All posts by Rob Agnelli

John 6 and the New Manna

April 22, 2015Eucharist, ScriptureRob Agnelli

There is an expression among biblical scholars that we would all do well to remember: “A text without a context becomes a pretext for a proof-text.” The point that they are making is that we must always be on guard when reading and meditating upon Scripture to be sure to understand the context in which it is written. As Catholics we read John 6 as a proof-text for the Eucharist (which it is) but John includes this chapter in his gospel for a deeper reason than merely introducing the Real Presence of the Eucharist. As the Church offers us this chapter this week in the Daily Liturgy, it is instructive to examine some of the background.

While it is true that many first century Jews were looking for a political messiah, to paint with a broad brush and say all were waiting for this type of Messiah is not true. Most were awaiting a new Exodus. For the Jews, the Passover and the Exodus were (and still are) the central events of their faith because they represented God’s definitive action and future promise to save them. This would have been readily known by the Jewish Christians in John’s Community and is an important interpretive key for understanding John’s Gospel as a whole and John 6 specifically.

Jesus makes reference to the new Exodus most clearly when He is asked point-blank by the disciples of John the Baptist whether He is the Messiah. He responds by making reference to one of Isaiah’s prophecies regarding the new exodus—“Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.” (Mt 11:4-5)

In the Transfiguration Moses and Elijah were to speaking to Jesus about His “exodus which He was to accomplish at Jerusalem”—this gives us an essential clue to when the new exodus would be fulfilled: during Jesus’ passion and death in Jerusalem.

This new Exodus could be summarized in four key events:

(1) The New Moses—see Dt 18:15-18 where Moses promises a “prophet like me.” This is a theme throughout John’s Gospel, the most obvious of which is the Woman at the Well where she mentions that she has found “the Prophet.”

(2) “Cut” a New Covenant—the making of the first Sinai Covenant involved a heavenly meal like when Moses and the elders feast in the presence of God—“They beheld God and ate and drank” (Ex 24:11). The promise of the New Covenant comes in Jeremiah 31:31-33. Jesus’ fulfillment of it (with its accompanying meal) is done at the Last Supper (Luke 17:14-20) but not consummated until the Cross (John 19:30).

(3) The New Temple—This one is the most obvious from John’s Gospel. One can see Micah 4:1-2 for the prophecy. The Cleansing of the Temple is Jesus’ sign that He will fulfill this (rather than chastising Him for cleansing the Temple, the Jews merely ask “what sign do you give us for this?”). Another significant text that factors into our discussion is Mt 12:1-8 when Jesus says, “Something greater than the Temple is here.”

(4) The New Promised Land—See Is 60:21. There is more detail on this as well, but for the sake of our discussion we can set this aside.

Any Jew would have known that if there was a new exodus then there must also be a new Passover. If Jesus saw Himself as inaugurating a new exodus then He would have seen the need to provide food for the journey. What is often forgotten or overlooked is the fact that not only did manna come from heaven but flesh came from heaven in the evening as well. If the first Moses gave Israel manna, then it was expected that the second would as well. The people clearly expect this as well as John 6:22-34 shows.

Another key question is how is God worshipped once the new exodus begins?

Although many Christians are familiar with the animal sacrifice of the Old Testament, there were actually two types of sacrifices performed in the Old Testament. The first is the bloody animal sacrifice and the second was an “unbloody “sacrifice which consisted of bread and wine.

This second offering is a sacrifice of thanksgiving (the Greek word is Eucharistia) that was offered every Sabbath day (see Lev 24:5-7). This was a perpetual sacrifice that was to be offered “forever” since it belongs to the Melchizedekian priesthood (see Gn 12, Ps 110, Hebrews 5-8 in which this priesthood is applied to Christ). It is only the bloody sacrifice for sin that ceased when the Lamb of God was offered “once for all.” A first century Jew would have been well aware of the weekly offering of the Bread of the Presence.

Clearly then the Bread of the Presence (or showbread as some translations [KJV, NAB] call it) was a sacrifice (see Ez 41:21-22 where there is an altar and incense which are obvious accompaniments of sacrifice), but what did the Jews believe about the Bread itself—why was it called the “Bread of the Presence” or more accurately in Hebrew “the bread of the face (panim)”?

During the three main Jewish feasts (Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles), Jewish men were commanded to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in order to “appear before the face of the Lord God (panim), the God of Israel” (Exodus 34:23; 23:17). If we turn to extra-biblical sources of the time (Babylonian Talmud for example) we find that the priests would raise the bread of the Presence before the people at the festivals and tell them “Behold God’s love for you.” (Babylonian Talmud, Menahoth 29A).

Now it may be granted neither the Old Testament nor the extra-biblical sources tell us whether the Jews viewed the Bread of the Presence as merely a symbol or the actual face of God. Either way it is important that we come away with the two main points – that it was a sacrifice and (at least) a symbol of God’s Presence.

If we go to any of the Last Supper accounts, we see Jesus equating the Bread and Wine with Himself. As Christians, we have heard this so often that we do not give it a second thought. But this is really strange language unless the idea of bread and wine representing a person is not a foreign concept. With this Old Testament background, we see now why the Apostles have no questions at the Last Supper when Jesus did this.

With our first Century Jewish Christian lenses cleaned off, we commence at the beginning of John 6. We find that the Passover is near. This is a hint to the reader that Jesus’ sign is intimately tied up with the Passover and that His actions and discourse will give a new and greater meaning to it. After the miraculous feeding of the multitude, we then find Jesus “parting the waters,” so to speak, and crossing the sea. Immediately the reader is thinking, “Passover, miraculous bread, walking on water, this must have something to do with the new Exodus.” Lo and behold, we find that when the people catch up to Jesus they raise the topic of Moses. “Could this be the new Moses?” is what they are thinking.

Some key verses for us to reflect on:

John 6:25—Jesus asks the crowd why they are truly seeking Him. Is it because they saw a miracle in the multiplying of the loaves or because they really saw a sign? It turns out that it was the latter because they make mention of Moses. But the Manna from Heaven ceased and would perish at the end of the day. Some people misread this and think that the people just like the idea of getting a free meal. But these people are seeking the new manna because they want to be a part of the new exodus. The people want the bread of God that lasts always and not the old manna which perished at the end of the day.

John 6:35—This is the first half of the discourse that serves as an invitation to faith. Here we find Jesus first introducing the idea of Him as the Bread of Life. This is meant both as an invitation for the people to come to Jesus and believe in Him for salvation. But the people do not ask why He has called Himself bread (not such a strange concept given what was said above regarding the Bread of the Presence) but instead how He could be from Heaven.

John 6:48—This is the second half of the discourse in which Jesus is no longer speaking symbolically as He was in verses 35-47. Instead He repeats several times that the Jews must eat His body and drink His blood. Again this is not what they question, however. Instead what they question is how He can give His body to eat. It seems pretty straightforward in Jn 6:55 that Jesus is saying that His flesh and blood are real food and only those that eat them abide in Him.

John 6:58-59—This is the crux of the issue and proof that Jesus is not speaking symbolically. He says that the Bread that He gives is the fulfillment of the manna from Heaven. Remember, this was one of the things that they were awaiting as a result of the messianic age. What exactly was the first manna?

It was the supernatural “bread of angels” (Ps 78:25) come from Heaven. The question that one must answer then is this – if the first manna was supernatural bread from Heaven, how could it’s fulfillment that Jesus is bringing about just be a symbol? In other words, the old manna would be greater than the new if the new manna is just a symbol. If Jesus was speaking symbolically here, this would be the one and only place in salvation history laid out in the Bible in which the Old Testament prefiguration is something that is greater than the New Testament fulfillment.

“A Hard Saying”—Again the stumbling block for the Jews was not so much that they had to eat his body and drink His blood, but how this could be possible. Jesus’ response says that it will only make sense when the “Son of Man ascends to where He was before.” “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail.” What this means is that it is His resurrected (and ascended) flesh that they will eat and not His earthly flesh. It is His spiritual body that comes under the appearance of Bread and Wine (see Luke 24:35).

Praying It or Saying It?

April 20, 2015CreedRob Agnelli

G.K. Chesterton once quipped that “familiarity is fatigue.” This can describe our approach to the Mass. Because of the predictability of the Liturgy there is always a great danger that we overlook just how charged with meaning everything we do during Mass is. For a number of reasons, the greatest danger of this may occur during the recitation of the Creed. The goal of this essay is not to examine those reasons but to re-examine the Creed’s meaning so that we hopefully can examine ourselves and ask whether we are praying the Creed or merely saying it.

When the new English translation of the Liturgy was given to us a few years ago, one of the more glaring changes was in the translation of the Latin word Credo. Previously it was translated as “We Believe” while the new translation renders it more accurately in the first person singular “I believe.” To think that the goal of the new translation was simply to be more faithful to the Latin however somewhat misses the point. It is meant to help us to grasp the deeply personal nature of the Creed.

There is a danger of looking upon the Creed as more or less like a Catholic pledge. We as Catholics come together and here is the list of things that we agree upon. But this is a reduced understanding of why we profess the Creed. Ultimately I think this stems from a reduction of what it means to be Christian. As Pope Benedict said in his first Encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, “(B)eing Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.” The Creed is meant to reflect the nature of this personal encounter with the Person of Jesus Christ. That is why “we believe” was insufficient.

By reflecting on the personal nature of “I believe” we can capture its deeper meaning, a meaning that Pope Benedict put at the heart one his last gifts to the Church—the Year of Faith. In his Motu Proprio declaring the Year of Faith, he said that it should be a special time in which the Faithful could “rediscover the content of the faith that is professed, celebrated, lived and prayed, and to reflect on the act of faith” (Porta Fidei, 9). His intention was to draw the Church into reflection on the two dimensions of faith—the subjective (i.e. “the act of faith”) and the objective (i.e. “the content of faith”).

In his extended meditation on the Creed entitled Introduction to Christianity, then-Cardinal Ratzinger said that the phrase “I believe” is literally translated as “I hand myself over to.” To hand myself over to another is an act of deep personal trust in the Other. To pray the Creed we are literally praying “I hand myself over to the Father”, “I hand myself over to the Son”, and “I hand myself over to the Holy Spirit.”

To believe in God is not merely to say I think He exists. Biblically speaking to “believe in” means to trust absolutely. This is why the “faith versus works” controversy ultimately is a red herring. To believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior is not assent to the fact that the Son of God was incarnated. You could readily admit that and it have no effect on you. Instead to “believe in Him whom He [the Father] has sent” (John 6:29) means that I turn myself over to Him in absolute trust and in so giving myself I do all that He says. This is what makes Peter’s act of Faith at the end of the Bread of Life Discourse beautiful (see John 6:67-69). Our Lord had given His followers His teaching about the Eucharist that was incomprehensible without the Resurrection. He knew this but was looking for something from the Apostles. Peter and the Apostles do not understand at all but they stay with Him because they trust Him completely (“where else would we go?”). They do not understand but they trust and have turned themselves over to Him. John is also clear that it was also at this moment that Judas decided he could not make that same act of entrustment (John 6:70-71).

