What if a Bishop Retires? Will a Candidate Still be Professed?

[[Dear Sister Laurel, what would happen if a Bishop had approved a hermit for consecration according to canon 603 and then retired or became ill and was replaced by a new Bishop?]]

I can only say what the possibilities would be, and speak in likelihoods, but generally my own sense is that the profession and (with perpetual vows) consecration would go ahead with the new Bishop. If the person is already under temporary vows it is possible that a new Bishop would ask them to renew these at the appropriate time until he can get to know her and the vocation more specifically and admit her to perpetual profession and consecration. If there had yet been no temporary profession then it is likely the new Bishop would admit the person to these for a period of three to five years as the process of discernment continued.

You see, the discernment process for this vocation does not involve ONLY the Bishop nor is this only a personal decision of his, but instead it is one made on behalf of the Church. Long before a hermit candidate speaks to the Bishop (at least in my experience) she has met with Vocations personnel or the Vicar for Religious or for Consecrated Life. These meetings are periodic and give both persons a chance to really know one another. In my own process of discernment one Vicar met regularly with me in my own hermitage over a several year period. She also traveled to a hermitage in another part of the state to speak to the Prior about what was needed to live a healthy eremitical life because this was not something she was familiar with first hand. At another point in the process I met with co-Vicars and we took the steps needed so that they would be able to make a recommendation to the new Bishop. During that period (about a year or year and a half) I wrote another version of my Rule or Plan of Life which was submitted to canonists for approval, made sure all the paperwork necessary was nailed down, and waited to hear from them on any "loose ends", as well as on their decision. They recommended the Bishop profess me and asked me to make an appointment with him.

In that meeting the Bishop made clear his intention of meeting with me several more times, learning all he could about the eremitical vocation, reading anything I had written (articles, Rule, etc) --- he wanted to meet me BEFORE reading anything I had written --- and only then making a decision about professing me. About a year later he made his decision. My sense is this is all fairly typical. What I hope is clear is that the discernment process is fairly lengthy and careful, but also, that this is not simply the Bishop's decision --- though it is ultimately his of course. If a person has reached the stage where a Bishop has agreed to profess her and he becomes ill or retires, the Bishop replacing him would be likely to accept the seriousness and competence of his recommendations and those of his curia in admitting this person to vows. After all, the person's petition is a serious one and she has gone through a lengthy discernment process; it would hardly be just to simply dismiss her or her petition and the process or the work of one's curia.

I have also written about this before in response to a question which was put more negatively and in that response I noted that it was possible for a Bishop who did not believe in the vocation for some reason to refuse to profess anyone --- though one hoped it would not be a decision driven merely by personal bias. One would hope that someone already in temporary vows would continue and be professed perpetually even by such a Bishop once he got to know her and the vocation itself. Still, I do think it is unlikely that someone whose petition to be professed under canon 603 had been approved by the outgoing Bishop would not be at least temporarily professed by the new Bishop out of respect for his predecessor's decision.

St Patrick's Day

All good wishes on this "high holy day" (well, High Irish Holy Day, anyway)! Of course, it does seem that everyone is Irish on this day, so I guess that makes it a universal high holy day! Our parish celebrated last night with a seriously delicious corned beef and cabbage dinner fixed by the Knights of Columbus. I came as the Knight's guest (they honor Religious in the parish), partly to pray for God's blessing on our dinner (especially remembering last Sunday's Gospel reading re the prodigal Son and the Father's love of a good feast/party!!) but also to enjoy the Irish step dancing, the REALLY bad jokes, the love of so many friends, and the excellent FOOD!

Phyllis McGinley captures some of the fun and seriousness of St Patrick. Enjoy.

St Patrick the Missioner, by Phyllis McGinley


Saint Patrick was a preacher
With honey in his throat.
They say he could charm away
A miser's dearest pence;
Could coax a feathered creature
To leave her nesting note
And fly from many a farm away
To hear his eloquence.

