On Primacy of Conscience, Certain Conscience Judgments, and Acting in Good Faith

[[Sister Laurel, Do you think Nancy Pelosi can act out of primacy of conscience if her conscience is not well-formed? Abp Cordileone said that Pelosi needed to form her conscience further. If that is true how can she claim primacy of conscience?]]

Thanks for the question. It is not that I believe Rep Pelosi can act out of primacy of conscience; the Church teaches and I accept completely that she must act in this way and she must do so no matter the degree of formation and information that conscience has been given or achieved up to this point. To fail to act according to one's certain conscience judgment is always a sin because it means acting against the voice of God as one has discerned it in a given instance. (Note that this means one must follow one's conscience even when one is mistaken in one's prudential judgment!!) Conscience is absolutely sacrosanct. There we are alone with God. No one else can enter here, no authority, no institution, and no one can tell us what we must decide. In coming to what is called a "certain conscience judgment" we discern all of the values and disvalues present in the situation and preference these. Additionally, we pray, consider seriously what the Church and other authorities have to say which may and must be brought to bear on the situation. Even so, ultimately, the analysis, listening, discernment and deciding are our responsibility. Only we and God can know whether we act in good faith or not.

The point I made in my prior post is that one may, in fact, err in one's conscience judgment and still act in what we call "good faith". (The reference to a "certain" conscience judgment refers to the fact that one has discerned how God requires one to act at this given moment, not to the inerrancy of the judgment one has come to.)  If Nancy Pelosi, for instance, were to try to come to a certain conscience judgment and in the process decide she had not taken sufficient care in forming or informing her conscience up to this point, the certain conscience judgment she could come to would involve recognizing she was not ready to make a decision in the matter and would impel her to greater formation/information. Ideally one's conscience judgment is both certain AND correct, but a conscience judgment can be "certain" without being correct so long as one acts in good faith.

It is important to realize that our consciences can always be better formed and informed. We can only decide and act as we are able at any given time. And we must act in terms of the conscience we have! It is therefore also important to understand that even if we are in error or our prudential conscience decision runs counter to Church teaching the Church herself still teaches we are obliged to follow our conscience. Both Aquinas and Innocent III wrote on this matter. Aquinas taught that if one's conscience required one disagree with the Church in any specific situation, then one must follow one's conscience even if it meant following it humbly right out of the Church due to excommunication, etc. Again, while one must continue throughout one's life to think, pray, and generally continue to form and inform one's conscience, when the time comes to decide, one must do so and act on the certain conscience judgment one comes to. This is part of the process of further forming one's conscience -- something that truly happens only as we learn to discern, prioritize, and preference the values and disvalues present in any given situation.

One misunderstanding regarding the formation and information of a conscience is that one's conscience judgment must comport with Church teaching or one has not got a well-formed conscience. I have heard this objection a lot, and it may be that Abp Cordileone was implying this when asked about Nancy Pelosi's conscience; here he replied she needed to [continue to] better form her conscience. During Vatican II a minority of Church Fathers sought to codify this position in the documents of the Council. The majority  of Fathers rejected this as counter Church tradition, which, they asserted, had already been well-represented in the documents and Tradition. Because we make conscience judgments in the presence of unique circumstances and competing values and disvalues which may be preferenced in different ways, no one but the person themselves can truly say that the person's conscience was badly formed nor that their conscience judgments were wrong. Again, no one can second guess us in this. Primacy of conscience is still the absolute requirement. As soon-to-be Cardinal Robert McElroy (San Diego) said recently: [[We (Bishops, the Institutional Church) are not replacing the consciences of our people. We are trying to help them as men and women [to] exercise those consciences in the political sphere.]]

Here too then, is one place where the recognition that "we are (all of us baptized) Church" becomes absolutely critical. The Institutional Church does not and in fact cannot pronounce on the "right thing" to do in every situation except in the abstract. She can pronounce on what is intrinsically evil and on the gravity of certain actions and, of course, we take such pronouncements very seriously indeed. Still, it takes a person of faith on the ground to discern the situation with all its values and disvalues, apply Church teaching as best we can, and then decide in light of one's own communion with God and wisdom how one is called to decide and behave in any specific situation. We bring the wisdom of the Church and the compassion and justice/mercy of God into specific situations where the institutional Church will never go otherwise. The capacity to do this, the ability to reason morally in complex and demanding situations with competing values and disvalues, is what moralists and Catholic Tradition mean by having a well-formed conscience. 

Here again it is important to restate that while the ideal conscience judgment is both certain and correct, one can come to a certain conscience judgment and be in error. This does not necessarily mean one has a badly formed conscience or was careless in exercising prudential conscience judgment. And neither does it relieve a person from the obligation of primacy of conscience and all that entails. Primacy of conscience does not mean "do whatever you want and justify it in the name of conscience"! Primacy of conscience means that what must always come first and cannot be questioned by those outside us are the judgments we come to as we sincerely, carefully, faithfully, and intelligently attend to the voice of God in our heart of hearts. 

Given all of this, I will say I have seen no evidence that Nancy Pelosi is not continuing to inform and form her own conscience in a way that allows her to make good faith conscience judgments for which she should be disciplined in such a highly public and political situation. Neither do I see evidence that her conscience needs to be better formed any more than is necessary for any intelligent person with a developed capacity to reason morally in a complex and changing situation. My sense is Pelosi opposes abortion and she opposes foisting that Catholic position on others. She has discerned and preferenced the values (life, freedom of choice or from coercion, etc) and disvalues (the impacts of carrying the fruit of incest or rape, forcing a choice, the death of the child, etc) and decided as she has after significant consultation, reflection, and prayer. Given the sincerity of her faith and the depth of what Archbishop Cordileone called her maternal sensibilities, I have to believe she holds her positions in the matter "in good faith". She is required, therefore, to act according to those certain prudential conscience judgments. To do otherwise is, without any doubt whatsoever, to sin against God, and to do so directly and (likely) gravely.

Interview With Archbishop Cordileone on Denying Rep. Pelosi Access to Eucharist

The following interview with Archbishop Cordileone is excellent and no matter where one stands on the action he has taken with Nancy Pelosi, it addresses (and raises!) some important questions. (The interviewer does a really good job with a wide scope of significant questions while not antagonizing Abp Cordileone or demonstrating particularly her own bias.) 

One thing that strikes me as inconsistent (or insufficiently articulated) is Abp Cordileone's focus on the complexity of his own and other bishops' prudential conscience judgments in this regard while apparently not clearly recognizing that Rep. Pelosi may well be acting in good faith on the very same complex prudential conscience questions and judgments. The other point that requires greater clarity is an apparent implication of guilt or culpability on Pelosi's part when, in fact, Abp Cordileone cannot honestly speak to this issue without Nancy Pelosi admitting to him that she acted in bad faith. More specifically, Cordileone actually needs to deny her culpability is a known issue (or point out his own inability to say at all because what he knows is, for instance, confidential or covered by the seal of confession). Again, one may act in good faith and also err in their conscience judgment; in either case there is no sin and one is not culpable, nor, therefore, does one need to repent.) Unfortunately,  ABp Cordileone specifically says Pelosi needs to repent, even as he affirms her sincerity of belief.

