Archive for the 'Doctrinal Issues' Category
I was struck by a line in yesterday’s Gospel that I think speaks to catechists:
“Then he summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority to expel unclean spirits…” (Mt 10:1)
Two things in particular strike me. One is the notion of authority. Catechists need to know that they have been given authority to teach. All authority belongs to God, who is the Author of all of creation. God, in turn, has given all authority to Jesus (Mt. 28:18). Jesus, in turn, has given authority to the Church (Mt. 16:19). The Church, in turn, authorizes catechists, to minister in Jesus’ name, proclaiming the Gospel. We are to teach with authority because we have been given (entrusted with) that authority. Knowing this should give us confidence and courage to do our work.
Second, I’m struck by the notion of “expelling unclean spirits.” For so long, I associated this verse strictly with the notion of “driving out demons” from people who are “possessed.” In many ways, I’ve dismissed this phrase an anachronistic…harkening back to a time when people thought that many maladies (which today we can diagnose and treat) were caused by demonic possession. Upon further reflection, however, I realized that the term “unclean spirits” need not be (nor should be) interpreted in such fantastical supernatural terms. We ALL deal with unclean spirits - those “forces” that separate us from the love of God and render us “unclean” - not fit to participate in the divine life. The most basic examples would, of course, be the Seven Deadly Sins: pride, covetousness, envy, anger, gluttony, lust, and sloth. We are all too familiar with these “unclean spirits” from our own lives and we see them in the lives of those we teach. IT IS OUR JOB AS CATECHISTS TO EXPEL THESE UNCLEAN SPIRITS! Not through rituals of exorcism but through our teaching: we have been given authority to expel that which is contrary to the will of God.
We don’t have to become some kind of wacky Benny Hinn-type preacher to expel unclean spirits. We just have to teach the Gospel with authority - with confidence and courage, knowing that the Author of Life has revealed the truths we are imparting!
Lots of Catholics are talking about the controversy over Fr. Michael Pfleger’s politically and racially charged talk last week at Trinity United Church. Unfortunately, lots of knee-jerk reactions are happening. I have met Fr. Pfleger on a number of occasions over the years and have great respect for the way he has taken the Gospel to the streets. On the other hand, I also have many reservations about his tactics. It’s important for us as Catholics to turn to our teachings for guidance in forming our opinions in this matter. In this particular case, I think it is imperative that we explore the Gifts and Fruits of the Holy Spirit (especially since the community of Saint Sabina, Fr. Mike’s parish, takes pride in being “dependent upon the Word of God and the power and presence of the Holy Spirit”), the Virtues, and the concept of prophecy.
The power and presence of the Holy Spirit is beyond our ability to control or harness. Jesus told us that the “wind blows where it wills, and you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8). Too many people have interpreted this passage as describing a Spirit-filled person rather than the power of the Spirit himself (no gender implied). Being Spirit-filled does not grant one license to do or say as one please. Too often, people jump to the conclusion that, to be a Spirit-filled person, means that you can do or say whatever you want and that the “rules” do not apply. It’s not that simple. For example, on the one hand, a Spirit-filled person must rely on the Gift of fortitude to challenge conventional thinking. By the same token, however, he or she also must rely on the Gift of Counsel which provides him or her with the ability to see the best way to follow God’s plan when we have choices to make. Fr. Pfleger has always been known for his fortitude which is admirable. In this most recent situation, however, I dare say that Fr. Pfleger lacked counsel. His mockery of Hilary Clinton is clearly not the best way to follow God’s plan as we make choices in this election.
A Spirit-filled person exemplifies the Fruits of the Holy Spirit as well. One of these traits is faithfulness which describes the conviction that one has in respect to the Gospel. At the same time, Spirit-filled people exemplify the fruit of self-control, i.e. the act of allowing God’s love to overcome our compulsive need for security, affection, esteem, power, and status. Fr. Pfleger is to be admired for his faithfulness to the Gospel…his convictions are deep and strong. Unfortunately, in this latest instance, he lacked self-control, allowing his need for affirmation from a congregation to cloud his thinking and to block God’s love from coming through. Not to mention the lack of the following Fruits of the Spirit in his talk: charity, kindness, and gentleness.