No Irishman was Patrick
According to the story.
The speech of Britain clung to him
(Or maybe it was Wales).
But, ah, for curving rhet'ric,
Angelic oratory,
What man could match a tongue to him
Among the clashing Gaels!

Let Patrick meet a Pagan
In Antrim or Wicklow,
He'd talk to him so reachingly,
So vehement would pray,
That Cul or Neall or Reagan
Would fling aside his bow
And beg the saint beseechingly
To christen him that day.

He won the Necromancers,
The Bards, the country herds.
Chief Aengus rose and went with him
To bear his staff and bowl.
For such were all his answers
To disputatious words,
Who'd parry argument with him
Would end a shriven soul.

The angry Druids muttered
A curse upon his prayers.
The sought a spell for shattering
The marvels he had done.
But Patrick merely uttered
A better spell than theirs
And sent the Druids scattering
Like mist before the sun.

They vanished like the haze on
The plume of the fountain.
But still their scaly votaries
Were venomous at hand.
So three nights and days on
Tara's stony mountain
He thundered till those coteries
Of serpents fled the land.

Grown old but little meeker
At length he took his rest,
And centuries have listened, dumb,
To tales of his renown.
For Ireland loves a speaker
So loves Saint Patrick best:
The only man in Christendom
Has talked the Irish down.

Francis attends Mass at local Church: Angelus Address

Full text of Angelus address:

Dear brothers and sisters, good morning! After our first meeting last Wednesday, today I again give my greetings to you all! And I am happy to do it on Sunday, the Lord's Day! This is beautiful and important for us Christians: to meet on Sunday, to greet one another, to talk as we are doing now, in the square. This square that, thanks to the media, takes on worldly dimensions.

In this Fifth Sunday of Lent, the Gospel presents us with the story of the adulterous woman whom Jesus saves from being condemned to death. It captures Jesus' attitude: we do not hear words of contempt, we do not hear words of condemnation, but only words of love, of mercy, that invite us to conversion. 'Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more!' Well, brothers and sisters! God's face is that of a merciful father who is always patient. Have you thought about God's patience, the patience that He has with each of us? That is His mercy. He always has patience, is always patient with us, understanding us, awaiting us, never tiring of forgiving us if we know how to return to him with a contrite heart. 'Great is the Lord's mercy', says the Psalm.

In these days, I have been able to read a book by a cardinal—Cardinal Kasper, a talented theologian, a good theologian—on mercy. And it did me such good, that book, but don't think that I'm publicizing the books of my cardinals. That is not the case! But it did me such good, so much good... Cardinal Kasper said that hearing the word mercy changes everything. It is the best thing that we can hear: it changes the world. A bit of mercy makes the world less cold and more just. We need to understand God's mercy well, this merciful Father who has such patience... Think of the prophet Isaiah who asserts that even if our sins were scarlet red, God's love would make them white as snow. That is beautiful, [this aspect of mercy].

I remember when, just after I was made bishop, in 1992, the Madonna of Fatima came to Buenos Aires and a large Mass for the sick was celebrated. I went to hear confessions at that Mass. Near the end of the Mass I got up because I had to administer a confirmation. An over 80-year-old woman came up to me, humbly, very humbly. I asked her: “Nonna,” [grandmother]—because that's how we address our elderly—“Nonna, you want to confess?” “Yes,” she told me. “But if you haven't sinned...” And she said to me: “We have all sinned...” “But perhaps the Lord will not forgive you...” “The Lord forgives everyone,” she told me, with certainly. “But how do you know that, ma'am?” “If the Lord didn't forgive everyone, the world would not exist.” I wanted to ask her: “Tell me, have you studied at the Gregorian [Pontifical University]?”, because that is the wisdom that the Holy Spirit gives: the inner wisdom of God's mercy. Let us not forget this word: God never tires of forgiving us, never! 'So, Father, what is the problem?' Well, the problem is that we get tired, we don't want to, we get tired of asking forgiveness. Let us never get tired. Let us never get tired. He is the loving Father who always forgives, who has that heart of mercy for all of us. And let us also learn to be merciful with everyone. Let us call upon the intercession of the Madonna who has held in her arms the Mercy of God made human.