In responding to the question, "but what about Nancy Pelosi's conscience?" ABp Cordileone distinguishes the way some treat abortion from other objectively evil acts and argues that we would never allow slavery to be made legal again, for instance, something that is also objectively evil even if one determined it could be done in good conscience. But this fails to speak to the question of the primacy of Nancy Pelosi's conscience judgment, which he was purporting to answer. He wanted to make the point that everyone recognizes the objective evil of slavery and so, we would never 1) make it legal, or 2) argue that one could hold slaves in good conscience. But in point of fact, there are several forms of contemporary slavery people justify today, despite their illegality and their immorality. Some of these persons may actually be acting "in good conscience" --- though their conscience judgments would be seriously errant.

In such a case one might mistakenly approve an objective evil (like slavery) because one sincerely thought one heard God's voice in the matter, and that person will certainly need to bear the consequences of such a conscience judgment including any civil, political, and ecclesiastical penalties and/or acts of censure that apply, but they cannot be said to be sinning in holding this viewpoint or acting accordingly. One opines and acts wrongly (in fact, one commits an objective evil) in these circumstances and will bear the consequences, but subjectively, one is not required to repent of personal sin in such a case because subjectively one acted in good faith according to what they believed God called them to believe and do. (I have written about this distinction before in citing Benedict XVI, so please check labels to the right.)

Especially important in considering what Abp Cordileone has done in taking this action is understanding the distinction between being blocked from Communion and excommunication which Abp Cordileone is clear about: Pelosi's access to the Sacrament is blocked but she is not excommunicated, and so, she is still Catholic with all of the rights and obligations of any Catholic excepting the right to receive the Eucharist. (This question came up in an online group to which I belong, so I am concerned that and expecting the media et al, to mistakenly claim Pelosi has been excommunicated.)

Father Andrew Colnaghi, OSB Cam, Funeral May 28th (Reposting)

As it gets nearer the date of the funeral I am reposting this.

I received the news that Father Andrew Colnaghi, former prior and Oblate Chaplain at Incarnation Monastery in Berkeley died after a fall and head injury on Easter Sunday (17. April.2022). Andrew and I first met around 2006 at Incarnation around the same time I met Robert Hale, Thomas Matus and Arthur Poulin. Andrew was a lovely and joyfilled man and I will miss him.

The funeral celebration will take place at the Jesuit School of Theology at 1735 Le Roy Ave, Berkeley CA 94709, Saturday May 28th at 10:00am.

The service will begin with stories and memories of Andrew shared by all. Eucharist will follow at 11am. Come early as parking will be difficult to find in the neighborhood. For those of you who cannot attend Andrew’s funeral celebration in person, it will be live-streamed. For ZOOM links and other information including a map for the location of JST, check the website for Incarnation Monastery in Berkeley. 

A Contemplative Moment: Pachelbel's Canon in D, Friendship, and the Silence of Solitude

 

 Usually, "a contemplative moment" on this blog has selections and poems from folks I am reading, but this time I am posting a version of a piece I am learning and imagining playing with a friend, maybe even someday soon. A few years ago, I broke my left wrist and have not really been able to play violin since them. Over the years as the ligaments and soft tissue healed (the bones were not a problem), I have practiced, sometimes seriously, and sometimes not at all -- because the pain in my wrist and the pain of the loss of facility to simply create music were both very difficult for me. But this piece is an excellent duet version of Pachelbel's canon in D (it needs some tweaking for violin) and may be within my physical limitations. My pianist friend is leaving the area in a few weeks and the ability to play this with him before then is simply something I would love to do. 

In any case, the piece sings to me of friendship and the deep bonds that are the heart of such relationships. It says through music the things I rarely have words for but could always explore and express on violin. The piece is joyful with notes of sadness and a kind of plaintiveness appropriate to loss even as the music intertwines and mutually supports the individual voices in a unity which surprises with its strength and fruitfulness. This last week, because of my time at New Camaldoli and my own work in spiritual direction, I am more freshly aware of the "bonds of being" (PRH terminology) which enliven me and make me whole. These bonds are integral to the abundant life Jesus calls us each to. 

So often people write me about becoming a hermit because they seek to "flee the world" or have few (or no) real friendships. But eremitical life depends on deep bonds, bonds of being which fly in the face of the superficial notions of friendship so common today. The silence of solitude is not about being alone in the absence of sound. It is about being alone with God and others to whom one is bound by bonds of genuine love, a love that resonates with the Love-in-Act who summons us and the entire cosmos into greater and greater expressions of fullness and a perfection which is always relational. In this conception of the silence of solitude, noise has to do with superficiality and hunger; it is about the anguish of brokenness, incompleteness, and yearning. But bonds of being sustain and nourish, bring courage and peace; they allow us to live from the depths of our truest selves and they still our souls. Sometimes we don't know how real these bonds are until we go away for a time or anticipate another's leaving. Learning to live into these bonds as well as from them, even in times of separation and distance, implies a commitment to the solitude of wholeness and the silence or stillness (the hesychia) of belonging.

Whether there is opportunity to play this version of Pachelbel's Canon in D with my friend or not, in my prayer I have imagined doing so, and in imagining that, I was put in touch with those deep bonds of being that exist and will continue to exist between myself and him. It is an illustration of the way I understand the silence of solitude and what eremitical life makes possible and depends upon if it is to be lived well. I am grateful to God to have come to know this dimension of this reality.

Spending a Couple of Days at New Camaldoli Hermitage

I was able to spend a couple of days at New Camaldoli this week in Big Sur. It was wonderful and, though I have been an oblate with the Camaldolese (associated with Transfiguration Monastery in Windsor, NY) for almost sixteen years, I had never been to New Camaldoli before this week!! I had not really known what to expect. Benedictine hospitality is a value the Camaldolese of course practice, but while reading the comments on the place or I heard from others comments like, "the accommodations are basic", "clean sheets, but not sure how often they wash the blankets", "the food's not the greatest but better than at Vina (the Trappist place in No CA)", and "we were able to stay in one of the newly refurbished spaces. The older guesthouse is not (refurbished)!" From these and others I was a bit apprehensive and brought a few extra things with me (a couple of cans of chunky soup, a comforter, some packages of Easy Mac (Mac 'n Cheese) --- just in case).