This highly personal act of believing also needs an object. It is not enough to merely say “I believe.” Belief requires an object and the object is the content of faith that Pope Benedict speaks of. This is why the Catechism mentions that “faith seeks understanding…it is intrinsic to faith that a believer desires to know better the One in whom he has put his faith, and to understand better what He has revealed; a more penetrating knowledge will in turn call forth a greater faith, increasingly set afire by love”(CCC 158). We must have definitive knowledge of the One Who has revealed Himself. No mere eclectic collection of facts will do. Instead it requires an organic cohesion in which it all fits together. The Catechism recalls how the Greek word for the Creed, Symbolon, captures this necessary cohesion of parts. “This word meant half of a broken object, for example, a seal presented as a token of recognition. The broken parts were placed together to verify the bearer’s identity” (CCC 188). God has progressively revealed Himself and it was Jesus who but all the “broken parts” together and preserves them intact through the Church. The content is like His seamless garment—if you begin to tear at a single string of belief it all falls apart. There can be no pick and choose what I agree with or don’t or deciding what an “issue for salvation” is and what is not. It all fits together perfectly and that is one of the things that makes the Faith beautiful. It is the goal of the Evil One (dia-bolon where we get diabolic) to pull it apart. There can be no act of faith without an object and there can be no faith without a definitive Creed. As Dorothy Sayers wrote in her essay of the same name, it is either a “Creed or Chaos.”

Recall that above I said that “We believe” was insufficient, but I did not say it was wrong. That is because in a certain sense believing is also an ecclesial act. The content of what I believe did not merely fall out of the sky into my lap. But instead was given to me through the Church. The Church that Christ founded to protect the deposit of faith has faithfully handed it on to me. As St. Cyprian said, “no one can have God as Father who does not have the Church as Mother.”

This is why I can never profess the Creed without also calling to mind those who have died with it on their lips and asking for their intercession. I cannot recite it without a sense of deep gratitude for the “cloud of witnesses” who have gone before me and explained the Church’s teachings. I cannot recite it without also praying for those members of the Church Militant who have passed the Faith on to me directly.

This partially explains what my demeanor should be during its profession, but ultimately its greatness consists in the fact because of its purity (even after 2000+ years) that it is a supreme Act of Faith. Each Act of Faith we make only deepens the virtue of faith and prepares us to join those who have professed it before—even, God willing, to the point of martyrdom. The Creed can never be reduced to a mere pledge and we must consciously and deliberately pray it so that our Amen echoes to the halls of heaven. So, are you praying it or merely saying it?

The Lord’s Day

April 18, 2015LeisureRob Agnelli

If Aristotle were to return to the earth in 2015 and see all that has been accomplished he would assume that he would find a society that had a great deal of leisure in their lives. With all the technological advances in labor saving devices, he would have expected that this allowed man a greater use of his time in free activity. Aristotle, like most of the ancient world, thought that we work in order to be at leisure not the other way around like we do today. Much to his surprise he would find a society that no longer knew the meaning of leisure and was stressed out like never before. We are so infected with consumerism that we believe that all life’s needs and their satisfaction come from purchasable items. It has enslaved most of us and it seems that we are trapped in a vicious circle. The Church however places before us the perennial antidote to this type of slavery—the remembering of the Sabbath as a “day of protest against the servitude of work and the worship of money” (CCC 2172).

In order to live fully the gift of the Sabbath, it is necessary first to understand what it is and why it is given to us. The Sabbath has its roots “in the beginning.” God “rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken. God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on it He rested from all the work he had done in creation” (Gn 2:2-3). God’s “resting” is an anthropomorphism charged with a wealth of meaning. As John Paul II says in his Apostolic Exhortation Dies Domini, “it would be banal to interpret God’s rest as a kind of inactivity.” Instead it is meant to convey the fullness of what God had accomplished. God “pauses” to look upon the marvel of what He has created and through the anthropomorphism the Holy Spirit invites us to do the same within the regular cycle of time. It is not meant to be a mere interruption of work however. As St. Thomas Aquinas often says, “last in the order of execution, first in the order of intention.” God’s rest is the last thing He does in the Creation account because it is meant to serve as a sign of what He intends to accomplish. He invites man to participate because it is sign of man’s final destination of an eternal rest in God’s presence—“the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27). Only by actively participating in the Sabbath can we “experience a tremor of the Creator’s joy” by beholding what He made is “very good” (Dies Domini, 17).

With the Fall of mankind the Sabbath becomes more important for man because it signifies the vital link between creation and salvation. This is seen most clearly when we read the two accounts of the Decalogue. In Exodus 20, the emphasis is placed on not doing any work in imitation of God. In Deuteronomy 5:12-15, the emphasis is on remembering the salvation God gave them when He brought them out of Egypt. It is this connection between creation and salvation that causes so much tension between Jesus and the Pharisees about His healings on the Sabbath. It is not that Jesus is some rebellious rule-breaker, but that He is trying to reveal the true meaning of the Sabbath by restoring its liberating character. You should notice how in each of the Sabbath day healings, He heals some illness that would have been a juridical impediment to someone participating in the worship of the Jews (c.f. Mt 12:9-14).

The early Church had the habit of celebrating both the Lord’s Day (Sunday) and the Sabbath (Saturday). This link between creation and salvation is what made the early Christians believe they had the authority to transfer the Sabbath to the Lord’s Day. It was Sunday that fulfilled the Sabbath. They came to view Sunday as the “8^th Day.” It was the day of the Resurrection and therefore the definitive saving action of God. It was also the 1^st day of the week and thus the day of Creation and Re-Creation.

With a proper understanding of the Sabbath restored, the question naturally arises as to how we are best to celebrate it. As John Paul II reminded us, “sharing in the Eucharist is the heart of Sunday but the duty to keep Sunday holy cannot be reduced to this.” It is lived well “if it is marked from beginning to end by grateful and active remembrance of God’s saving work.” It should be seen as not so much “free time” but “freedom time.”

What are some concrete things we can do to mark this holy day? It should be day in which we stop and thank God for all the gifts He has given us. The deeper our sense of gratitude (always for very specific things) the deeper our participation in the Sabbath. Also, allowing ourselves to be free from consumerist driven leisure activities and enjoy the natural world is certainly a great thing to do. The former Pontiff said that the Sabbath should also include a “relaxed gathering of parents and children that can be marked by prayer and catechesis.” This catechesis is not simply dropping the kids at the Parish but it should be catechesis that includes the whole family. Sunday is an opportunity to devote to works of mercy, charity and apostolate. If the purpose of Sunday is to capture the joy of the Lord, then it is necessary to keep the commandment of love for our neighbor (c.f. John 15:11-12).

What about activities that cause other people to work like going to a restaurant? Personally I would suggest keeping these at a minimum, but you might consider being more generous in your tipping to help those who have to work. In a society that has lost the habit of the Sabbath rest there are many people who have to work. By generously tipping them you may help them get out of this necessity. You might also consider frequenting those places that are closed on Sundays on other days of the week as well. What I would suggest as well is to not do any unnecessary shopping. If large chain stores begin to see that it is not as profitable to remain open on Sunday they will either close or at least force less people to work. Again it is a matter of personal conscience but I would say the day should be treated differently than other days and should be marked by gratitude, especially for the people God has given you.

Finding Beauty in the Church

April 15, 2015beautyRob Agnelli

One of the great tragedies of recent times is that we have lost the sense of the beautiful. We have become so focused on the practical that we are no longer concerned with the beautiful. What is beautiful is thought to be only one’s opinion. After all, beauty is in “the eye of the beholder.” Some of this attitude has also made its way into the Church, especially when it comes to the building of churches. The Catechism attempts to correct this attitude by reminding us that the buildings that Christians construct for divine worship ought to be seen as “not simply gathering places but signify and make visible the Church living in this place, the dwelling of God with men reconciled and united in Christ” (CCC 1180). In other words, the church buildings ought to be beautiful.

Everything that exists shares in the transcendental properties of truth, goodness and beauty. It is God who has each of these absolutely so that each experience of one of these properties can be a path to knowledge of Him. This is why philosophers have always thought them to be objective and not dependent on anyone’s opinion. Certainly in a fallen world we can struggle to recognize them, but that does not change the fact that they are not merely someone’s opinion. In a culture that is dominated by the image, it is the beautiful that holds the most promise of leading us to God. It is through beauty that we can be led to truth and goodness.

St. Thomas defines beauty as “that which when seen, pleases.” At first glance this seems to be supporting the idea that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” But what St. Thomas means by “seen” is in the intellectual sense—as in grasped. The fact that it must be “grasped” reminds us that beauty is in the object and not in the “eye of the beholder.” To further explain beauty, he defines its three constituent elements as integrity, due proportion and clarity. Integrity means that there is a wholeness in that a thing has all that it should have. Due proportion refers to an inner harmony so that all of its various parts fit together to make the whole. It also refers to a thing being proportionate to its purpose. Finally, clarity or radiance is related to the other two in that it is a measure of the object’s ability to communicate its wholeness and proportionality to us and revealing what it is and what it is meant to be. While most people could not define these three elements, they still refer to them when they perceive that something is “missing something” (integrity), looks like it should be something else (due proportion) or simply doesn’t look like it should (clarity).

So then Catholic churches are beautiful only to the extent that they reveal what is going on in them. In other words, a church is beautiful when the theology that underpins the architecture is true. This theme of what makes a church beautiful is taken up in Cardinal Ratzinger’s book, Spirit of the Liturgy. His point mainly is that because the Liturgy itself is a work of God and is meant to reveal a heavenly reality it cannot change. What can change are the externals (like the architecture and décor of the church) which serve to amplify and clarify these heavenly realities. The church building ought to serve as a sacramental reality. Like all sacramental it should refer to the past, the present and the future.

First, it recalls and fulfills the temple by revealing the continuity between the Old and New Testaments. It is a continuation of the Temple where there was sacrifice and the presence of God. This is why the altar is always the centerpiece of the church. The altar reveals what the church is for—the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ. Without an altar you do not have a Catholic church. It is also why the Tabernacle should be situated inside the church building and right behind the altar. If the Tabernacle is stuck in some far away chapel, the reality of the presence of God receiving our sacrifice is more difficult to detect and there is a subtraction of its overall beauty.

The Christian church buildings were meant to be a continuation of not just the Temple, but the Synagogue as well. The synagogue was the place of verbal prayer and scripture reading and teaching. This is why the ambo is set off from the altar. The Word remains enshrined in a place of honor. One difference is that synagogues faced Jerusalem because it was regarded as the place of God’s earthly presence while churches faced east. This is because the Church has always interpreted Psalm 19 as representing Christ as the rising sun. This is meant to reveal the cosmic dimension of the liturgy and the belief that the Lord will return from the East. It is also why prior to Vatican II the people and the priest both faced the same direction—they were both anticipating and praying for Christ’s return when we will all participate in the Liturgy of Heaven fully and not in sign. This understanding clearly was lost once the priest faced the people. Once this meaning is no longer grasped we begin to see churches in which the people sit around the altar in some fashion, facing each other.