Finally, we can turn to the Virtues for guidance. The Virtues are attitudes or ways of acting that enable us to do good. In particular, we can look at the cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. A Spirit-filled person no doubt is called to practice these virtues. Fr. Pfleger is well-known for his commitment to justice and the fortitude that he draws upon in the face of injustice. In this latest episode, it would seem quite clear, however, that he lacked prudence (the ability to carefully and thoughtfully consider one’s actions) and temperance (self-control, restraint in both actions and speech).
I have no doubt that Fr. Pfleger is Spirit-filled. This does not mean, however, that he is free to do and say as he pleases when it comes to preaching the Gospel. Quite the contrary, the Spirit frees us to speak the truth but also makes us prisoners of Christ which means that we are bound to think and act in ways that are pleasing to Christ.
Finally, I don’t know where we have gotten this notion that a person who is seen as prophetic is incapable of speaking untruth. I believe that we have less to fear with the concept of papal infallibilty than we do with what seems to be this popular acceptance of “prophetic infallibility.” People defend Rev. Wright and Fr. Pfleger by saying that they are prophetic, as though somehow they are immune to preaching erroneously. A prophet is someone who is called to speak the truth of God and to communicate God’s will in order that people may be led back to the Covenant that God made with humankind. Just because a person’s “career” has been characterized by prophetic work and words does not excuse or justify momentary lapses of judgment. Fr. Pfleger laments the fact that his reputation to many in this country will now be based on a short YouTube snippet rather than on his years of prophetic acting and speaking. This is indeed unfortunate but it does not exonerate a serious lapse in judgment. My wife and I continuously remind our kids (now college age and beyond) that all it takes is one slip up - one momentary lapse of judgement - such as getting behind the wheel after a few drinks, to damage all the good you’ve done up to that point. The fact is, preaching and living the Gospel is like cultivating a garden. You cannot hope to nurture a small patch of weeds off in the corner that (you hope) few will see. (I borrowed that idea from Stephen Covey’s book, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People)
Fr. Pfleger has offered an apology which is the appropriate action and that apology should be accepted. He must now work to show his contrition and that may involve humbly accepting the consequences that are handed to him by Cardinal George.
The Catechist’s Toolbox talked about HOW we teach. Now, A Well-Built Faith will talk about WHAT we teach. I wrote this book not only for catechists, but for general audiences as well…(think especially, parents of kids in R.E.). I’ll tell you more about it in the days and weeks to come. For now, I just wanted to show you what it looks like!!! Click here!
This Sunday is, of course, Trinity Sunday. One problem that we often fall into when it comes to the Trinity is that we are always trying to explain the Trinity. Early Christians did not occupy themselves so much with explaining the Trinity as they did with KNOWING the Trinity. We can KNOW someone or something without fully understanding or being able to explain that someone or something. I KNOW my wife and she KNOWS me but we can’t explain eachother!
So what do we KNOW about the Trinity? We experience God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - a loving community; a loving relationship; three Persons in one God. In essence, God IS loving relationship. When we say that “God is love,” we are not describing a trait of God but the essence of God. God is fundamentally relational and involved. We are made in the image and likeness of God. This means that we are called to live in loving relationship with one another and God. We are called to be relational and involved. In other words, when we engage in loving relationship with others, we bear a “family resemblance” to God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - in whose image and likeness we are made.
Bottom line is, our goal is not to explain the Trinity. Our goal is to know the Trinity and to live like the Trinity - in loving relationship that resembles the Oneness of God.
Most of what I shared above is inspired by a little pamphlet called A Vision for Pastoral Ministry by Dr. Richard Gaillardetz.
I was getting set to organize my thoughts to say something intelligent about Richard Rohr’s article (actually taken from his Web site) on Eckhart Tolle (Oprah’s current co-teacher on “spirituality”) when lo and behold, a comment came in from a reader who says precisely what I had hoped to say! I thought I would post her comment here in additon to its place with last Friday’s post. Thanks, Maura!
Joe
After reading both your article and the Rohr article on Tolle I had just a few thoughts.
I believe I tend to agree with your concern about Tolle’s popular appeal among those without “mature” faith.
1 thing from the Richard Rhor article that I found particularly troubling was his quote that “He (Tolle) is teaching process not doctrine or dogma.” How hollow and empty to have a process without connecting to a specific meaning. It seems to me that the 2 simply can not be separated. The Sacramental vision that is at the very foundation of our Catholic Christianity does not just call us to recognize generic value in our daily experience. It calls us to recognize that our lives have meaning because of the presence of a God who loves us and wishes to have a personal relationship with us thru the world around us.