I needn't have been concerned. The food was terrific, plentiful, and diverse. Pickup meals (breakfast and supper) were more than sufficient unless one had their heart set on eggs Benedict or something, and dinner (the noon or main meal of the day) was simply excellent. The guesthouse kitchen was open 24 hours a day and had cereals, yogurt, breads, peanut butter, jellies, honey, coffee, tea, hot chocolate, milk, eggs, fruit, etc., always available in case of attacks of the munchies at odd hours. (I know because I was up in the middle of the night getting a peanut butter and banana sandwich and cold glass of milk). Some folks brought their own food from the trip before coming up the mountain and kept it in the refrigerator. Hand sanitizer and masks were provided in the entryway to any common area for those who were unvaccinated.

The rooms were more than basic --- though I suppose not if one is used to luxury. Each of these was clean and minimalist by design. Still, each had everything anyone might want in order to spend comfortable time in silence and solitude. (Unlike some hermit saints, I cannot pray well, and I especially can't journal, if I am cold -- hence the concern with having my own comforter.) There was a large desk in my room in front of a large set of windows with a straight-on view of a private patio area and a direct and awesome view of the ocean, which it overlooked. The patio area had a chair where one could sit in the sun and birdwatch, read, pray, or just check out the ocean; throughout the day this patio area (gravel with flower beds on either side) hosted any number of birds and small critters. (I wished I was more knowledgeable about the birds of the area!! I did see quail, and some kind of dove that nestled down in the gravel for a time.) A cupboard on the right-hand side of the desk held a slide-out surface with a tray holding a set of dishes for one, along with silverware, juice glass and coffee cup. A smaller cupboard on the left held a pitcher, a hotpot, an individual coffee holder with coffee filters for making drip coffee in one's own cup. (I was especially grateful for the hot pot. To be able to make tea or coffee in my own space without running even a short distance to the kitchen was a blessing.) In the desk drawer was a Bible and brief history of the Camaldolese (thanks to Thomas Matus, OSB Cam). 

There was no closet but there was a shelf with a set of pegs below for hanging clothes (perfect for my cowl, cap and veil, and jacket). The small dresser had three deep drawers for anything else. It also held a lamp and alarm clock (though the bells for office and Mass as well as preparatory bells for each of these are rung throughout the day). Next to the dresser was a combination glider-rocking chair. The bed had three drawers underneath it with extra blankets, a down comforter, extra pillow and pillowcase. The heater was powerful and above the heater was a shelf with a flashlight, umbrella and above that, though not used, a hatch for delivering food to the room most familiar to fans of the Carthusians and Camaldolese. (A friend had been to NCH when the monks delivered food to each guest room in this way. No longer!) Some, carrying food to their cells further away from the guest house, had tiffins --- the stacked steel containers also associated with the Carthusians and Camaldolese --- in fashion centuries before bento boxes!!! 

For me though, one thing that was wonderful was the opportunity to pray Office and celebrate Eucharist with the monks. I use the Camaldolese Office book ordinarily, so while there were a few chants I did not know (different versions of the Our Father, etc) most was already familiar. I still find the tempo and rhythm of praying with Camaldolese monks difficult (space is created in everything they do including liturgy); it takes a while to feel this much slower and spaced rhythm/tempo internally, but it serves both to slow one down and to quiet one's expression. As a woman I find singing with the guys is difficult because of pitch too. To sing right at their pitch is difficult and often too low to hit the note solidly, while singing up an octave makes one stand out and is often too high anyway --- more uncertainty of pitch!! Hesitancy and chant are not a good combination in any instance!! Still, since I do these chants alone at Stillsong, the chance to sing in choir with others was wonderful.

Silence was maintained throughout the place and the guests honored this as well (a real difference from other retreats I have been on). I had conversations with a couple of monks --- one who came after Lauds to introduce himself and meet me. (See corresponding picture, center front. That's the guy, er, monk!!) Our relatively brief conversation was delightful; he had a wonderful sense of humor! We spoke of chant ("why? (is it hard to sing with us) --- because we're so good??) --- said with a clear and ironic twinkle in his eyes, habits (he is the community tailor and checked out my cowl, felt the fabric, asked about the maker, etc.), bishops (what do I think of the Bishop of Oakland and the bishops who preceded him?), and oblature (you've been an oblate for sixteen years? And you've never been here before (not a question) -- why that's almost a sin!). Another sought me in the guesthouse with concerns that everything was okay and that I had what I needed. (He was actually looking for someone else who had had some problems with her car, but he still was entirely gracious to me once we figured out I was not the person he had sought.) These brief, spontaneous, and lovely kinds of encounters didn't intrude on the silence; they grew out of it and led back to it.

St Romuald receiving gift of tears

Simply spending time at a Camaldolese House was a powerful experience for me. I came away with a clearer sense of myself, especially my identity (as Camaldolese and a hermit); there were some shifting senses of my own gifts, strengths, and weaknesses (unconscious things were brought to consciousness and could be viewed in this new light), and a strengthened sense of the nature of certain relationships whose bonds are very deep and sustaining for me. I wrote in my journal at one point that sometimes we don't know how really close to another person we are until we go away. What I was thinking of here was that I had experienced a felt sense of these persons' presence, prayer, and love --- distant as we were geographically. I felt their presence even more clearly not only because they are part of my life ordinarily, but because of the depth of the bonds we share with one another. (These bonds are what allows one of these persons to say, "You came into my awareness," rather than, "I thought of you" the other day, for instance.) I had gone to NC Hermitage with the desire to experience the quality of the silence and solitude there. I was not disappointed. It is a living, breathing reality, grounded in and shot through with Presence --- of God, certainly, but of the monks and guests who have come here through the years as well. 

As I worked and prayed in my own cell I recognized how like being at home in Stillsong it was and how living in this space required no real transition for me. While that was not really surprising, it was still affirming. What I experienced is, I think, what happens when a solitary hermit and Camaldolese oblate comes to a house of Camaldolese hermit monks for the first time (or any time). I was at home and felt the gift of this place and all who also call this home even as I was aware that I brought the gift of my own eremitical life and Camaldolese self to this place as well. This is what real hospitality can bring and be. It is certainly what Camaldolese hospitality is about for both monks and guests.

Postscript: For those who wondered if I practice any asceticism at all and asked what I was doing up in the middle of the night raiding the kitchen (yes, I received snarky questions about this!), I was up getting something with potassium, calcium, and magnesium, to help balance and increase certain electrolytes. Enough said!!

Pope Francis on Vocation, a Call to Mission

[[ “All of us are called to share in Christ’s mission to reunite a fragmented humanity and to reconcile it with God. Each man and woman, even before encountering Christ and embracing the Christian faith, receives with the gift of life a fundamental calling: each of us is a creature willed and loved by God; each of us has a unique and special place in the mind of God. At every moment of our lives, we are called to foster this divine spark, present in the heart of every man and woman, and thus contribute to the growth of a humanity inspired by love and mutual acceptance. We are called to be guardians of one another, to strengthen the bonds of harmony and sharing, and to heal the wounds of creation lest its beauty be destroyed.”]] Pope Francis on Vocations

I was asked recently about the charism or gift-quality of a particular vocation. I should also have written a bit about mission, the idea that each of us is sent by God with a particular mission. As a hermit I recognize what another diocesan hermit spoke of as being sent into the hermitage to seek and live the silence of solitude (that is, to live life with God alone), but mission is something every person is given by God. That certainly includes those with secular vocations --- especially when the secularity they are called to is a sacred or eschatological secularity where God more and more is allowed to become All in All.