The great churches also have pillars and walls that were decorated with flowers and ivy. This is meant to serve as a reminder of the Garden of Eden when the entire world was God’s Temple. God created the world and gave it to man as a space of worship. It is also meant to be a foretaste of what is to come in the “New Heaven and New Earth.”

Finally, the church building ought to be so decorated as to give us foretaste of our heavenly future. This is why we find statues of the saints within the sanctuary itself. The statues of Our Lady are usually situated somewhere near the front on the right side of the altar. She is the Queen of Heaven and Earth that sits at God’s “right hand arrayed in gold” (Ps 45). All of the statues portray the saints not as they might appear in history but as they might appear in their heavenly glory. There also ought to be depictions of the angels as well to remind us of all the members of the Church Triumphant that join us in each liturgy.

Obviously there is much more that can be said and should be included with the architecture and decoration, but the overall point is that the goal of church buildings ought to be beauty. If you want to increase Mass attendance, build beautiful churches. Insofar as the architects depart from the three aspects of beauty that Aquinas mentions, they will fail to convey to the people the magnitude of what is going on. As Dr. Denis McNamara says in his book Catholic Church Architecture and the Spirit of the Liturgy, “..good liturgical architecture ought to be like good preaching. It should attract and please the uneducated, edify and educate those who bring grater knowledge and delight the specialist who is capable of deep contemplation.”

Unlocking the Puzzle

April 13, 2015AutismRob Agnelli

I hate Autism. I can never say that enough. Because of the way that it attacks children and causes such suffering in them it is one of the nearest things to evil incarnate in this world. My son Anthony has Autism and like most kids on the Spectrum, Anthony has a tipping point. Often we cannot tell when he is about to reach it, but there is no doubting once he does. One morning when we were away on vacation and on our way to Mass, Anthony reached it. The stress of no structure on vacation, going to Mass in a new place and not having his usual “transition items” he carries with him to Mass was way too much. This particular morning he decided that it was me that was the problem. It began with a litany of hatred—“I hate you,” “I am going to kill you” and then it got physical. He looked for something to throw at me. First a shoe, then a sock, then a pencil and then He found a metal spray can and with pinpoint accuracy hit me in the head.

When he rages like this he is so completely out of control that we have to restrain him or let him tire himself out. When we got to the Church I left the car with my other boys and went into Mass. Once he no longer had the object of his rage in his sight he was able to calm down. After he came into Mass it was as if nothing had happened. Afterwards, we got back into the car and started home. About 30 minutes into the ride, he asked for something to eat. I gave him a snack out of our snack bag and he looked me in the eye and said “I am sorry Daddy.” It was all I could do to choke out “I forgive you” before the flood of tears came to my eyes. I looked at my wife and her eyes were flooded too. It was not just the fact that he said he was sorry and truly meant it. That is huge for any kid with autism. It was why he said he was sorry that made me cry. He said sorry because he had experienced my unconditional love. The fact that I gave him something to eat triggered in his heart affection for me, but he also knew that he had somehow rejected that love even if he was out of his mind when he did it.

I cried not only because I was happy he was able to grasp something that I never thought he would. It touched my heart even more deeply because it revealed something to me of God’s Fatherhood and His love for me. I was able to see that even when I am sorry, it is first because he loves me and shows me His love. It is the experience of His love that causes me to seek forgiveness. The first movement is always His and He never ceases to be moving toward me. I simply have to allow Him to touch me.

There are hundreds of more stories like this. Each time Anthony does something that seems so simple for neuro-typical children I am utterly amazed at how wonderfully made Anthony is (Ps 139:4). I take nothing for granted. Every step is a giant step. I live a life of gratitude for so many “little things.” There have been so many blessings in our lives because of Anthony’s cross.

Some among us might look at the blessings and assume that Autism itself is a blessing. In fact there are many parents who have children on the spectrum that say exactly that. This is partly a means to help them cope and partly because things like Autism are so connected to their personality that they think removing it would somehow change who they are. To adopt either of these viewpoints however makes it about me. It is about Anthony and kids like him. My heart aches when I see him struggle. It aches when I know how deeply he regrets his loss of control and thinks everyone around him hates him. Sometimes my heart even breaks and I think Autism has won. The pain of watching one of my children suffer has left me forever different and wounded. But this is about Anthony. It is him that suffers with it. He is Christ, I am merely Simon of Cyrene. I refuse to pretend it is otherwise. I will not ask Anthony to come down off his cross by pretending it is not a cross. He is a suffering soul and it might just be his cross that saves me.

There is only one reason why I can see Autism with such clarity; it is because I know at the very core of my being that God is good. Nothing will ever change that. The devil can use Autism to shake that but God just uses His divine judo to convince me more deeply of the Truth. If He can bring good out of the darkness of Autism then He really is all-powerful. If He can take an arrogant, judgmental fool and make Him compassionate through suffering, then He is all-merciful. If He can make an impatient man patient then He is all-wise.

Anthony is often ostracized because of his strange behavior. Kids mock him, other parents avoid him. Even many of my own friends can’t handle being around him because he is an uncomfortable reminder that they too could have child with something wrong with them. As hard as these things are, they are mere drops in the bucket compared to the acts of charity that he elicits in others. His brothers give up so much but will be incredible men because of him. They are compassionate with him, but fight with him and treat him like the annoying little brother that he is. They too refuse to let Autism define him every time they see him as the little brother who bugs them. Brotherly love is beautiful when you catch these glimpses of it. Especially because all their friends “get” Anthony and show such gentleness and compassion that Anthony calls them his own friends. His therapists show me the beauty of living out a calling from God. It is no mere job for them, they love him and boast of his miraculous turn-around as if it happened to their very own flesh and blood.

And his mom? Where could I even begin? If I were to give advice to all married men, it would be this: God has put you in the foxhole with one certain woman for a good reason. Cling to her and He will show you exactly why He yoked you together. You will be utterly astounded as to how tough the so-called fairer sex can be and how beautiful a mother’s heart is. But you will miss out on this if you run away from the cross. You will forget who the real enemy is and you will forsake the one person who God has given to you for this battle of life. Your cross may not be autism, but it will come, and even the Son of God did not carry His alone. The cross will strengthen your love for each other, but you have to let it. Gentlemen, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church. There is no other way. It might seem impossible because it is. Let Him do it in you, and you will find the happiness that comes only from desiring to be a gift to your wife. She has the same desire, do not fear to receive her gift. God will help you take care of it.

All this and more, but I still hate autism. God is indeed good (and that is ultimately the last word).

Apostles of Mercy

April 10, 2015Divine MercyRob Agnelli

Pope St. John Paul II has been referred to by many as the “Mercy Pope.” When the Diary of St. Faustina, Divine Mercy in My Soul was banned by the Vatican because of a faulty translation, it was he who was then Archbishop of Krakow that initiated the process to remove any impediments to the spreading of the devotion to Divine Mercy. As pope he canonized St. Faustina as the first saint of the Third Millennium and established Divine Mercy Sunday for the Universal Church. Even Pope Benedict recognized this “Mercy Pope” when he pointed out in a homily that “Providence decided that he should die right on the eve of that day [Divine Mercy Sunday—April 2, 2005] in the arms of Divine Mercy” so that his first day in Heaven was Divine Mercy Sunday. Clearly this was a man who God used to reveal His mercy is a unique way. With the celebration this Sunday of God’s Divine Mercy, it is a good time to reflect on the Mercy of God and use this saint as our guide.

In his second encyclical, Dives in Misericordia, John Paul II wrote what would serve as the framework of his mercy apostolate. He offered an extended meditation on the Prodigal Son in order to remove our “prejudices about mercy [that] are mostly the result of appraising them only from the outside.” His point is that we struggle to experience mercy and give mercy because we do not understand it. We do not understand what we mean when we say that God is merciful and therefore what it means for us to be merciful.

In his commentary on the line from Ephesians 2:1, “God who is rich in mercy,” St Thomas says that God’s merciful love is the basis for the divine love of mankind. He distinguishes between mercy and justice by pointing out that when “a man’s love is caused from the goodness of the one he loves, then that man who loves does so out of justice but when loves causes the goodness in the beloved then it is a love springing from mercy. The love with which God loves us produces goodness in us; hence mercy is presented here as the root of the divine love.” God’s love for us is what causes all that is good in us. So mercy is not just primarily about forgiving our sins but a recognition that “Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights” (James 1:17). We all are beneficiaries of God’s mercy not just those who have sinned greatly. All too often we offer pious platitudes to His mercy without ever consciously experiencing it. Once we recall that it is His mercy that elevates us however we will see it everywhere in our lives.

This is the model for our own mercy towards others. Mercy is not a lowering of myself to help those less fortunate than I. This is one of the prejudices the Holy Pontiff warns us of: “(W)e see in mercy above all a relationship of inequality between the one offering it and the one receiving it.” Our acts of mercy ought to raise others up. But true “mercy is based on the common experience of that good which is man, on the common experience of the dignity that is proper to him.” It is a desire to help another restore their proper dignity. This is the affective aspect of mercy that leads us to compassion. But in order to properly be an instrument of God’s mercy then it must also be effective. Effective mercy does something to relieve the needs of others. Humanly speaking both aspects are needed—the man who performed great acts of “mercy” with no feeling would probably frigidly scare most people away.

John Paul II goes on to say that “mercy constitutes the fundamental content of the messianic message of Christ and the constitutive power of his mission. His disciples and followers understood and practiced mercy in the same way.” What he means is that the early Church saw it as her mission to spread and make known God’s mercy. They were to be Apostles of Mercy by living out the Beatitude “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy” (Mt 5:7). To remind all of us of this mandate, Jesus gave a similar message to St. Faustina “I demand from you deeds of mercy, which are to arise out of love for Me. You are to show mercy to your neighbors always and everywhere. You must not shrink from this or try to excuse or absolve yourself from it.” (Diary 742).

Jesus has given us the Mercy Mandate and the Church has instructed us on how to realize it through the Corporal and Spiritual Acts of Mercy. We must remember that they are done first of all with the intention of loving God. This intention ought to animate everything that we do. This is why we are infused with the virtue of charity in Baptism. It gives us a share of God’s love for Himself and infuses into us the habit of loving like He does. Like all habits it grows in strength each time we exercise it. So when we love our neighbor for God’s sake, it is not some disinterested love that they merely benefit from. Instead it enables us to love them more purely and to desire their good more intently.

Only by doing them with this spirit can they truly be acts of mercy; acts that aid in the restoration and remembrance of the great dignity of those we serve. It is the love of God that awakens this sense. The Canonized Pope goes on to makes it a point to mention how important the approach that we take in brining others to mercy. He says that it is only when the prodigal’s “sense of lost dignity had matured” that he decided to return to his father. This should serve as model of conversion and evangelization for us. Christianity is not primarily a moral message but an encounter with the person of Jesus Christ, Mercy Incarnate. Once someone has been restored to sonship, they will act like it. But first they must know (or be reminded) of their great dignity as beloved of the Father. This seems to me to be at the heart of the overall message of Pope Francis that many people recoil at. It is not that the moral teachings aren’t true or are unimportant. But they are not the Gospel. They need to be preached, but preached as second things. They are preached to those who have encountered Jesus and now turn to Him and ask “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life.”