Is our goal as Christians to be ““low maintenance” people who can relax and enjoy life” or to engage the world, by seeking to know and be known by the God who loves us?
I believe that “processes” that are an end unto themselves and do not guide us along our journey toward a personal relationship with God are not worthy of our time and attention and can infact distract us from the development of our faith. While great mystics may have found value in simular processes ultimately their process was never abstracted from their purpose of Communion with God.
Peace
Maura
So, what do I (joe) think? What she said!
Here is my initial e-mail response to the contributor who raised questions about my article on Oprah and Tolle. Following that is the contributor’s e-mail response. Isn’t it wonderful when people can truly dialogue?! I intend to comment on Richard Rohr’s essay on Tolle in the days to come. Happy Mother’s Day to all mothers who provide us with God’s compassionate and steadfast love!
-N-, thanks for your e-mail and for engaging in discussion about Oprah and Tolle. I especially appreciate the attachment from Richard Rohr who is one of my favorites. Can you tell me where this piece from Rohr appeared?
I would like to include your e-mail (anonymously) in my next post with a link to Rohr’s piece and allow people to take that in and then respond over the next couple of days.
Initially, let me say this. I’m disappointed that you found my article condemning because nowhere do I condemn them. The first thing I do is give Oprah credit and thanks. Then, I clarify, pointing out conflicts with Catholic spirituality. Nowhere do I claim that Oprah and Tolle are anti-Christian or anti-Catholic. Rather, I point out that their assurrances of total compatibility with Christianity and Catholicism must be taken with caution. Rohr himself indicates that, “there should be no conflict for a mature Christian.” However, we cannot assume that all Christians who are pursuing Oprah and Tolle are mature in their spirituality. Rohr is at a level of spirituality (much like Ghandi) where he recognizes the oneness of everything. Many are, as St. Paul said, “infants in Christ” (see 1Cor. 3:1-3). Without spiritual maturity, one can easily succumb to relativism which is not the same as recognizing the oneness of everything. In the end, my article is a lament that the Church is not doing a better job of doing what Oprah and Tolle are succeeding at (see the last 2 paragraphs of my article).
For all of these reasons, I am happy to engage in conversation with you. I’m not interested in telling people what to think…I’m just trying to get them to think! Thanks for writing. -joe
Hi Joe, I stand corrected.. . . . . thank God!
I over reacted. There seems to be so few items that get through to engage the general public on a spiritual level that I’m overjoyed when even my Saturday morning “hair-bender” can excitedly talk about the book and watches the series on the internet with interest and a willingness to engage what she has heard. If only our Bishops could catch the general public’s interest with like topics. It’s really sad when only an “Oprah” type of public figure has the standing with a large chunk of the American public to be able to even present topics such as this – and seemingly get folk’s attention and to talk openly to others about what they have been experiencing from this series of talks by Oprah and Tolle.
I agree with, it’s not optimal – but it appears Tolle is onto something and given the maturity level of spirituality with the general public, it’s worth discussing.
I received the following e-mail which challenges my stance on Oprah and Tolle which I wrote about in my blog and also in a published article in The Catholic New World (joe-article-on-oprah-for-new-world.pdf), the Chicago archdiocesan newspaper. I believe this e-mail was sent in good faith with a desire for dialogue and I am happy to further converse about the Oprah/Tolle phenomenon. Be sure to read the attachment referred to in the e-mail.
Hi Joe,
Just re-read your Tolle article in the New World dated April 27th. I suppose it comes with the territory of writing for the Cardinal’s publication that one has to come down on the likes of Oprah and a Tolle.
Attached, (eckhart_tolle_and_the_christian_tradition1.pdf) please find a piece that sees the upside to what Tolle has to offer those of us who wish to connect more strongly with and understand a bit more clearly the mystery God. The style with which the article was written indicates to me the attached won’t change any minds, but maybe you can find it possible to be a bit less condemning of other people’s insights and ideas.
I invite y’all into the dialogue. I’ll offer responses of my own after you’ve had a chance to digest the e-mail and the attachment.
On Monday evening, one of the young people asked, “Would it have been better if Jesus didn’t die? Like, if I went into a time machine, went back in time and prevented him from being killed, would that have been better?”