Pope Francis' comments above speak very clearly to the importance of each and every such vocation. It is especially poignant now that we are beginning to recognize that the perfection or fulfillment of creation is ahead of us, not behind; we have not fallen away from this perfection. God draws us on towards it and Godself. We know now that we are part of an incredibly huge cosmic drama where the universe is evolving towards greater and greater complexity and intelligibility. Human beings, not just Religious, or consecrated, or ordained persons, but human beings as such are part of this evolution and responsible for helping drive it forward in response to the God who summons it into the absolute future which is Godself.

Oakland Civic Orchestra: Serenade of Strings

On the Paradox of Sacred Secularity in Canon 604 Vocations (Reprise)

[[Sister Laurel, by treating the vocation of the consecrated virgin as a secular vocation aren't you making it a part time, hidden vocation? If CV's are set apart by their consecration, doesn't it diminish the vocation to make it so strongly secular?]] (Originally asked in 2011)

Please note: in this and all references to eschatological or sacred secularity, or the CV vocation, I am referring to the application of c 604 to women "living in the world." I believe c 604 refers primarily or solely to these vocations when it speaks of forming associations, for instance. I am not speaking of nuns who receive this consecration in place of the consecration received at solemn profession unless I refer to them specifically.

Thanks for your question. I hope you have read what I wrote about paradoxical vocations because I would like to build on that in my answer. There are essentially two ways of looking at reality. The first is what I referred to as the Greek way of seeing. This way tends to distrust paradox and sees the elements involved in the situation as truly conflicting with one another. So, for instance, it would be impossible for a Greek (i.e, one who thinks in this way) to see how one could be truly divine to the extent one is truly human, or truly rich to the extent one lets go of worldly riches, or for someone's power to be perfected in weakness (except in terms of exploitation of that weakness!). This way would consider the beatitudes' sheer foolishness, an incarnate God ridiculous, a crucified messiah even more so, etc. Instead of paradox Greeks tend to think: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. And so, they might see secularity as the thesis, consecration as the antithesis, and some form of balance or golden mean as the synthesis (and only reasonable alternative to insanity).

But Christians see things in terms of paradox, knowing that there is paradox at the heart of reality, at the heart of God's self-revelation, and at the heart of his revelation of the nature of human beings. We tend less to see reality in terms of thesis and antithesis as we do in terms of apparent conflict and deep identity (these two elements together comprise paradox). So too, we do not look for resolution in a synthesis which is expressed as some sort of golden mean, but instead in a truth which pushes both terms as far as one can to sharpen the apparent contradiction and assert (and hopefully reveal) their deep identity. Thus, it is possible for Christian theologians to speak of power perfected in weakness, life found in death, divinity revealed exhaustively in true humanity, meaning revealed in absurdity, sacred secularity, and so forth.

As I have noted before, I think the CV vocation for women living in the world is an essentially paradoxical one of sacred secularity, the call to be apostle in a way where one's consecration leavens (and sometimes, confronts!) the entire world of secular values, institutions, structures, relationships, etc. The word I used earlier was "thoroughgoingness." Nothing should be allowed to act as a barrier to this thoroughgoingness, but especially not one's consecration!! My point is the division of reality into sacred and profane is pre-Christian or other than Christian. With Christ, the veil between sacred and profane, temple and non-temple, even human (earthly) and divine (heavenly), was torn asunder. Such divisions are, in fact, a consequence of sin. Too often our approach to reality has forgotten this, and neglected the potentially sacramental character of all of the world. But Gaudium et Spes and Vatican II more generally recalled us to affirm these insights and the insight that every person was called to the same degree of holiness, even if the paths to this holiness differed.

It is not that the CV living in the world is hidden, but rather, that her presence is not marked out by exterior boundary lines and limits (as, for instance, is mine or that of other diocesan hermits who wear cowls, habits, and the like). I firmly believe her presence will be visible to the extent the spousal relationship she shares with Christ animates her being and ministry. Neither do I think that this can be a part time vocation, any more than I believe any public ecclesial vocation is a part time one. Dividing the vocation up into public worship and a completely private, personal spirituality would be a way of reinforcing the Greek disparity or dichotomous approach to reality. Seeing ALL that one does as potentially reflective of one's consecration and one's public vocation is what is called for for C 604 CV's, or anyone with a public ecclesial vocation.

I believe the Incarnation is the best model for understanding what I am trying to say. Jesus is Divine, but that Divinity is exhaustively expressed and revealed in his authentic humanity. If he becomes docetic (that is, if he merely seems to be truly human or is only partly human), then he also ceases to be truly divine as well (at least if we are talking about the real God here). Jesus has to be completely one in order to be wholly the other. It is a paradox which the Greeks could never accept, any more than they could accept a crucified (literally, a godless) God. An incarnate God, a God who participated exhaustively in every moment and mood of his own (now) sinful creation was ludicrous to the Greeks, and no real God at all; however, for Christians such a God proved and revealed his true divinity in precisely this way --- not in remaining remote or detached from this reality. Similarly, the CV living in the world is consecrated, but that consecration is proved and revealed precisely in the secularity of her vocation. Secularity does not detract from or diminish her vocation or consecration; it establishes the exhaustive (radical) nature and truth of it.

Looking at the term Charism: Does it Mean Anything for the c. 603 Hermit?

[[ Hi Sister Laurel, Sisters I know talk about the charism of their communities', and their missions. Does eremitical life have a charism? How about Consecrated Virginity? Can you help me understand what the word means? I was wondering if it would be helpful for lay people to have a sense of the charism of their own vocations. Does it make a difference for you?]]

First time questions, I think. Many thanks. In my life I identify the silence of solitude as the charism of solitary eremitical life. Because I identify solitude with more than external aloneness (I see it as a place of quiet and wholeness where the noise of human woundedness, struggle, and pain come to rest in the deepest truth of life and the peace of God), and I identify silence less with physical silence and more with hesychia or a kind of stillness that results when one's life is rightly ordered in terms relationships with God, self, and others, the silence of solitude represents the completion and fullness of life in relationship that occurs when God completes one and she exists in communion with God and God's creation (including one's own deepest and truest self).  This completion/fullness is a gift of the Holy Spirit and the fruit of the life of prayer, stricter separation, silence and solitude. The word charism reflects this gift quality (gifts = charisma) and it reflects a form of community absolutely foundational others also need and are made for.