I spoke recently with someone who was counseling someone against moving in with her boyfriend. He said he was having difficulty reaching her because she was filled with the values of the world. He asked for what arguments he should make. Recalling what John Paul II said above, I told him to tell her “she is worth so much more than that.” She deserves to be loved for who she is and not merely tried out as if she was a used car. That is the first step that he is talking about. The message is still clear—moving in with your boyfriend is wrong, but it is first a message reminding her of her dignity. Like the prodigal son, it is the recollection of her dignity that will set her on the path of mercy. Remembering whose daughter she is, she no longer desire to be a mere servant.

The Sin of the Century

April 8, 2015SinRob Agnelli

In a 1946 address to the United States Catechetical Congress, Pope Pius XII identified the “sin of the century as the loss of the sense of sin.” Certainly the twenty-first century has seen no change in this. There are many reasons why we have lost the sense of sin, but the sense itself cannot be totally lost. What arises in its place is a therapeutic culture where the sense of personal responsibility is greatly diminished. We are all victims and therefore absolved of any culpability. This comes at a cost though. Once personal responsibility is diminished so too is freedom. Is it possible to recapture the sense of sin once a culture of victimhood has been firmly established? If the Church is going to effectively preach the Gospel, which includes a call to repentance (Mk 1:15), then she must find an effective way to include the reality of sin in her message without reducing Christianity to moralizing.

Classically, sin is defined as an “offense against God in thought, word or deed.” But our understanding of sin is greatly impacted by the reason that we think God is offended. Is God offended because He is primarily a judge waiting to mark our offenses in His book? Not exactly–God acts as a judge, but that is not of His essence. That is something that He does with respect to creation but not Who He is. In other words, God is not eternally a judge. Before the creation of the world, He was not a judge. When God is viewed primarily as judge we try our best to follow the rules and do more good than bad (keeping the ledger in our favor) but ultimately know He will not be pleased with us.

Is God offended because we have somehow messed up His plan? No, again. This looks upon God as a distant Creator Who sets the wheels of creation in motion and then moves things around to get what He wants. Again, He is not Creator by nature. Creation is something that He does in time, but it is not Who He is. When we view God primarily as Creator we find a personal relationship nearly impossible and easily fall into a practical atheism.

In the Summa Contra Gentiles St Thomas provides us with an answer. He says that “God is offended by us only because we act contrary to our own good.” (SCG Book 3, 122) What kind of a God is only offended by us when we do something to harm ourselves? A God Who is Father. This is the same Eternal Father Whom Jesus came to reveal to us. Once we begin to view sin from this context of inflicting harm upon ourselves, it changes our perspective. It also readily lends itself to speaking to those trapped in the therapeutic mentality. Someone who identifies themselves as a victim is never free. They may be wounded, but the Divine Counselor is offering them the path to freedom and the power to seize that freedom.

Heston--Moses

To see where you fall on this continuum, let’s look at an example. As the Israelites begin to grumble in the desert and long for a return to Egypt, God brings them to Mount Sinai and gives them the Decalogue. Why does He do that? How you answer depends completely on your view of God. Is God growing weary with them questioning His judgment? The way this text is best understood is that God gives them the Law in order to protect from falling back into slavery. We should view the Ten Commandments as the rules by which we can protect our freedom—“do these things and all they entail and you will remain free.”

This is an important connection that we must make. God gives us commandments only for our own sake. The rules come from a Father who will go to unbelievable lengths to protect our freedom. This also reveals the intrinsic connection between the Commandments and the Beatitudes. The Commandments show us how to protect our freedom while the Beatitudes tell how we should use that freedom. God, like any good father helping his children grow would do, instructs us how to use our freedom. He then gives us strength (grace) to use it correctly and blesses us with a certain interior sweetness when we do. St. Paul addresses this same connection in his letter to the Galatians when he says that “For freedom, Christ set us free” (Gal 5:1). Christ comes to fulfill the law by enabling us to follow it in Him and then shows us how to use it most excellently by making a gift of Himself on the Cross. This is the “freedom of the gift” that Pope St. John Paul II spoke of in Theology of the Body by which we find the meaning of our lives. Our freedom is meant to discover this meaning, not to invent it.

The best definition I have seen for sin comes from George Weigel—“sin is the failure to use freedom excellently.” It shows us that sin costs us something, mainly this gift of freedom. Freedom is not an end in itself—but is given to us for something. It is given to us so that we might encounter the Good. In the “land of the free” we see freedom mainly in terms of “freedom from” something and so this is hard for us as Americans to grasp. But there is a beauty to be found in those who are more concerned with using it well. In truth, there is nothing more beautiful than when a person uses it well (we call these people saints) and this has to far outweigh the ugliness of using it poorly. In fact that is exactly what God thinks. He thinks the beauty of the right use of freedom is so great that He is willing to tolerate the bad use of it (i.e. evil) rather than to go without that beauty by not giving us freedom of choice. If God thinks it so precious, we ought to as well.

Deconstructing the Jesus Myth

April 6, 2015IslamRob Agnelli

Just as sure as Easter coming on the first Sunday after the first full moon in Spring is the seasonal attempt to demythologize Jesus. This can come in various forms but usually involves someone claiming to have found His actual tomb or that He was married to Mary Magdalene. There is one myth however that seems to have no season and that should be debunked. It is the myth that Christians and Muslims both have much in common because of their love for Jesus. The argument goes that while the Muslims only hold Jesus, the Son of Mary, as a prophet, we ought to be able to use this as common ground. An investigation of the Koran and the New Testament reveals that the Isa of Islam is not the same Jesus of Christianity.

First of all, it is necessary to mention how we as Christians have made the wholesale acceptance of this myth possible. In fighting the rising secularist tide, Christians have sought out other “believers” to engage with them in the fight based on the principle that the “enemy of my enemy is my friend.” This however need not be so. It can equally be true that “enemy of my enemy may is also my enemy.” And if history is any indication then we ought to be extremely cautious in labeling Islam as somehow friendly to Christianity. The only thing that has stopped Islamic jihad in the past is a loss of political power. For the majority of the Twentieth Century for example, secular despots in the Middle East acted as restraining forces on the violent manifestations of Islam. Once these secular rulers (like Sadaam Hussein) were ousted (ironically with the help of the West) then it opened up the door to the mass persecution we are witnessing once again.

In the West there is more of a “stealth” jihad that happens by which various Islamic interest groups frame their grievances in terms of civil rights or diversity. Groups like the Council on American Islam Relations (CAIR) have become powerful lobbying groups that fight for civil rights of Muslims in the US. These groups have witnessed the success of the gay lobby associated with labeling anyone who opposes them a “Homophobe” and now apply to anyone who openly opposes Islam the label of “Islamophobe.” Any examination and criticism of Islamic doctrine that might occur is avoided because of the fear of this damning label.

But history also plays an important role in deconstructing the “same Jesus” myth. Jesus is not a mere idea, but a real person who entered into history. He truly was a man who walked the earth and made very specific claims that were well documented about where He came from and Who He was.

Islam may say He was merely a prophet, but this is just a different variation on CS Lewis’ “Lunatic, Liar, or Lord” argument against those who say Jesus was simply a “Good Teacher.” Jesus never claimed to be a prophet like Islam claims He did. Islam claims that He did, but then they must deal with the fact that He was killed because on His claim that He was God. Islam may deny the crucifixion of Jesus, but history confirms the fact that He was crucified. There is no reason to question the historical accuracy of the Gospels on this point especially since extra-biblical sources confirm his execution as well. The first to mention Jesus as being executed by Pilate in the reign of Tiberius was the Roman historian Tacitus in 68 AD. The point is that Christians need to be clearer when they portray Islam as merely misinterpreting Jesus’ role. Given the historical support Islam is misrepresenting Jesus.

On the other side it is important to understand Islamic doctrine. In particular, there is the doctrine of taqiyya which permits deception on the part of a Muslim in promoting their faith. In many ways Islam is a Machiavellian religion in which almost anything is permitted as long as Islam is spread and protected. They see no problem in promoting the “same Jesus” myth, especially in the West, if it suits their purposes.

It is worth examining as well the actual claim that it is the same Jesus whom both religions revere. While the Islamic portrait of Isa borrows much from Christianity, the differences are quite stark. In fact I would say that these differences are so vast that you cannot reasonably say they refer to the same person.

One might expect that as much as Jesus is spoken about by Muslims and Christians during their “dialogue” that the Koran would be filled with wisdom from Jesus. It contains no account of His life and only refers to Him as the “son of Mary” in order to de-emphasize His own claim that He is the “Son of God.” In one chapter of the Koran, Isa is presented at table with his disciples when they ask him for a miracle of a table-full of food from Allah. Allah consents provided that Isa answer clear up the confusion regarding Jesus’ divinity.

And when Allah will say, “O Jesus, son of Mary, didst thou say to men, ‘Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?’”, he will answer, “Holy art Thou. I could never say that to which I had no right. If I had said it, Thou wouldst have surely known it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy mind. It is only Thou Who art the Knower of hidden things. (Koran 5:117)

The point is that the only purpose the Koranic Isa serves is to discredit the claims of Christianity. He seems to be an anti- John the Baptist that says “I must decrease so that he (Muhammad) can increase.” Isa also is not a Jew, but a Muslim. He is not the Message but a Muslim who says he is the messenger that brings “news of an apostle that will come after me whose name is Muhammad” (Koran 61:6). Again this obviously presents some historical problems, but the point is that no one would read the accounts of these two men and think they are referring to the same person. Isa also is said to return to “break the Cross” at the Last Judgment which most Muslim scholars interpret to mean He will abolish Christianity.

Why is a proper understanding of this important? There has been an attempt in the Church to enter into dialogue with Islam based on the mutual esteem of Jesus (see Nostra Aetate 4 from Vatican II for example). But unless this point is made entirely clear, dialogue will really be something like negotiations. If Catholics would be willing to concede that Jesus’ salvific role is not unique then Muslims would be willing to admit that He may be the savior of Christians just not the savior of Muslims. Dialogue (dia-logos) can only occur within a context of a search of a mutual esteem for the truth. If one side condones lying or believes truth can change based on the arbitrary whims of their god then dialogue is very difficult. The truth is that esteem Islam has for Jesus is for Isa. They hold the Jesus of the Christians in contempt because He is guilty of the greatest sin in Islam, shirk, which is to associate oneself with Allah. The Word cannot become Flesh in Islam because their god is not a god of reason (i.e. Word) but instead a god of pure will. Perhaps rather than a commitment to dialogue, we need to be committed to preaching the God Who is both reason (Logos) and will, who became flesh to save us all from the capricious god of pure will.

A Compelling State Interest?

April 2, 2015Catholic Social TeachingRob Agnelli

With the passage of Indiana’s Religious Freedom and Restoration Act and as similar laws begin to pop-up all over the country, political conservatives are counting this as a great victory. But there is a key aspect of these laws that need to be examined; namely the condition that is always attached to it—“a compelling state interest.” In a society where the State is becoming Leviathan more each day, there can be great peril in challenging “state interest.” By examining this phrase through the lens of Catholic Social Teaching, we may be able to shed light on where the proper boundaries of state interest are and what exactly constitutes a “compelling” interest.