What a wonderful question! I responded by explaining that Jesus came to save us, not to be saved and that, by dying, he showed us the greatest love that anyone can have - selfless love even to the point of giving up one’s life. Likewise, Jesus’ death allowed God to show his power over death, through the Resurrection. There is no avoiding pain, suffering, and death. But now we know that God can overcome all - even death.
How interesting, though, to see the compassion that underlies this question. The young man who asked it is not unlike Peter who couldn’t stomach the thought of Jesus undergoing any form of suffering. Peter, like my student and like most of us, did not understand that the only way to save one’s life is to lose it. (Matthew 16:22-25)
And this question came from one of the students who has given me the hardest time all year! You never know.
I always found it interesting that society as a whole embraces the Christmas story…creche scenes abound and the story is told and sung of a child being born in humble surroundings.
For Easter, we have bunnies, jellybeans, colored eggs, and flowers!
And yet, the reason we celebrate Christmas in the first place is because it is the birth of the one who died and rose from the dead. Without Easter - the Resurrection - there would be no need for Christmas. The 2 cannot be separated.
Personally, I’ve always felt much more drawn to Easter. It is after all the celebration of what forms for us the context of our lives: death and resurrection. Here it is that we find the meaning of life - not summed up in a pithy phrase but in the complex reality of death and resurrection.
I wish you and all those you teach a very blessed Triduum. I offer one piece of advice: go into these 3 days fully aware of how the story “turns out.” We don’t celebrate Holy Thursday and Good Friday as though we are sad and then turn happy on Holy Saturday, as though we need to act surprised that Jesus is raised from the dead. Jesus IS risen! We know that already. We commemorate Jesus’ suffering and death with reverence but with the knowledge that this suffering, and ours, is transformed.
We will meet again here next week when we will joyfully proclaim: Christ is Risen! Truly He is Risen!
As we approach Holy Week, it is not unusual to see Catholic parishes, often the religious education programs, hosting a Seder Meal - the ritual meal that Jews celebrate to mark Passover. The intention, it would seem, is to show the connection between Eucharist and Passover.
It is true that there is an intimate connection between the Eucharist and the Passover. I would venture to say that one cannot fully grasp the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist without a basic understanding of the Exodus/Passover experience. It is no accident that on Holy Thursday, when we celebrate the Mass of the Lord’s Supper, the first reading is about the Exodus/Passover event. It is also no coincidence that on Holy Saturday, in the Easter Proclamation (The Exsultet), we hear the words, “THIS is our Passover feast!”
Having said all that, however, there are some serious concerns about Catholics re-enacting the Seder Meal.
First and foremost, the Seder Meal is a sacred Jewish ritual. For Catholics to re-enact this sacred ritual is disrespectful of the Jewish tradition. (imagine Jewish or Muslim children re-enacting a Catholic Mass, complete with the giggling and awkward moments that are part of any childrens’ production). The Seder Meal is a Jewish tradition that Catholics should enjoy only if we are privileged to be welcomed to a Jewish Passover table.
Second, we do not know for sure that Jesus was celebrating a Seder Meal with his disciples on the night before he died. The synoptic Gospels indicate that Jesus was celebrating Passover with his disciples, but we do not know for sure how Jews celebrated Passover in the First Century. To teach that Jesus ate a Seder Meal at the Last Supper can be misleading.
Third, hosting a Seder meal on Church property can be tricky. The Catholic Church has not approved of Seder meals as a public ritual or devotion. For a parish to host a Seder Meal may give the impression that Church approval exists for such functions where it does not.
If Catholics wish to learn more about the Seder Meal or participate in one, I recommend the following:
- Catholics can work with the Jewish community to invite speakers to come and explain the Seder Meal to a group of Catholics at the parish
- Catholics can arrange to join members of the Jewish community as they celebrate the Seder Meal.
- Since the Church has not expressly forbidden Catholic reenactments of the Seder Meal, Catholics are free to use their judgment as to whether it is appropriate to take part in a Seder Meal and, if they choose to do so, it would be more appropriate to do so in the privacy of their own homes with several families attending.
Here’s a link to what the U.S. bishops have to say on the matter: God’s Mercy Endures Forever: Guidelines on the Presentation of Jews and Judaism in Catholic Preaching (1988)
Closing thought: It is encouraging that Catholics wish to learn more about our Jewish roots and such education will continue to improve Catholic-Jewish relations. I affirm this desire in all those who have been seeking to do Seder Meals. I encourage you to move forward, however, in a manner that is most deeply respectful to our Jewish brothers and sisters.