Generally, a congregation's charism refers to a unique gift quality their life and ministry represent for both Church and world given as the Holy Spirit acts in conjunction with human beings to meet significant contemporary needs. When I think of eremitical life and especially that under c 603, assiduous prayer and penance are not unique to it, nor is stricter separation from the world. The Evangelical Counsels are not unique to it either, although all of these elements are gifts of God to the hermit and others. The one central element of c 603 which, it seems to me, orders all other elements towards significant contemporary needs is the silence of solitude.  Always more than the sum of its parts, the silence of solitude takes up all of the other elements of the eremitical life, and of c 603, and transforms them into a whole that can effectively proclaim the Gospel to every person.

You see, I understand the silence of solitude as a countercultural reality which speaks not only to religious persons, but to anyone seeking reassurance that the isolation of alienation which so marks and mars our world can be borne creatively and transfigured and transformed in the process.  Eremitical solitude is antithetical to alienation and isolation; it is relational through and through. The silence belonging to this solitude is not an anguished cry of emptiness, but a distinct song that rejoices in God's love as that love-in-act completes us as human beings and we come to live in union with God and the whole of God's creation. The term silence of solitude refers to the human person made whole and holy through the power of the Holy Spirit. It refers to what occurs when we are healed of the wounds that cause us to cry out in anguish or withdraw in fear and exhaustion from the struggle to live fully. It is the human being as language event brought to her most perfect and powerful fulfillment in God.

Think what it is like to sit quietly with a friend, without strain or competition or the need to prove oneself or be anyone other than the persons we are while resting in the presence of another. That moment of selfhood achieved while at rest in the life and presence of a friend (and in fact, is, in part,  made possible by that presence) is one of the silence of solitude. We all recognize such a moment as one in which alienation is overcome, the noisy striving of everyday life is quieted, and the human potential and need for profound relationship is, for the moment, realized. When the hermit rests in and enjoys the company of God in a similar way, when, that is, she becomes God's covenant partner and allows God to be hers in all she is and does, something similar but even greater and more definitive occurs. It is this that I believe c 603 recognizes as the silence of solitude; moreover, it is something every person yearns for and hermits witness to with their lives. Thus, I identify the silence of solitude as the context, goal, and charism of the eremitical life.

Does the fact that my life is charismatic and has a specific charism make a difference for me? Yes, absolutely.  For instance, because I have a sense of the charism of my vocation it means recognizing that my life is lived for others and therefore, that the call to wholeness and holiness in silence and solitude can never be allowed to become or remain a selfish or me-centered reality. It means recognizing and committing to living this vocation well because, as Thomas Merton once said, this life "makes certain claims about nature and grace"; to live it badly is to fail to allow it to witness to the truth of such claims, namely, that whoever we are and in whatever situation or condition, our God delights in and desires to complete us and bring us to fulness of life with and in God himself. It means insisting that dioceses and candidates understand this charism so that vocations to c 603 life are understood as significant and needed vocations, and discernment and formation processes (including the ongoing formation processes of consecrated hermits as well as those of candidates for profession/consecration) are undertaken carefully with equally significant rigor. 

When we forget the charism of this vocation (or any other vocation for that matter), we open the door to professing and consecrating those who can neither live nor witness to others in the way a c 603 hermit is called to do. I have been convinced for some time that it is in neglecting the charism of this vocation (that is, in forgetting that this vocation has a charism and is essentially charismatic) that we open the door to fraudulent hermits and stopgap vocations that are disedifying and even scandalous. Once dioceses identify the charism of this vocation, they will have a better way of discerning vocations to eremitical life under c 603. I think that the same is true of any vocation, including the vocation to lay life in the Church, Understanding the gift quality of any vocation helps one to live it well and to commit to growing in this ability for the whole of one's life.

On the Need for Serious Reflection on the Sacred Secularity of Consecrated Virgins Under c 604

[[ Sister, do you think Religious Sisters are jealous of CV's being called Brides of Christ? Why would someone want to prove that CV's are Brides of Christ but not Religious women? I have the impression that there is a theological vacuum in the work being done on the vocation of the CV today. I wondered why you don't do more of this?]]

Many thanks for your questions. I think one of them was the same as asked in the last post so perhaps I didn't answer that. My bad!  Let me give it another shot! 

First, though, are religious Sisters jealous of CV's (living in the world) being Brides of Christ? No, not at all, at least I have not met one. Most Sisters know they are espoused to Christ and value it beyond saying, but we don't tend to want to be recognized for it of itself. Instead, though our experience of Christ may be nuptial in character (it is not always so), we want to be known for our hearts, our compassion, our availability, and all the ways any degree of union with Christ is evidenced in our lives and ministry. Otherwise, being espoused to Christ means very little. Many Sisters today have difficulty with the bridal imagery associated with religious life and that is fine; it simply does not match their experience in prayer or may have resonances which are otherwise problematical. Again, they love Christ and want to be known for the quality and expansiveness of their hearts, for the compassion they have for all of God's creation, for the energy and intelligence they spend on others for the sake of the Kingdom, for their discipleship. And they are. There is no reason whatsoever to be jealous.

The canonist I have been speaking with about the uniqueness of CV's identity as Brides of Christ believes this identity is rooted in a true and everlasting bond which is unlike that of Religious. I don't believe her intention is to strip Religious of their identity in this way so much as it is to sufficiently recognize and honor the nature of the vocation to consecrated virginity lived in the world. However, I am not speaking here of the virtue of her academic work or her personal motivations (which I think are valid and necessarily limited as all such work is) so much as I am speaking of the ramifications such work could have, and even more, of the reasons I have seen for others' attempts to strip religious of their identity as Brides of Christ (e.g., Religious are only engaged to Christ (built on a misunderstanding the word betrothed in regard to Jewish marriage practice) while CV's are Brides, Religious consecrate themselves with vows while CV's are consecrated by God, or the bond of the consecrated CV is eternal while that of consecrated religious is not). 

The reasons underlying what I believe is a lopsided emphasis on Bride of Christ imagery and identity are multiple. Too often CV's have been treated as women without the courage or ability to "go the whole way" into religious life. As is true with any "new" (though ancient) vocation, the bulk of the faithful neither understand nor honor this calling. As I myself once wondered about the validity and meaning of this vocation so does the majority of the Church wonder about the same things. The renewal of this vocation too often seems an act by which the Church is attempting to mobilize a new army of workers to replace Religious whose numbers are diminishing, a kind of stopgap vocation to increase or at least harden the division between male priesthood and the role of women in the Church, or a form of "religious life lite" to many of the faithful. At the same time, the faulty use of the term "consecration" for an act humans commit has led to all manner of "consecrations" which tend to empty the Divine consecration shared by consecrated persons in the Church of meaning and import. 

Everyone in the Church should be aware that in baptism and all forms of life known as "consecrated", God is the one who consecrates while the human person dedicates him/herself via some form of profession or private vow. That is especially true of public commitments. Unfortunately, it is possible to find CV's asserting that their consecration is by God while Religious "consecrate themselves via vows"! (Even more unfortunately, one can find religious congregations referring to members being consecrated via profession which then morphs into "religious consecrate themselves via profession.) The former emboldened expression is useful as synecdoche, a figure of speech where one part stands for the whole, as either the term profession or the term consecration refers to the whole event involving both the making of vows and the assumption of a new state of life via divine consecration mediated by the Church. The reference to "consecrating oneself", however, is inaccurate when used instead.