One of the fruits of the Second Vatican Council was the manner in which the Council Fathers applied the Church’s unchanging social principles to the modern world. One area in particular they looked at was the purpose of the state: “(T)he political community exists, consequently, for the sake of the common good, in which it finds its full justification and significance, and the source of its inherent legitimacy” (Gaudium et Spes, 74).

For many, this comes as a surprise—that the State is not an end in itself. It only exists to serve a specific purpose and that is to promote and protect the common good. The common good then governs what constitutes the state’s “interest”. The State ought only to be concerned with the common good and nothing else.

In its broadest sense the common good is “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily” (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 164). The Catechism points to three elements of the common good which help to balance the good of the individual with the good of the community. The common good, first and foremost, must recognize the dignity of the person. This means creating societal “conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as ‘the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard. . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion.’”(CCC 1907). Second, the common good requires “the social well-being and development of the group itself” (CCC 1908). However, this must never be done at the expense of the dignity of the person. Finally, the common good requires an atmosphere of peace founded upon a just order in which the mutual fulfillment of members may occur.

This perennial understanding of the common good needs to be preached again today. The Church holds a gem in her social teaching, especially on the common good. Much of western political thought is built upon the assumption that man is not by nature a social being but instead enters into a social contract in order to have his needs met. This is contrary to not only the classical understanding of man but also the Christian understanding of man made in the image and likeness of God, Who is a society unto Himself. The rugged individualist understanding of man reduces the common good to simply the sum of individual goods. What emerges is a sort of utilitarian understanding of the common good as the “greatest good for the greatest number.” “Compelling interests” of the State are only determined based on how many individuals like a given law. Whether the good that a law protects is a true good is inconsequential. But the Church would say that social goods, if they are truly common goods, ought to flow back over the individual so that even the individual who must sacrifice something shares in the goods from the sacrifice. Because each man shares in the common good it is considered a higher good than individual goods.

Once a proper understanding of the common good is in place, it can be applied to the question of religious liberty. In particular there should be a special emphasis on the principle that one might have to forego an individual good for the sake of the higher, common good. For the sake of the common good, each person must forego the good of not being annoyed, inconvenienced or even persuaded about certain truth claims by religious believers and the manner in which they discharge their beliefs . Even those they deem false or even find ridiculous. Why is this so? Because they too share in the good of religious freedom and freedom of conscience. They are protected from coercion and acting contrary to their own conscience. Otherwise we all end of beholden to the sway of public opinion and trapped in the Orwellian dilemma where some animals are more equal than others.

Applying this to the situation in Indiana we can begin to see why this law is so important. Protecting someone’s duty to act in accord with their conscience (even if it is religiously formed) protects everybody. First, I would simply ask, what kind of a society would we have if people were regularly encouraged and even forced to act contrary to their conscience? I suspect that it would be a society that would need many laws (since the law would be the only dictate of what is right and wrong) and would need many more police (and grow to hate them) and lawyers (because it would be so litigious). I sure hope that never happens here.

From this flows the second point. If we do not clearly articulate what this is about we will miss the connection to the common good. It is not about not selling a product to a particular kind of person. It is about not selling a product to someone because one objects to the way in which the product is going to be used. A vendor has a moral obligation to make sure that the products and services he sells are going to be used in the manner that is not harmful. It is no different than not selling 50 bags of fertilizer to a Muslim because he tells you he is planning on making a bomb. Being a Muslim has nothing to do with the refusal. The refusal has to do with what he intends to use the product for. The bakers are not selling cakes for gay weddings not because the people are gay, but because they told the bakers what they will be used for (in asking for it to be decorated with certain words) and they object on moral grounds. This same liberty would protect the gay baker from having to sell a decorated cake to the Gary Gay-Haters Club and the feminist from baking a cake decorated with a naked woman for the Greater Indianapolis Misogynist’s Club. In each of these cases no civil law is being broken, but each would have a valid objection to performing a service they find morally objectionable. The State in turn has the obligation that when this liberty is threatened to make laws to protect it.

If you are interested in reading more about the State’s role with respect to making laws for things contrary to the natural law then you can read this article I wrote in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review a few years ago called Contraception and Public Policy.

Knowing the Enemy

April 1, 2015Angels, Devils, RedemptionRob Agnelli

One of the more glaring omissions of the Passion accounts in the Gospels is that no attempt to explore the motives behind Judas’ betrayal is made. This has led to much speculation throughout the years imputing to him various motives such as greed, envy or even impatience that Our Lord was not acting quickly enough in claiming his Messianic throne. The danger of trying to impute a motive is that we will actually miss the reason why the Evangelists only refer to him as the “betrayer” (Luke 22:3). St. John captures the reason explicitly when he says that “After he took the morsel, Satan entered him” (John 13:27). The Sacred Writers want us to realize that it was not Judas nor the Sanhedrin nor even the Romans that ultimately hatched the plan to kill Jesus—it was Satan and his minions. Our Lord recognized this and pointed it out when He tells the Jews that they “belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father’s desires” (John 8:44). As the Church prepares to enter into Our Lord’s most intense battle against our Enemy we are reminded that in order to fight we must know about him and his tendencies. As Sun Tzu says in the Art of War, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Examining his history, we can better understand his motives. Just how did Lucifer become the Satan? For many it seems that the angels were created in “heaven” with God and therefore it would have been impossible for them to sin. This is an example of how important it is that we properly define our terms, especially given the propensity in English to reduce the number of terms when they only refer to subtle differences (the word love is a classic example). Properly speaking, the angels, although pure spirits, are not by nature heavenly creatures. Instead we should refer to them as naturally “Celestial” creatures. By making this distinction, we are able to reserve the word “heavenly” for those creatures who have the vision of God and see Him as He is (1 John 3:2) rather than in His reflections in creation. No creature naturally has this vision, it can only be granted to those who have sanctifying grace. Communion can only happen between two equals so that in order to have communion with God (i.e. heaven or as Augustine refers to it in the Confessions “The Heaven of heavens”), He must infuse His life in us. Only angels and men (who are made in God’s image) have the capacity to receive this divine life, but they must receive it and freely persevere in it.

Like the first man and woman, the angels were also created endowed with sanctifying grace so that they might have the capacity to be saved. And like Adam and Eve they also were required to undergo a period of probation to test whether they could persevere in that grace. This period of probation included some test in which they could freely choose between good and evil. Although they did not yet have the Beatific Vision, they lived in something like a celestial Garden of Eden. This Garden included sanctifying grace (i.e. God walking in their Garden in the coolness of day) and an experience of being exposed to the danger of committing sin. Those confirmed in grace were then granted the vision of God. The rest, were cast out of the celestial Garden.

Three questions naturally arise from this. First is what was it that actually caused “Satan to fall from heaven like lightning” (Lk 10:18)? It was most certainly pride of some sort as the book of Isaiah testifies:

“How did you come to fall from the heavens, Daystar, son of Dawn? How did you come to be thrown to the ground, you who enslaved the nations? You who used to think to yourself, ‘I will climb up to the heavens; and higher than the stars of God I will set my throne. I will sit on the Mount of Assembly in the recesses of the north. I will climb to the top of the thunderclouds, I will rival the Most High.’ What! Now you have fallen to hell, to the very bottom of the abyss!” (Is 14:12-15).

As to the exact nature of the sin we are left only to the theological speculation of the Church Fathers. Most say that it is directly related to the plan of the Incarnation and the angels’ service of mankind. The Fathers apply the words which the rebellious Israel speaks to its God, “I will not serve” (Jeremiah 2:20) to the fallen angels. Some Saints (like St. Louis de Montfort) have also speculated that their fall was related more specifically to the eventual role of Mary as Queen of Heaven. This might also explain why Satan targets Eve, a type of Mary, directly. So while his first sin was pride, the devil’s second sin was envy. Once he realized he could not truly usurp God, he decided to turn his wrath on mankind so that he could gain pleasure in God’s loss. Interestingly enough we see the same thing happen in man—Adam sins through pride and then Cain kills Abel through envy. This is a familiar pattern in all of us—“pride comes before the fall” and then once truth sets in and we realize we are not God, we envy others for having what we do not have.

The second question is when the angels were created. The book of Job tells us that they were created before the foundation of the world: “Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding…Into what were its pedestals sunk, and who laid its cornerstone, while the morning stars sang together and all angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7). This fits with St. Augustine’s explanation of the creation of light on the first day of as referring to the creation and testing of the angels. The light refers to the angels themselves and the separation of the light from the darkness (after judging that the light was good) refers to the casting out of the demons (Augustine’s commentary on Gn 1:4 in City of God, Bk. 11, Ch 19). At the very least we know that the devil is already fallen when Adam and Eve encounter him in the Garden.

If the devil had fallen, why did God allow him to enter the Garden to tempt Adam and Eve? Wasn’t he forever cast into hell? The Book of Hebrews gives us a clue to the answer when the Sacred Author refers to the role of angels. He says, “Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to serve, for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation?” (Hebrews 1:14).

The role of the angels in God’s eternal plan is to minister to mankind. God’s plan is never thwarted so that even the devil and his minions still serve to aid “those who are to obtain salvation.” For those who are in Christ, it is temptation and suffering that leads to growth in merit through which they obtain their salvation. The evil spirits merely become means by which God brings this about. Remember that mankind’s fall in the Garden, although caused by the lies of the evil one, is ultimately the cause of the Incarnation which is the source of man’s salvation. The choice for the angels, fallen and blessed, is the same choice that we have as well—do God’s will or do God’s will.

St. Michael the Archangel, pray for us!

NOTE: A number of you have emailed me with questions and I would encourage you to continue to do that. In fact this entry is the result of two people asking the same exact question yesterday. I want to encourage you all to also use the Comment section on each post as well. My vision for this web site is that it is one where there is some engagement between the readers and the readers and me. Please don’t be shy about commenting!

Putting the Horse Before the Cart

March 30, 2015RedemptionRob Agnelli

Quick quiz: what two characters of the Passion are named in each of the daily Gospel readings that the Church uses in the Liturgy during Holy Week? The first is obvious—Our Lord. The second may not be as obvious. Each account this week chronicles the actions of Judas Iscariot. Obviously the Church wants us to spend some time meditating upon the role that Jesus’ betrayer played in the Passion and Death of Our Lord. What usually emerges when most of us do this is a vague feeling that somehow Judas got a raw deal. It seems that someone had to betray Jesus to get the ball rolling and that Judas was the unlucky someone whom God chose. After all, wasn’t it prophesied that Jesus would be betrayed by a friend for 30 pieces of silver?