You do Not Know God; Naturally You do Not Know Me!

Today's Gospel gives me a lot to think about. In particular it makes me recall one of the most surprising (stunning!) moments of my theological education. It came during one of the first classes I ever had with Prof John Dwyer when he asked us generally, "Who is Jesus?" We gave a number of answers but the best one we thought was, "Jesus is the Son of God!" John followed up with another question, an extremely logical question: "And who, then, is God?" We were stunned to silence. John went on to explain, "You see, you thought that calling Jesus the Son of God was the best thing you could say about him, the most meaningful, the greatest content, etc; but really it says nothing at all about Jesus because apart from Jesus, we do not know God; Jesus is the One who reveals the real God to us. It is important to say that Jesus is God's Son, but first of all, we must recognize that he is the One who reveals God to us; he is the One who makes God real in space and time." Everything in the rest of the course had to do with Jesus and the One he makes known and real to us in space and time (the two main meanings of the term "reveal").

Everything about that moment when I realized that doing theology with Jesus at the center of things would turn everything I thought and believed and understood on their head came back to me as I was praying with today's Gospel. I could well imagine how the folks in Jerusalem would have felt about Jesus' confrontation with them when he says essentially, "It is not that you know God and simply can't make up your mind about me and whether I am from him or not; it is really that you do NOT know God!!" If I were looking for reasons Jesus was crucified, that would certainly be a very large nail in his Cross! But, let's look at the readings yesterday and see how they move us closer to Holy Week and the way the Cross saves as well.

Brothers, Leadership, Romans, Disciples --- No one really gets Jesus

It is Autumn and time for the Feast of Booths or Taber-nacles, one of three Feasts of Pilgrimage to Jerusalem.  The booths are the place where Jews meet God and offer sacrifice. Jesus' brothers are encouraging him to come with them so that he can work more miracles and become famous and influential. "No one becomes famous if they do their work in secret!", they remind him. Of course, we all know that the REAL work will be done in secret --- in the secret darkness of the sin and death and hell Jesus takes on. But Jesus' brothers do not get what he is about yet. They may entertain the idea of his messiahship, but it is one marked by wonder working and, as appropriate to the Feast of Booths, to freeing Israel from the oppression of Rome. It is not marked by failure, ignominy, shame or a power made perfect in weakness. No, this Feast is not the One Jesus will "celebrate"; his comes later, in the Spring. He will go openly to Jerusalem for the Passover where the real sacrifice will be celebrated and the real victory over oppression will be won.

And of course Jesus' brothers aren't alone in their doubt about Jesus. The Jerusalem leaders are out to kill Jesus --- though they are very clear about the threat he poses to the Temple system with his preferential option for the poor and marginalized, his freely given forgiveness and notions of repentance which bypass the Temple sacrificial system. They don't know who he is but they do understand him better than Jesus' disciples! The disciples who are in Jerusalem waiting for more powerful works also don't ever quite get it nor do the the pilgrims to Jerusalem --- some of whom think he is a good man, some of whom think he is deluding the people, and some of whom  just don't know. All of these folks are in the City to celebrate the God they know as Creator and Law Giver and the One who brought them out of Egypt. Imagine how they must have felt when Jesus says, [[You know who I am and where I am from; but the One who sent me is true and you do NOT know him!]] In other words, [[It is not that you know God and merely cannot decide if I am from him; rather, you do NOT know God and so, naturally you do not associate me with him.]] Like some of us in that theology class, I would guess they were stunned, and angered too. I am sure they knew why the Jewish leadership (and especially the priestly aristocracy) wanted to put Jesus to death!

A Key to How the Cross Saves:

The most difficult piece of Christian Theology is the question of how the cross works. I wrote a few days ago about Christ entering into the godless depths of human existence and, through his openness and responsiveness, his dependence upon God to bring life out of death and meaning out of senselessness, he was able to implicate God into not only the unanticipated places, but the unacceptable ones as well. A related piece needed to clarify how the Cross saves is pointed to by Jesus' assertion that no one questioning or persecuting him knows God.