What is disappointing to me is the apparent bare nod to secularity I find in the work of most CV's writing about their own vocations today. Even the USACV (United States Association of Consecrated Virgins) provides only the barest information on the secularity of the vocation, largely limiting that to the idea that CV's living in the world are responsible for their own upkeep and the individual nature of their ministries. But the meaning and value of a secular vocation is far richer and of much greater contemporary and theological import than this! Besides, solitary hermits under c 603 are also responsible for our own upkeep and we are definitely not secular vocations. Still, I have yet found no theological reflection on the timeliness of sacred or eschatological secularity and none at all regarding the important shift to an eschatology stressing the interpenetration of the Kingdom of God with that of this world or the promise that one day God will be all in all. In light of these significant lacunae, discussions of whether or not the bond of the CV is eternal or whether religious are also truly Brides of Christ strike me as theologically analogous to the Church spending time and energy in quibbles over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin in the face of global disaster.

The vocation to consecrated virginity lived in the world is real and meaningful (potentially it is profoundly significant and enormously timely), but it cannot remain or truly be that if CVs' reflection on and living out of their vocation is limited to emphasizing a single dimension of this call (espousal to Christ) cut off from the equally necessary secular dimension of that same vocation. I have said previously that the CV's secularity is profoundly qualified by espousal; I should also say, then, that the espousal itself is profoundly qualified by secularity. These two dimensions mutually qualify one another in a single radical consecrated vocation. To miss or eschew this is to miss the nature of the whole. Only in this way do they represent an icon of the Church we so badly need today and see called for by an emerging and deeply Scriptural eschatology. 

By the way, you asked why I don't undertake this work. Let me say that I have a definite theological and pastoral interest in it, especially in terms of the eschatology involved and the way that is combined with the significance of secular vocations, but for the present I am working on a project re the discernment and formation of c 603 eremitical vocations. An occasional post in response to questions will have to do for the present. Still, given the way Pope Francis is acting to end clericalism (cf., Praedicate Evangelium) there may be an added impetus to reflect more thoroughly on secularism and eschatological secularity in the near future.

Resisting Sacred or Eschatological Secularity in the Vocation of the Consecrated Virgin

[[ Dear Sister Laurel, thanks for putting the post on Consecrated Virgins up again. Why would one want to argue that Religious Women are not espoused "properly speaking" while Consecrated Virgins are? Is there difficulty accepting the sacred (eschatological) secularity of the vocation?]]

Thanks for your questions. Let me say that the idea that CV's living in the world are truly, properly, betrothed to Christ and are to be called Brides of Christ and icons of the Church herself is right on. But this does not mean we must consider that Religious Women (and perhaps Men too!) are not properly Brides (or spouses) of Christ. 

If the entire point of the consecration of virgins under c 604 is to create women who are Brides of Christ in a way which is entirely unique to them and requires others to be deprived of the designation, then it seems to me this is, at best, a largely irrelevant vocation. But I don't believe that is the entire point of the vocation. When I first began writing about it I may have mentioned that for some time I felt it was sort of a vocation without a "job description"; more, it bothered me that when I wrote about friends being consecrated all I could say was what they were not (not a Religious, not vowed, not called Sister, etc.). So I began to read more about the vocation. Once I had read the Rite more carefully and some work by Sister Sharon Holland, IHM, et. al. I was convinced that the vocation had an important positive content, real substance, that our world needed especially at this time. That content or substance is the qualified (sacred or eschatological) secularity of the vocation.

As I have explained in other posts, the term secularity has often had a pejorative sense to it and in religious vocations there is a sense of "leaving the world" --- though there are both more sophisticated and abjectly simplistic notions of what this means. When religious make vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, their relationship to the world around them, and to "the world" constituted by those who resist or reject Christ, is substantially qualified. They do not live secular vocations. Until c 604 reinstituted the vocation of consecrated virginity for those living in the world, membership in secular institutes was the one vocation that claimed secularity as part of its very nature without the pejorative connotation. Still, more often than not aspirations to religious life were more marked than the secularity of the vocation. Lay standing generally was seen as secular, but this was similarly denigrated. But with c 604 and its revival of this consecration for women living in the world and called to serve [[ in the things of the spirit and of the world]], suddenly secularity takes on a new value, namely the value of the Kingdom of God.

We are living into a new (and ancient because it is Scriptural) notion of what will come to be one day when God is all in all. Our Christian lives are not about "getting to heaven", but rather being citizens of the Kingdom of God and proclaiming with our lives that one day there will be a single reality we recognize as a new heaven and a new earth. In Christ's death and resurrection God embraces the whole of God's creation and makes it part of his own life. God takes even godless death into himself and in the process destroys it forever. Again, one day God will be all in all. That is our hope, and it is a dimension of the Good News of Jesus Christ. So, given this eschatological vision it is critical that the Church clearly recognizes the possibility of consecrating those who live secular lives. That serves as a sign, in fact, a powerful symbol of this new and ancient eschatology.

Regarding your questions:

Thanks for patiently reading to this point but the background was important, both the nod to the history of the Church's approach to secularity and to the way theologians are speaking about eschatology today. It indicates that there is a long history still needing to be shaken off and unfortunately, the CV's who with their very lives and commitments, should symbolize this step forward re both secularity and eschatology, are, in some instances not doing so. The reasons are likely complex and involve both a kind of allergy to the idea of being a secular vocation, and an ignorance of the eschatology I have spoken of above. Some will speak of "secular-lite" to characterize the secularity of their vocation rather than moving toward a truly radical vocation that affirms fully both its consecrated and its secular nature. Others, in seeking to do justice to the radicality of the vocation focus on its consecrated nature alone, that is, to the idea that CV's are Brides of Christ, but without really speaking of the secularity of this espousal. 

In all of this I think you are right. There seems to be a resistance to accepting the secularity of the vocation, so much so that there seems to be a need to deprive women (and men) religious of the sense that they are truly espoused to Christ, but in a religious rather than a secular vocation. I believe that some of this resistance comes from the longstanding sense that secular vocations are 2nd class, but also, it comes from a missing sense of the charism of the vocation --- what I once half-jokingly referred to as the lack of a "job description". The Church clearly stresses that CV's are Brides of Christ, but until CV's fully and wholeheartedly embrace the secularity of this identity, the need to distinguish themselves in other ways will continue to crop up I think. 

