rates of white mortality to economic causes: "In their latest paper, Case and Deaton highlight a host of 'social dysfunctions' that are on the rise in white communities, including 'the decline of marriage, social isolation, and detachment from the labor force.' They believe that all of these problems may share an underlying cause: The economic forces which made life much harder for those without a college degree in recent decades."

Certainly work is a generator not just of wealth but of dignity.  As Pope Francis said:
"We get dignity from work..Work is fundamental to the dignity of the person. Work, to use an image, 'anoints' with dignity, fills us with dignity, makes us similar to God who has worked and still works, who always acts."
But what's interesting from the graphs below is how it shows the deep white mood crash came around 1998.  Just before the economy slowed (click to enlarge):

Meanwhile the decline in church attendance crashed in '99-'00, also before the '01 recession:

So it's difficult to say that all of this was caused simply by the economy.

April 01, 2017

A Day in the Life

Friday: A "get 'er done" day fraught with wall-to-wall speed programming. Gosh these programming emergencies feel exhausting and today was just nonstop fun and excitement.

After work dropped off wrong-sized shorts at UPS, as delivered yesterday. I'm starting to think when you order sizes they take it as a "nice to have". As in, "it'd be nice to deliver him a XL but he'll settle for a medium". Second time that's happened in the past month.

Then off to pick up more of that daily bread called beer.

Back home took dogs on their customary 7-minute constitutional. (It only feels like 20 mins.) No rabbits were harmed during this interlude.

Finally my time: The rich rigatoni repast of recliner. I watched some baseball, a brainless enough change activity. Then the sweet mercy of having food delivered via amazon.com/restaurants. This time Rusty Bucket, a good fish dinner, suggested tip was $5 and no delivery fee. Nice.

Finally the Presanctified Byzantine liturgy at the Eastern church I favor. The inertia factor seems to increase every year but I was bound and determined to do this (and, hopefully, the Stations of the Cross).  It's like I'm trying to keep up with my past self.  Forty-five minute round trip. But the liturgy worked its magic and re-centered me.

Later I thought about how I meant to ask Dylan for what emotions he feels when he hears the tune "When I Ruled the World" by ColdPlay. Specifically not about the lyrics, but the song tune itself. It seems ineffably sad, combined with a wistfulness.  Later, after having heard the lyrics clearly it's no wonder it's a downer of a song, to put it mildly - the singer is expressing his damnation ("I know St Peter won't let me in"). Seems a case where the lyrics match the tune in terms of the emotions evoked.

Saturday: Ah, let the healing begin. The morning began grumpily, as I was in severe reading and coffee deficit. A bit of tension over my wife's concern over my overfeeding the dogs - both are slightly overweight. I kept thinking that feeding the dogs ain't so easy since bending over ain't that easy at 53 and three quarters.

Slept in till after 8am on the strength of an important repetitive morning dream: I had discovered via a google popularity search that the phrase "leader of the free world" was used often in 2008 with Obama, but not in '16 with Trump. This was a miscarriage of justice, another case of liberal bias. A few hours after waking I figured I go through the motions and check the search term popularity and it spiked majorly (or bigly) just after Trump was elected. The opposite of what my dream foretold. Likely because pundits were sarcastically offering, "this guy is the leader of the free world?"

But by 10am I was satisfying my drought by consuming the latest National Review. It was a good issue, with a dense retrospective of a visit to Jerusalem by Richard Brookhiser, a sobering look at how Chuck Berry's invention of rock and roll changed us all, pieces on Calexit and the French elections, and a review of the Ignatius Press history book on the bishops of New York City.

From the article on Chuck Berry:
The electrification of the id at a young age doomed students to an impoverished spiritual and intellectual life, [Allan] Bloom believed: “Rock music provides premature ecstasy and, in this respect, is like the drugs with which it is allied.”
A culture influenced by rock is fundamentally different — more individualistic, more pleasure-centered, more rebellious — from what prevailed before 1955.... We live in the lyrical and spiritual universe of the Chuck Berry song.
Ain't it the truth. "We ain't delinquents, we're misunderstood" goes the West Side Story lyric, or in this case, "We ain't delinquents, we just listened to rock growing up."
Friend Ron had sent me the book Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and I'd put off looking at it since it seemed to me a statement of the obvious: that Islam is greatly flawed and so let's read about someone with an axe to grind about it. I was prepared to tell him that I was more interested in the genesis of Islam than it's current often malicious execution. But when Ron asked if I'd read it, I felt the call to at least start it. And it's surprisingly engaging and well-written. Read it for an hour or two after an early Outback dinner. No wonder it's a best-seller. I should know that bestsellers don't get that way by accident.

Steph left this evening for, of all things, a weight-lifting conference in Dayton which features the author of a book she's reading on strength training. Aaron is the evangelist here - he told her about the author and asked her to come to Dayton with him and two of his lifting buddies. (An interesting foursome.) Aaron never does anything half-assed, be it his job, child-begetting, or physical training. When he was into running, he had to run a marathon. Similarly now in workouts, he's dedicated to the nth degree. Plus three kids in this day and age is probably equal to 5 in 1950. (Somewhere the Hodges are laughing.) He's definitely not of a phlegmatic constitution.

So Steph will be gone from 5 till at least 11pm. Bachelorizing tonight.
I appear to be on a book buying jag. Fourteen for the month of March; almost one every other day, yikes. I guess it's in case there's a book famine.

Fortunately ten were $2-$4, so it's understandable. The pricier selections include the Dominican Sisters' Manual of Marian Devotion (impulse buy because it was 40% off on St. Benedict day) and Fantasy Life, because it's a baseball picture book that followed minor leaguers along their journey, which is like crack cocaine to me. Those two were about $45.  Ideally I could just stop buying right now for a couple years just read what I have to my heart's content. But somehow I think I won't do that. At the very least I can just buy the $2-3 offerings. These books are like rabbits, reproducing endlessly. Which reminds me of the Jonah Goldberg funny about dog-walking:
But now because the foul, oh-so-hoppy scent of bunnies is everywhere, leash walks take an eternity. She has developed a basset-like obsession with olfactory investigation.
Speaking of which, I took the dogs on this overcast Columbus (pardon the redundancy) day to the local park near the senior center. It's a place I'd taken Maris many a time when she was a puppy but never Max. So now Maris got to introduce Max to this particular park. It was uneventful till the end when I decided stupidly to go off the path, onto the grass near the forest, where of course I ended up falling on the slickness and landing on my backside in a mile-long puddle. It rained 25 inches yesterday, so grasslands have become tricky-to-identify swamps. My back pocket held my iPhone, and I was nervous for awhile I'd ruined it by getting it too wet. It got plenty wet, but apparently not too wet.