When Peter withdraws his sword to fight for Jesus in the Garden, Our Lord halts him saying, “But then how would the scriptures be fulfilled which say that it must come to pass in this way?” (Mt 26:54). This seems to imply that because the Scriptures said that Jesus must be betrayed then He was somehow bound to suffer His Passion. But this view actually puts the cart before the horse. Jesus was not bound in any way by the prophecies of the Old Testament. The prophecies of the Old Testament were bound by how God chose to carry out man’s redemption. God revealed to the prophets of the Old Testament how He would suffer only because He actually suffered in those ways. The betrayal by Judas was only prophesied because Judas did freely choose to betray Jesus. God is infinite in His knowledge and knows all things that happen or could possibly happen. He is omnipotent and therefore not in any way bound by our free decisions. He uses those free will decisions as a means to carry out his intended ends just like we use natural laws like friction to stop our cars. In other words, it was a free act by Judas that led to Our Lord’s death and neither Judas nor Jesus were somehow bound because it was predicted to transpire the way that it did.

Putting the horse before the cart is perhaps one of the most under-utilized theological principles. It is at the heart of the theology of Pope St. John Paul II and it was the point of emphasis of the first words from his pen as Pope: “The Redeemer of Man, Jesus Christ, is the center of… history.” (Redemptor Hominis, 1). Everything prior to the Incarnation happened so as to ready man for the coming of Christ. Adam failed to run to the Tree of Life in the Garden when he was threatened with death because Jesus would not fail to cling to the Tree of Life which is the Cross. God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac his son only because the Son of God would be sacrificed. God asked for the Passover sacrifices of the Old Testament only because His Son would sacrifice Himself on the Cross. Even the obscure rules of the Old Testaments such as the prohibition of drinking the blood of animals was because we would drink the blood of Christ, the True Sacrifice.

Once we remove any necessity of the Passion and Death of Christ on God’s part, then we can begin to see the sheer goodness and gratuity of God. Saying “God is love” is not meant to be merely a poetic way of saying “He is a really good God.” In fact, satisfaction for sin was not even necessary. St Thomas, citing Psalm 51:6 (“Against you, you alone have I sinned; what is evil in your sight I have done”), reminds us that God could have willed to free man without any satisfaction because it was Himself alone that was offended . Unlike a human judge who is subordinate to the common good of the community, God has no superior to which He is beholden. Therefore, He could offer mercy without in any way offending justice.

In addition to love and mercy, the Cross also reveals God’s wisdom. While it was entirely up to God how He would redeem man, the Cross, according to St. Thomas, is the most suitable way to bring about man’s salvation because of what it reveals about God’s relationship with mankind. Primarily, because by Christ’s passion man knows how much God loves him, he is thereby incited to love God in return. There is no other reason for the Cross than to reveal the depths of God’s love for man.

But there is always the temptation to apply Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross to ourselves in the abstract. We take the words of St. Paul in Col 2:20, “The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me,” and substitute the word “us” for “me.” But it is this conviction that fueled everything St. Paul did and said. Once he came to this realization on the road to Damascus, the scales fell from his eyes and he was never the same. This is what it means to have a “personal relationship” with Jesus. Once I am completely convicted that Christ did that for me personally, once I am completely convicted that God loves me and not just “us,” everything changes. This is why we as Catholics should be so adamant about having Crucifixes all around us. We are in no way denying that Christ is risen. We have crucifixes for the same reason that married people have photos of their weddings—we want to be reminded how much we are loved and how committed our Lover is. Holy Week is a most excellent time to spend gazing at the Crucifix and reminding myself how much I am loved and how committed Jesus is to me. I close with a story that I heard a number of years ago of just how powerful this exercise can be.

There was a group of boys in France who were hanging out in front of a Catholic church during the last days of Lent. They saw a bunch of going in and standing in line, waiting to enter a closet. Each person would enter, come out a few minutes later and then come out and pray. Curious about what was happening they asked and found out that confessions were going on.

They decided to have a little fun and send one of the boys into the confessional and make up a crazy story to try and fool the priest. A young Jewish boy volunteered to go in and immediately started telling his concocted story. The priest, realizing what he was doing, assigned the boy a penance for wasting the priest’s time. His penance was to go into the front of the Church, stand in front of the Crucifix, look at it and repeat these words ten times: “You did that for me and I don’t give a damn!” Figuring he would play along fully with the joke the boy did as he was told. He looked up at Crucifix and started he started to repeating the words. “You did that for me and I don’t give a damn!” After a few times however the words started coming out differently: “You did that for me? And I don’t give a damn?” Finally, he fell to his knees and his words became simply: “You did that for me?”

This boy’s name was Jean-Marie Lustiger. He was received into the Church the following Easter and eventually became Cardinal Archbishop Lustiger.

Preaching the Bad News

March 27, 2015RedemptionRob Agnelli

CS Lewis once said that in order to preach the Gospel to modern man, “Christianity now has to preach the diagnosis– in itself very bad news– before it can win a hearing for the cure.” His point is that the Good News of the Gospel must first be understood in its proper context. Unless we first develop a proper understanding of the bad news we will easily miss just how amazing the Good News really is. Therefore to gain a grasp on the fullness of the redemption we have received, we must return to the Beginning to examine the “happy fault that merited such and so great a Redeemer.”

In each of the two creation accounts found in Genesis, the greatness of man’s vocation is captured when God gives him dominion over all the earth (Gn 1:28-30) and when He gives to man the commandment to “till and keep” the Garden (Gn 2:16-17). Man is made as absolute master of his domain. This dominion is conditional on keeping the single commandment he was given. This is in recognition that Yahweh is his Lord. Once the devil enters the scene and tempts Adam and Eve to sin all of this changes. It is the nature of this change that needs to be looked at more closely. Many people miss the meaning and are left scratching their heads when confronted with the problem of evil even after Our Lord’s saving act on the Cross.

To simply say that Adam, as the head of all mankind, forfeited sanctifying grace and left man in a fallen state somewhat oversimplifies things. The problem was not only interior for man. Once Adam and Eve believed the lie of the devil, the Father of Lies replaced God as master. In falling under the yoke of this new master, mankind ceded dominion over all visible creation (including their own flesh) to the Serpent and he became the “Prince of this World” (Jn 14:30). Driven by envy (Wisdom 2:24), this newfound dominion enabled Satan to unleash his wrath on man by means of this world. God limits his power immediately by putting the Serpent on his belly, but He does not fully reverse what was done. Instead He reveals Himself as a deliverer by promising that by His power mankind will prevail (Gn 3:14-15). The bad news is immediately follow by the promise of the Good News (or the Protoevangelium as the Fathers called it). Mankind starts with one enemy (the devil), ends up with three (the devil, the flesh and the world), and is promised the seed of the woman that will enable him to conquer all three.

This distinction is important because it enables us to see what God did in the Incarnation for what it truly is—a rescue mission. This is why the central event in Jewish history is the Exodus. It reveals God as the God Who always comes through. And they anticipated that He would once again come through in a definitive way and many recognized this in Christ. This is why He is so often compared to Moses—the man whom God used to rescue them from Egypt. This is also why when Jesus meets Moses and Elijah on the Transfiguration Mount they speak to him of His Exodus (Lk 9:30). Jesus was to lead the New Exodus.

If we do not grasp this aspect of the Incarnation then we will end up with a distorted image of God. To say that Christ “died for my sins” is absolutely true. But unless we see Christ’s death as “ransoming captive Israel,” we will inevitably paint God as somehow angry because He needs someone to punish. It is not the punishment that reveals the God “who so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son” (Jn 3:16) but the fact that the “Son of man also came…to give His life as a ransom for many” (Mk 10:45). The Greek word for ransom is Lytron which literally mean “redemption price.” This price was paid for the release of captives by family members and it was the oldest brother as the family representative who was responsible to make the payment. It is Jesus, “the firstborn of the dead” (Col 1:18) that pays mankind’s ransom from the devil. He pays it with His own flesh. But “because it was not possible for Him to be held by [death]” the new Adam became mankind’s new representative accomplishing what the Old Adam could not do.

Seeing Christ as our representative and not as our penal substitute also greatly clarifies why there is still suffering (i.e. the punishment for our sin) in this world. If He is our representative then we must participate. We participate most perfectly through the Mass, but also to the degree that our own crosses participate in the Cross of Christ. This is the way that St. Paul understood his own redemption when he told the Colossians that he “rejoiced in his sufferings because they complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” (Col 1:24). Christ’s representative sacrifice was perfect, what is lacking is our participation (as an aside, this idea of “vicarious representation” is a recurrent theme in the theology of Pope Benedict if you want to learn more).

This also reveals the great power and goodness of God. He has taken the power of the devil (suffering and death) and made it the means of salvation. The devil is still prince of this world but for those who share in Christ’s resurrected life through baptism his weapons become a source of sanctification and redemption. Only a God who is all good and all powerful can turn evil around and bring good from it.

This idea of using the weapons of the devil is also found in the Exodus story. When the people begin to grumble, God allows the serpents to come among the people and bite them. He commands Moses to make a bronze serpent so that all who were bitten might look upon it and live. The serpents who were a source of death, become a source of life for the Israelites (Num 21:4-9) just as when the “Son of Man is lifted up” all those who gaze upon Him will overcome the sting of the devil. Therefore, as Lent comes to a close, we would all benefit from meditation upon the Exodus story. It is not merely a story that tells what happened to the Jews long ago, it is our story. It is that same God who comes to save us and we are His people awaiting entrance into the Promised Land.

On Our Lady’s Perpetual Virginity

March 25, 2015MaryRob Agnelli

One of the most contested doctrines of the Catholic Church is Mary’s perpetual virginity. Not only do many non-Catholic Christians not believe it, but a fair share of Catholics as well. As the Church celebrates Our Lady’s yes to God, it is good to visit this doctrine because knowledge of Our Lady only serves to further “illumine our faith in Christ” (CCC 487).

In a hyper-sexed culture, it is easy to miss just what is meant when the Catechism says that the Church “confesses Mary’s real and perpetual virginity” (CCC 499). We tend to think that it simply means that she never had sex. While that is certainly true, this makes virginity a wholly negative thing and robs it of its richness. We call Our Lady, “Virgin of Virgins” because her virginity is not just that she didn’t have sex, but something that defines her spirit of total purity. This purity of course includes bodily integrity and purity but also touched her soul as well. She had the virtue of virginity which means she was magnificent in her chastity by leaving herself free to be given completely to God. Because she also had a virginity of heart (i.e. the Immaculate Conception) led to the fruit of her womb being the very Son of God. So closely are these aspects of virginity related that Msgr. Scheeben in his book Mariology says that we may speak of Mary’s purity of both body and soul enabling her to have a bridal motherhood of Christ because she is able to share one flesh with her Son who is a divine Person.

Given this understanding of virginity, why is it necessary that Mary be perpetually a virgin? To be clear, when the Church invokes Mary as “Ever-Virgin” she is saying that Mary was a virgin at the Annunciation, remained a virgin at the Nativity, and was a virgin at the Assumption. First we will look at each of these three periods and show how divine revelation agrees with this.