Moreover, until the call to an eschatological and sacred secularity is fully and radically embraced by CV's, the division between CV's and religious (to the extent this exists now) will continue and some in the Church will continue to think of the consecrated lives of CV's as "religious life lite" or as evidence of women without the courage to go the whole way and become religious. There is an incredible equality between Religious and CV's, because both are espoused to Christ, consecrated by God, and committed to the coming of the Kingdom of God. They differ in that Religious have a religious vocation which  qualifies and limits the ways they can interact with the secular world and CV's a secular call without the same limitations but having as profound and challenging a set of obligations as are found in Religious life.

My point in all of this is that so long as CV's feel compelled to stress their identities as Brides of Christ or truly espoused while giving short shrift to the eschatological secularity also intrinsic to this form of consecrated life, they will continue to be a mainly irrelevant and dubious vocation. Once they embrace the really radical combination of consecration/espousal AND the transfigured nature of secularity that is the result of the death and presence of the Risen Christ in all of reality, this vocation will gain a relevance and significance that even the identity "Bride of Christ" cannot hold for others who are shut out from such aspirations. The vocation must be a proclamation of the Gospel; simply insisting that one is a Bride of Christ (and, especially, doing so to the exclusion or minimization of the qualified secularity constituting the vocation) is not a proclamation of the Gospel nor will it speak effectively to others of the substance of that Good News.

After the End by John Shea

After the End by John Shea, STD

Like her friend
she would curse the barren tree
and glory in the lilies of the field.
She lived in noons and midnights
in those mounting moments
of high dance
when blood is wisdom and flesh love.
But now, before the violated cave
on the third day of her tears
she is a black pool of grief
spent upon the earth.
They have taken her dead Jesus,
unoiled and unkissed
to where desert flies and worms
more quickly work.
She suffers wounds that will not heal
and enters into the pain of God
where lives the gardener
who once exalted in her perfume
knew the extravagance of her hair
and now asks whom she seeks.

In Peter's dreams, the cock still crowed.
He returned to Galilee to throw nets into
the sea and watch them sink

like memories into darkness.

He did not curse the sun

that rolled down his back

or the wind that drove the fish

beyond his nets.

He only waited for the morning 

when the shore mist would lift

and from his boat he would see him.

Then after naked and impetuous swim

with the sea running from his eyes,

he would find a cook with holes in his hands

and stooped over dawn coals

who would offer him the Kingdom of God

for breakfast.

On the road that escapes Jerusalem
and winds along the ridge to Emmaus
two disillusioned youths
dragged home their crucified dream.
They had smelled "messiah" in the air
and rose to that scarred and ancient hope
only to mourn what might have been.
And now a sudden stranger
falls upon their loss
with excited words about mustard seeds
and surprises hidden at the heart of death
and that evil must be kissed upon the lips
and that every scream is redeemed for
it echoes in the ear of God,
and do you not understand:
what died upon the cross was fear.
They protested their right to despair,
but he said, "My Father's laughter fills
the silence of the tomb."
Because they did not understand,
they offered him food,
and in the breaking of the bread
they knew the imposter for who he was:
the arsonist of the heart.

After the end comes the conspiracy

of gardeners, cooks and strangers. 

More Thoughts on Faith and Doubt

[[Dear Sister, I never heard your take on the Apostle Thomas' doubt before. You don't think faith is the opposite of doubt? I always heard it was the same as unbelief and that the reading was about refusing to believe unless one had evidence. I always thought faith was about believing without evidence.]]

Thanks for writing.  I think your questions are mainly implied so let me give them a shot. First, no I don't think faith is about believing without evidence. Belief is not a synonym for faith really; it is more an intellectual assent to something. Faith involves the whole person and is an act of trust and courage; we entrust ourselves to the truth and compassion of God, and we grow in faith. Paul Tillich defined faith as the "state of being grasped by an ultimate concern," where ultimate concern is that which demands everything from us and promises us everything as well. To be taken hold of by an ultimate concern means to be taken hold of by the question of meaning and to be open to the source and answer to that question. Another way of saying this is the Benedictine aim to "Seek God" where we seek the very thing we are made to find and be found by. When we awake to this need to seek specifically after that One who is the source and end of all things, we have been grasped or taken hold of by an ultimate concern.

As for evidence, last Sunday's Gospel reading recognizes that faith requires evidence, but not in the sense that one wants scientific evidence. The evidence leading to faith is the actual and fruitful faith and witness of others, so it is significant that Thomas is absent from the community when the Risen Christ is first recognized. Thomas is concerned that the disciples' lives have been changed not by delusions or something similar due to grief, but by the crucified Christ, the One in whom most take offense. When we read the gospels or epistles of the NT, we read the witness of others who have indeed met the risen Christ and had their lives changed by the encounter. We welcome the newly baptized into a faith community and help the entire community realize their role in bringing the newly baptized to fullness of faith. We really cannot do this alone. 

We yearn for God, for the One who is source and completion of our very selves. At the same time, just as hunger points to the reality of food, our very yearning for God is evidence of the existence of the God we yearn for, though again, not in the sense of scientific evidence and not a God who will not surprise us at every turn. We entrust ourselves to any number of things as we seek God. Only some are worthy of that trust and lead us to the real God. Eventually, we may experience the witness of those who have met Christ already, and then our journey becomes one of our own personal faith as we grow in our capacity to fully entrust ourselves to God in Christ. The evidence of faith is evidence of that which only God can do -- the change of hearts, the healing and remaking of one's mind and vision, the growth of love and compassion in a soul wounded by hatred, indifference, or loss, for instance. All of these and more support our faith and they ground our continued growth in faith.

Faith is not precisely the opposite of doubt. The relationship of the two is more complex than that. Doubt allows us to question and seek adequate objects of faith; it opens us to truth, though not in an uncomplicated way. Faith, besides involving trust, is a form of courage that takes doubt into itself and allows us to move forward in any case. Doubt, as I wrote recently, does not necessarily threaten our faith; it can help purify it. Because faith is also a form of knowing and doubt an expression of not (yet) knowing, doubt is part of the critical faculty which helps a person come to deeper and deeper faith. In some ways it makes faith resilient in ways other forms of knowing and certainty are not because they cannot tolerate doubt. But faith can and does grow in the midst of doubt. Unbelief (or unfaith), on the other hand, is not the same as doubt; there is a willful refusal of faith in unbelief. One does not only doubt but says "NO!" to accepting x or y. When doubt closes itself to seeing differently, to being touched by the courage and trust of faith, we get unbelief.

Requiescat in Pace Father Andrew Colnaghi, OSB Cam

I received the news that Father Andrew Colnaghi, former prior and Oblate Chaplain at Incarnation Monastery in Berkeley died after a fall and head injury on Easter Sunday (17. April.2022). Andrew and I first met around 2006 at Incarnation around the same time I met Robert Hale, Thomas Matus and Arthur Poulin. Andrew was a lovely and joyfilled man and I will miss him.

The funeral celebration will take place at the Jesuit School of Theology at 1735 Le Roy Ave, Berkeley CA 94709, Saturday May 28th at 10:00am.

The service will begin with stories and memories of Andrew shared by all. Eucharist will follow at 11am. Come early as parking will be difficult to find in the neighborhood. For those of you who cannot attend Andrew’s funeral celebration in person, it will be live-streamed. For ZOOM links and other information including a map for the location of JST, check the website for Incarnation Monastery in Berkeley. 

Second Sunday of Easter: What's Thomas' Doubt About? (Reprise)

Today's Gospel focuses on the appearances of Jesus to the disciples, and one of the lessons one should draw from these stories is that we are indeed dealing with bodily resurrection, and especially, with a kind of bodiliness which transcends the corporeality we know here and now. In other words, it is very clear that Jesus' presence among his disciples is not simply a spiritual one, and that part of Christian hope is the hope that we, precisely as embodied persons, will come to perfection beyond the limits of death. It is not just our souls which are meant to be part of the new heaven and earth, but our whole selves, body and soul, (and in fact, the whole of creation is meant to be renewed)!

The scenario with Thomas continues this theme but is contextualized in a way which leads homilists to focus on the whole dynamic of faith with seeing, and faith despite not having seen. It also makes doubt the same as unbelief and plays these off against faith --- as though faith cannot also be served by doubt. But doubt and unbelief are decidedly NOT the same things. We rarely see Thomas as the one whose doubt (or whose demands!) SERVES true faith, and yet, that is what today's Gospel is about. Meanwhile, Thomas also tends to get a bad rap as the one who was separated from the community and doubted what he had not seen with his own eyes. The corollary here is often perceived to be that Thomas will not simply listen to his brother and sister disciples and believe that the Lord has appeared to or visited them. But I think there is something far more significant going on in Thomas' proclamation that unless he sees the wounds inflicted on Jesus in the crucifixion, and even puts his fingers in the very nail holes, he will not believe.

What Thomas, I think, wants to make very clear is that we Christians believe in a crucified Christ, and that the resurrection was God's act of validation of Jesus as scandalously and ignominiously Crucified. I think Thomas knows on some level anyway, that insofar as the resurrection really occurred, it does not nullify what was achieved on the cross. Instead, it renders permanently valid what was revealed (made manifest and made real) there. In other words, Thomas knows if the resurrection is really God's validation of Jesus' life and establishes him as God's Christ, the Lord he will meet is the one permanently established and marked as the crucified One. The crucifixion was not some great misunderstanding which could be wiped away by resurrection. Instead, it was an integral part of the revelation of the nature of truly human and truly divine existence. Whether it is the Divine life, authentic human existence, or sinful human life --- all are marked and revealed in one way or another by the signs of Jesus' cross. For instance, ours is a God who has journeyed to the very darkest, godless places or realms human sin produces, and has become Lord of even those places. He does not disdain them even now but is marked by them and will journey with us there --- whether we are open to him doing so or not --- because Jesus has implicated God there and marked him with the wounds of an exhaustive kenosis.

Another piece of this is that Jesus is, as Paul tells us, the end of the Law and it was Law (combined with human sinfulness) that crucified him. The nail holes and wounds in Jesus' side and head -- indeed every laceration which marked him -- are a sign of legal execution -- both in terms of Jewish and Roman law. We cannot forget this, and Thomas' insistence that he really be dealing with the Crucified One reminds us vividly of this fact as well. The Jewish and Roman leaders did not crucify Jesus because they misunderstood him, but because they understood all-too-clearly both Jesus and the immense power he wielded in his weakness and poverty. They understood that he could turn the values of this world, its notions of power, authority, etc., on their heads. They knew that he could foment profound revolution (religious and otherwise) wherever he had followers. They chose to have him crucified not only to put an end to his life, but to demonstrate he was a fraud who could not possibly have come from God; they chose to crucify (or have him crucified) to terrify those who might follow him into all the places discipleship might really lead them --- especially those places of human power and influence associated with religion and politics. The marks of the cross are a judgment (krisis) on this whole reality.

There are many gods and even very many manifestations of the real God available to us today (many partial, some more or less distorted), and so there were to Thomas and his brethren in those first days and weeks following the crucifixion of Jesus. When Thomas made his declaration about what he would and would not believe, none of these were crucified Gods or would be worthy of being believed in if they were associated with such shame and godlessness. Thomas knew how very easy it would be for his brother and sister disciples to latch onto one of these, or even to fall back on entirely traditional notions in reaction to the terribly devastating disappointment of Jesus' crucifixion. He knew, I think, how easy it might be to call the crucifixion and all it symbolized a terrible misunderstanding which God simply reversed or wiped away with the resurrection -- a distasteful chapter on which God has simply turned the page. Thomas knew that false prophets (and false "messiahs") showed up all the time. He knew that a God who is distant and all-powerful is much easier to believe in (and follow) than one who walks with us even in our sinfulness or who empties himself to become subject to the powers of sin and death, especially in the awful scandal and ignominy of the cross --- and who expects us to do essentially the same.

In other words, Thomas' doubt may have had less to do with the FACT of a resurrection, than it had to do with his concern that the disciples, in their desperation, guilt, and the immense social pressure they faced, had truly met and clung to the real Lord, the crucified One. In this way, and only in this way!) their own discipleship could and would come to be marked by the signs of the cross as they preach, suffer, and serve in the name (and so, in the paradoxical power) of THIS Lord and no other. Only he could inspire them; only he could sustain them; only he could accompany them wherever true discipleship led them.

Paul said, "I want to know Christ crucified and only Christ crucified" because only this Christ had transformed sinful, godless reality with his presence, only this Christ had redeemed even the realms of sin and death by remaining open to God even within these realities. Only this Christ would journey with us to the unexpected and unacceptable places, and in fact, only he would meet us there with the promise and presence of a God who would bring life out of them. Thomas, I believe, knew precisely what Paul would soon proclaim himself, and it is this, I think, which stands behind his insistence on seeing the wounds and putting his fingers in the very nail holes. He wanted to be sure his brethren were putting their faith in the crucified One, the one who turned everything upside down and relativized every other picture of God we might believe in. He became the great doubter because of this, but I suspect instead, he was the most astute theologian among the original Apostles. He, like Paul, wanted to know Christ Crucified and ONLY Christ Crucified.

We should not trivialize Thomas' witness by transforming him into a run of the mill empiricist and doubter (though doubting is an important piece of growth in faith)!! Instead, we should imitate his insistence: we are called upon to be followers of the Crucified God, and no other. Every version of God we meet should be closely examined for nail holes and the lance wound inflicted by the world of power and prestige. Everyone should be checked for signs that this God is capable of, as well as generous and merciful enough to assume such suffering on behalf of a creation he would reconcile and make whole. Only then do we know this IS the God proclaimed in the Gospels and the Epistles of Paul, the God of Easter, the only one worthy of being followed even into the darkest reaches of human sin and death, the only One who meets us in the unexpected and even unacceptable place; only this God is the One who makes all things new by loving us with an eternal love from which nothing at all can separate us.