When St. Gabriel visits Our Lady to announce the Good News, she responds by asking, “How can this be, since I know not man?” (Lk 1:34). There is no other way to interpret this question from a married woman except that she did not have carnal knowledge of her husband and had taken a vow of virginity. This particular aspect is what most people think is meant by the profession of the Creed that Jesus was “Born of the Virgin Mary.” But there is a deeper and more important meaning to that particular profession that relates to the actual birth of Our Lord.

The Catechism makes it a point to say that “Mary’s real and perpetual virginity (consists) even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man” (CCC 499, emphasis added). Why does it point this out? First it is meant to oppose the rationalist’s denial of the miraculous. While Christ’s conception was miraculous, it remained hidden. His birth too was miraculous and we know at least one other person (St. Joseph) witnessed this. In order for Mary’s virginal bodily integrity to be maintained, Our Lord could not have passed through the birth canal. Instead He must have been born in a miraculous manner. Recalling that one of the curses that Eve was given after the Fall was that child-birth would be painful and that Our Lady did not have Original Sin and thus was not subject to this curse and suffered no birth pains, then we can see how it must be so that Our Lord’s birth was through the usual means.

Further in the Catechism paragraph I already quoted (CCC 499) it says that “Christ’s birth ‘did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.’” This points out a very important principle. Everything that God touches is made (or remains) whole and holy. This shows the attempt to lower Mary necessarily diminishes God as well.

The second reason that supports the virgin birth is found in Isaiah’s prophecy in which he says, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman’u-el.” (Is 7:14). Notice how it is the virgin who both conceives and gives birth. This is why Matthew uses this as a proof-text supporting his Messianic claims about Jesus (c.f. Mt. 1:22-23). The Jews were expecting a virginal conception and birth.

What about the maintenance of her virginity even after the birth of Our Lord? There are many well written arguments showing how the claims that Jesus had brothers and sisters is easily explained by the broad use of the Greek word for brother (adelphos) and the fact that Jesus turned His mother’s care over to someone who was not His brother as part of His last testament. I will not rehash those here. Instead the focus should be more “offensive” in nature by appealing to Sacred Scripture. First, as was mentioned above, it is clear that Mary had the intention to remain a virgin. There is no reason to think that she somehow changed her mind after the birth of Our Lord. She had given herself totally to God, He had received that gift and made it fruitful and so that would have only strengthened her resolve.

The Fathers of the Church have always interpreted Ezekiel 44:3, “This gate shall be shut. It shall not be opened and no man shall pass through it because the Lord God of Israel has entered by it” as referring to Our Lady as well.

Given this, why is it that I said the perpetual virginity of Mary must be so? First, the Son came so that He could reveal the Trinity. In revealing Himself as the only-begotten Son of the Father, He too must have been the only Begotten Son in time. The second reason is even more compelling. All generations call Mary blessed because she testifies “to the great things God has done for her.” Perhaps the greatest thing done to her is bringing about the Incarnation while maintaining her virginity. If that virginal integrity was lost, then she no longer testifies to this great thing. Even in heaven Our Lady shows forth her splendor-filled virginity. Let us praise God and seek the powerful intercession of His Mother—we fly to you, O Virgin of Virgins, Our Mother.

Stretching Beyond Our Limits

March 23, 2015New AgeASC, Catholic Church, Demons, yogaRob Agnelli

If you ever want to understand what it was like for St. Paul when he was preaching to the Corinthians about the dangers of meat sacrificed to idols, then you should try convincing another Christian not to practice yoga. Convincing people of the serious threat that yoga poses is often very difficult. Most of the time, you can tell who is practicing yoga by the great flexibility they show by rolling their eyeballs. Most of them can roll them quickly into the heads while a few more seasoned practitioners (with some help) are able to roll them even deeper. As Fr. Gabriele Amorth, former Chief Exorcist of Rome and author of a number of books on demonology has said, “(Y)oga is the work of the devil.” So when he calls yoga “devious and dangerous” we ought to take him seriously and seek to understand why he says what he says.

To begin it is a necessary reminder that a person is a body/soul composite. There are two important implications to this. First, whatever we do with our bodies, it is the person who does it. Likewise, whatever we do with our souls, it is the person that does it. Second, those things that we do with our bodies have an effect on our souls and those things we do with our souls have an effect on our bodies.

Why is this simple reminder necessary? Because the most common objection goes something like this: “I just do it for the stretching and I don’t do any of the other stuff.” While that may be true, the poses in themselves mean something. After all, I may merely be extending and stretching my middle finger as a police officer goes by, but extending it means something even if I was only stretching. If you need to stretch your middle finger you will likely find another way to do it rather than risk being misunderstood. Likewise there are many other ways to get the physical benefits of stretching that do not involve yoga poses. This is the same point that St. Paul makes to the Corinthians when he tells them that they cannot “drink of the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons” (1 Cor 10:21). While I certainly advocate extending your middle finger to the devil as much as possible, I suggest you avoid anything resembling yoga at all costs because it might “provoke the jealous anger of the Lord” (1 Cor 10:22) (i.e. He may allow us to be given over to the demons that we are inadvertently worshipping).

With this in mind, let’s examine the underlying philosophy of yoga. While there are many forms of yoga (including hatha and raja—two of the most popular in the West), they all have a number of things in common. First and foremost they are inextricably linked to the religious beliefs of Hinduism, most of which is absolutely incompatible with Christian beliefs. In addition each of them in practice attempts to create an altered state of consciousness (ASCs) by focusing on the breathing, the body position, and a mantra. The controlled breathing is thought to be a means of absorbing prana (divine energy) from the air (since nature is divine). When combined with the poses performed slowly and the repetition of a mantra, this easily creates an effective means to an altered state of consciousness. One learns by these means to direct the prana to different parts of the body by willpower and visualization. The peak of achievement is when the mind can become a void for extended periods and one becomes aware he is divine and completely one with the universe. One of the reasons why the Church has always rejected means of ASCs both natural and un-natural (like drugs) is because it opens one up to the demonic. Our minds are meant to know (especially to know God) and not to become blank slates.

Unfortunately, that is not all. The goal of yoga is the realization of one’s own divinity. A key Hindu belief is in the goddess Kundalini that is represented as a coiled snake sleeping at the base of the spine. Every posture is designed to stimulate Kundalini, which seeks to pass from the first chakra or energy depot (in the pelvic area) to the four chakras in the spine. It then travels to the two in the head with the goal of spreading the sexual energy (seen as divine energy) to each of the other chakras, gaining spiritual power and enlightenment. Finally it reaches the crown chakra where one is made karma-free and immortal. One does not need much of a Christian imagination to understand where this newfound “spiritual power and enlightenment” that many experienced practitioners of yoga have comes from.

There is great ignorance about what Yoga actually is by those in the West. Western teachers in promoting it tend to gloss over the religious system of belief and many practice it unquestioningly. The teachers invite the students to “invite surrender” in the corpse pose at the end of the session without ever discussing what they are actually surrendering to. The Sun Salutation, one of the most common sequences, is meant to “adore the sun.” Even the word “Namaste” means “I bow to the divine essence which is your true nature.” In each case, it is “worshipping the creature rather than the Creator” (Rom 1:25).

This inherent religious nature of the poses also causes a problem. In addressing the continued practice of the ceremonies of the Old Law, St Thomas articulates a principle that is particularly apt–our external acts of worship should always be proportional to our internal beliefs. His point is that regardless of what we believe, we can lie with our bodies by performing certain external acts. He labels this as an act of superstition and, at least objectively speaking, a grave sin.

Instinctively we already know this, although it may not be immediately obvious. Many martyrs are martyrs because they refused to make an external religious act of worship to the pagan gods. They knew that their internal beliefs must always be reflected in their external acts and were willing to die for truth.

The Church too bears some responsibility in the widespread ignorance. Certainly, the Magisterium has been rather vocal in warning the Faithful about its dangers. The Vatican issued a key documents on the so-called “New Age” practices (of which it includes Yoga) in 2003 called Jesus Christ, The Bearer of the Water of Life. The Church cautions against the mind explanding techniques of yoga which “are meant to reveal to people their divine power; by using this power, people prepare the way for the Age of Enlightenment. This exaltation of humanity overturns the correct relationship between Creator and creature…”(Jesus Christ, The Bearer of the Water of Life,2.3.4.1 ). The testimony of Exorcists also speaks of the dangers of Yoga, especially considering that demon of Yoga is one of the demons they attempt to expel.

Unfortunately, these teachings have failed to make their way to the ears of the Faithful. In fact there are many parishes that host things like “Mommy’s Morning-Out Yoga” and the like. Clearly we have work to do to get the word out and keep our fellow Christians from stretching beyond their limits.

On Gratitude

March 16, 2015Spiritual LifeRob Agnelli

Each of the saints, in his or her own unique way, gives us a concrete model of what it means to love God with “all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength” (Deut 6:5). What is not unique is that each one of them was utterly convinced that God loved them. This conviction makes all the difference in the world. To know that I am loved changes everything about my life. Unfortunately for many of us, we are far from convinced of this foundational truth (including many people who consider themselves Christians). To know, like St. Paul, that the Son of God “loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal 2:20) is one thing, to realize it and experience it is another. It is the saint who perfects this movement from knowledge of God’s love, to conviction of His love and to love God in return. And it is a particular saint, Thomas Aquinas, that gives us a formula for making this movement a reality in our lives.

In his treatise On the Two Commandments, St. Thomas says that in order to fulfill the commandment to love God perfectly four things are required. The first and most important is:

“…the recollection of the divine benefits, because all that we have, whether our soul or body or exterior things, we have them all from God. Therefore we must serve him with all this and love him with a perfect heart. A man would be extremely ungrateful if, after thinking of all the benefits he received from someone, he did not love him. With this in mind, David said (1Chron 29:14): ‘All belongs to you. What we received from you we give to you.’ Therefore in his praise it is said (Sir 47:10): ‘With all his heart he praised the Lord, and loved the God who made him.”

What St. Thomas is proposing is that by fostering the virtue of gratitude, we will not only love God, but love Him because we are absolutely convinced of His love for us. Therefore, one can easily see how important gratitude is in the spiritual life. With this in mind, it is instructive for us to reflect on this virtue.

Fr. Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary defines gratitude as the “virtue by which a person acknowledges, interiorly and exteriorly, gifts received and seeks to make at least some return for the gift conferred.” From this definition we can see that there are essentially three parts to gratitude—“thanks-reflecting”, “thanks-saying”, and “thanks-giving.” Most of us only associate gratitude with “thanks-saying” and therefore miss out on its benefits.

“Thanks-reflecting” consists in the “recollection of (divine) benefits” that St. Thomas mentions. This is the first part because in many ways it is the most important. Without it we may never realize God’s love for us individually. Some people will do things like writing down their blessings or keeping a blessing jar. But I think the most effective way to recall divine benefits is through the use of the daily examen prayer.

Many people will treat the examination of conscience as merely a laundry list of all the ways that they messed up during the day. Unfortunately when it is done with this attitude, we simply swing between discouragement and determination to try harder. The problem is that it is entirely “me-centered.” Instead the examen should be “God centered” by focusing entirely on our response to God’s graces throughout the day. We thank Him for the graces and for those that we responded well to and ask forgiveness for those that we missed or responded poorly. With this comes a growth in our awareness of all the graces God sends us to the point that we begin to see everything (including our crosses) as grace-filled. We realize that our sins are essentially different forms of ingratitude and we strive to eliminate sin because it offends the Father who has given us so much. But this growth can only happen when we resolve to perform the examen faithfully every night.

When St. Thomas discusses gratitude in the Summa (S.T. II-II, qq.106-107), he treats it as a sub-virtue of justice. What St. Thomas is emphasizing is that when we speak of the “debt of gratitude,” it means that we owe something in return for the favors that are done for us. We certainly owe the words of thanks, but we must also be prepared to repay our benefactor. This is why we speak of “thanks-giving” and not just “thanks-saying.” This notion of a “debt of gratitude” is often lost on us and we assume that merely saying thanks is enough. We will see why this is not enough in a moment.

First it is necessary to speak of what it is that we owe exactly. Gratitude is not just about quid pro quo, but is something much more than that. When given a gift, there are two things that should be considered—the affection of the heart of the giver and the gift. It is the affection that should be returned immediately (that is we should express our thanks) and then the gift itself in a timely manner. This applies not only to our human relationships but especially when we begin speaking of God’s gifts to us.

God gives out of sheer gratuity. He does not benefit at all from the gifts He bestows and He bestows them simply because He is love. He gives to each of us as a Father who has loved each of us “with an everlasting love” (Jer 31:3). He has known each of us before we were in the womb (Jer 1:5). It is this knowledge and love that has always existed that caused Him to create us. It is from this love, this affection of heart that He gives to each of us.

How could we possibly return a gift with this affection of heart? We cannot on our own. But God has given us the power to do it by bestowing the virtue of charity in our hearts at baptism. Charity is the habit of loving like God loves and like all habits it grows in strength each time we do it. Each time we love God in an act of charity, that love of God grows and we are drawn closer to Him. It is like a gravity that draws us into the orbit of love in the Trinity.

What about the gifts? How can we return to God anything that is proportional to the gifts He has given us? The psalmist gives us a clue when he asks the same question:

“How can I repay the LORD for all the great good done for me? I will raise the cup of salvation and call on the name of the LORD. I will pay my vows to the LORD in the presence of all his people.” (Ps 116:12-14)

Anyone reading this will immediately recognize the Eucharistic connotation of the “cup of salvation” and recall to mind that the word Eucharist (or Eucharistia) is Greek for “thanksgiving.” What the Spirit is telling us through the voice of the Psalmist is that the person who wants to repay his debt of gratitude to God will faithfully, actively and regularly participate in the Mass. The sacrifice of Calvary is the most pleasing sacrifice to God and our participation in it (where we offer and are offered) is the best gift we can offer to God. Like a good Father who gives to his children money to buy him a gift, God gives to His children something they can give to Him.

We now see why gratitude is so important for growth in the spiritual life. While justice is about equality of things, gratitude is about equality of wills. In other words gratitude makes the hearts of the giver and the receiver the same. This is why the Sacred Heart and the Eucharist are so closely bound. It is from the human heart of Jesus that God gives us the Eucharist and it is this heart that is meant to be formed in all of us. The formation of the Heart of Jesus in us begins with gratitude.

The Consuming Fire

March 10, 2015Last ThingsRob Agnelli

Who among us, at some point, has not been asked how a God Who is All-Good could ever send anyone to hell? And who among us has not responded with the completely unsatisfying response that “God doesn’t send anyone to hell. People choose by themselves to go to hell and God just gives them what they want”? It is time that we reexamine this question and take a different approach; one that reveals more about the Goodness of God than merely explaining away a legitimate question. This question truly needs to be reframed. The question needs to be “how could a God who is All Good not send some people to hell?”

First of all, we must come to grips with the fact that some people will end up in hell. Because of the emphasis in Vatican II on the positive aspects of our faith, certain theological schools have arisen which suggest a universalism in which all men are saved. The truth however is that hell has more than just angelic residents. While the Church has never engaged in negative “canonizations” declaring a particular person in hell, Sacred Scripture seems to imply (and most of the Fathers agree) that Judas ended up in hell. In particular, Matthew (Mt. 26:24) declares that it would have been better never to have been born; which certainly would not be true if he were among the blessed. Even if you do not accept that, the man who is the false prophet of Revelation (see Rev. 20:10) ends up in hell. We also can make little sense of Jesus’ parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25 if there is no actual separation between the two groups at the end of time.

While it is true that some people are in hell, this becomes little more than a theological exercise if I do not at the same time admit the real possibility that not only do I belong there, but there is also a real possibility that I will end up there as well. This must be more than just a pious expression. God sent His son on a rescue mission to break anyone out of prison that wants to come, but it will be dangerous and pious sentiments will not keep me from giving up. The danger of an eternal Stockholm Syndrome confronts us all if we forget that we are still inside the prison walls.

Once we accept these two things as given, namely all of us deserve hell and some of us will get what we deserve, we can address the question as to why God cannot both be All-Good and there be no men in hell. The first reason can be expressed as a syllogism.

Justice is an essential attribute of Goodness

God is all-Good

Therefore, God must also be just.

In other words, if some men deserve eternal punishment and God does not give it to them then God is not all-good because He lacks justice, which belongs to goodness.

Now, immediately I can see the objection arise in your mind—“but God is not only just, He is also merciful.” To that I would respond that hell is not simply a result of God’s justice but the inclusion of some of mankind it is a sign of His mercy. Yes, that is what I said—His mercy.

One of the other prevailing sentiment in today’s theological climate is the manner in which we can tend to tame God. But the author of the Book of Hebrews says God is a consuming fire (Heb 12:29). This image at the very least ought to terrify us. What this means primarily is that God is so good that all that is lacking in goodness is consumed in His presence. Anything that is sinful will be burned up.

For the righteous who die in a state of grace this means that all that is imperfect in them will be burned away prior to entering His presence. On the other hand, those who are in a state of mortal sin cannot enter God’s presence because they would suffer the pain of annihilation. To see this, we have to understand what mortal sin does to us. It changes us into something else. In fact it makes us into sin. So then, rather than suffering the pain of annihilation that would come from being in the presence of God, the sinner is mercifully sent to hell (St Thomas cites Ecclesiastes 3:14 for why God will not annihilate anything He has made). The reason why we say that the “sinner chooses hell” is because sin has so disfigured them and their wills have become so twisted that they could literally not stand to be in God’s presence.

Dante in his Inferno captures these two things points in a way that adds a great deal of clarity. As Dante and Virgil descend the depths of hell it gets colder and colder (away from the fire of God) and in each ring of hell, the inhabitants have literally become their sins.

Now it is your turn. Why do you think so many people struggle with balancing hell, God’s mercy and His justice? Comment below…

Glenn Beck and American Eschatology

March 4, 2015End TimesRob Agnelli

Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Congress this week about the growing threat of Iran to Israel. Drawing on the biblical tradition of Queen Esther, he compared the situation of Israel today to that of the Jews in her day saying, “(T)oday the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us.”

Glenn Beck, commenting on Netanyahu’s speech, says that America “as a nation, may not stand, if you don’t side with the Jewish people today. God’s commandments will tell you that. If you side with the Jew, you will survive. If you don’t, you will not survive.” While it seems that in this particular situation, we should side with Israel in its dispute with Iran, what needs to be challenged is the assumption that we must always side with Israel as part of “God’s commandments”. In fact, if the Fathers of the Church are to be believed, then there will come a time when we certainly will not want to side with the nation of Israel.

If you were to poll Catholics as to whether the restoration of the Promised Land to the Jews is a sign of the End Times, then a majority of them would agree. But if you consult the Tradition of the Church and Sacred Scripture then you would find no mention of this. While the Church teaches the necessity for repentance and spiritual renewal on the part of “all Israel” it says nothing about the necessity of the people of Israel returning to the Promised Land. This belief has crept into the mindset of Catholics through the eschatological (study of the end of the world) vision of what is commonly referred to as Dispensationalism.

While Dispensationalism comes in different forms, its uniting premise is belief that God is pursuing two distinct plans or dispensations in history—one with an earthly people (Israel) and the other with a heavenly people (the Church). When Jesus came, He offered the earthly people a physical kingdom until they rejected Him as their Messiah. Once this happened, He formed a heavenly people that were meant to reign not on earth, but in Heaven. However the unconditional promises of the Old Testament to Israel needed to be fulfilled. These promises were put on hold until Christ removed the heavenly kingdom via the Rapture.

The so-called prophetic dispensationalists of the mid-1800s and early 1900s promised a return of the Jews to Palestine and actively pursued the rebirth of the political nation of Israel. Once Israel was re-gathered as a nation, the End Times would follow shortly thereafter. Jerry Falwell has declared that the return of Israel to Palestine is “the single greatest sign indicating the imminent return of Jesus Christ.” It is this same misguided theology that inspires the bestselling Left Behind books and the writings of Hal Lindsay. It is also this false eschatology that leads someone like Glenn Beck to conclude that those who do not support the nation of Israel oppose God.

As we have seen with ISIS, theology has consequences and bad theology has bad consequences. In contrast to what the dispensationalists believe, the Church is not a mere hiccup in history, but the fulfillment of all the promises to Israel. There is not a sharp distinction between the Israel of Sacred Scripture and the Church. When Scripture speaks of Israel it is concerned not with Israel as a nation but a people. St Paul even goes so far as to identify the Church as the New Israel see Romans 9-11, Gal 3:27-29, 6:16). The Catechism says that, from being parenthetical, the Church is “the goal of all things” (see CCC 760). Pope Benedict seems to summarize it best in Behold the Pierced One when he says “…the question of whether Jesus intended to found a Church is a false question because it is unhistorical. The only proper way to phrase the question would be to ask whether Jesus intended to abolish the People of God or to renew it. The answer…is plain: Jesus made the old People of God into a new people by adopting those who believe in him into the community of his own self (of his ‘body’).” Having a proper ecclesiology is vital to having a correct eschatology. The restored Israel is already here in the Church and not in the political Zionism of Israel today that lacks the intrinsic core of Judaism and is really a secular state.

Why does this matter? It matters because it is the nearly universal teaching of the Church Fathers that the Anti-Christ, when he comes, will be a Jew since his rejection as the false Messiah will lead to the mass conversion of the Jews. Because it is prophesied that he will rebuild the Temple (Christ and Daniel say he will sit in the Desolation of Abomination), it is believed also that he will rise to power in Jerusalem. This means that a secular earthbound state of Israel with its superior military force could very well become a military power base for the Anti-Christ. In lobbying for the secular state of Israel, the dispensationalists may actually be aiding the arrival of the End Times in a manner they cannot possibly imagine. Unfortunately when it happens, there will be no rapture to stop the great tribulation that Scripture promises.

Certainly I am not saying that this is going to happen like this. The point is that there is no biblical basis for an unconditional support of the nation of Israel and certainly there is no reason to think that Netanyahu’s speech is “the final spiritual warning to the American people to wake up and side with the Jewish people, or you will face God’s wrath.”

Two Wings to God

"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth" – Pope St. John Paul II