Jesus reveals God to us. Not only does he show us who God is but he makes God present in space and time, and we learn that he is the One Paul extols in Romans 8. The One Jesus allows to be exhaustively present is the God who allows neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depths, nor anything else in all creation to separate us from his love. [[No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.]] Through obedience unto death, and more, to (shameful, godless) death on a cross, Jesus opens every moment and mood of creation to the one he calls Abba, and nothing will ever be the same again.

But Jesus' death and resurrection reveals (makes known and real in history) one more thing that has been missing from the fallen creation: viz, authentic humanity. The portraits of inauthentic humanity abound during Holy Week and especially on Maundy Thursday and Good Friday. The arrogant, frightened, self-assertive, cowardly, betrayers and abandoners, liars, torturers, thieves, self-absorbed and merely duty-bound are ever-present. But Jesus is truly human and shows us the depths of what this means. He loves God with his whole heart and mind and soul and depends on him even when he feels abandoned. He loves himself, and acts with integrity, even when he is terrified, shamed beyond belief, tortured beyond all physical limits and is incapable of any action whatever as death leads to his descent into hell. In spite of everything he remains open and responsive to God in trust that even though he does not see how, God will bring his Reign out of even the depths of sinful death and hell. He gives his entire life for others and shows them his own love for them in the process.

We call Jesus Emmanuel, God with us, for apart from him we truly do not know God. Oh, we can reason to a Creator God, and we can do the same with a Lawgiver God. We can reason to One who is the ground of being and meaning and truth and beauty and mystery and one who hates sin and will judge us for that; but we cannot reason to a God who loves us as unreservedly as is revealed on the cross. We cannot reason to a God who allows absolutely nothing to stand between us and his love. Neither can we reason to an authentic humanity. That is something that can only be revealed and which we need to be initiated into as we are in Baptism. Thus, the cross saves by 1) making God present in even the godless places of our lives and destroying those by transforming them with his presence; 2) by making truly human existence possible for the first time in Christ and initiating us into it through our baptism into his death; 3) by reconciling the entire creation to himself in a preparation for the day when God will be all in all. In each of these ways God changes not only reality per se, but our hearts and the way we see reality as well. In each of these ways God establishes his sovereignty, his Reign over creation.

Should Hermits be Professed at a Parish Mass?

[[Dear Sister O'Neal, I have heard that professions of diocesan hermits need not take place during Mass and that those insisting on making their profession during Mass are opting for something which canon law does not require; I also heard it is something which goes against the hiddenness and simplicity of the hermit vocation. Is that correct? The person who said this asserted that the Catechism and Canon law say that there needs to be no big service and there can even be just a sign of commitment. A public celebration is not necessary or even appropriate. The idea of having lots of people attending seems to be something some hermits need for ego, or as a sign of being "approved of" etc. You made vows at a public Mass. Why did you choose that option?]]

It has been a while since I heard these arguments about ego and canonical "approval". I am disappointed they are being made once again. I have tried to be tactful in responding to the attitude and errors involved, not always successfully; I admit that that is a bit taxing sometimes. Still, there is an essential tension between the public character of this vocation and the call to essential hiddenness or stricter separation of the diocesan hermit. Exploring this tension is something I enjoy and believe is important even apart from statements like those you have asked about; for that reason let me approach your questions from that perspective.

While it is true that initiation into religious life (what is called reception into the community for instance) is not allowed to take place during Mass, and while first, simple, or temporary vows which will be liturgically a relatively simple matter may or may not take place during Mass, perpetual or solemn vows are a different matter and the Church says clearly that it is appropriate that these occur within the context of a public Mass where attendance can be high (par 43 Rite of Religious Profession for Women, "It is fitting that the rite of profession by which a religious binds herself to God forever should take place on a Sunday or a solemnity of the Lord, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or of a saint distinguished in the living of the religious life."  and again, no 45, "Notice of the day and hour should be given to the faithful in good time so they may attend in greater numbers." )

Other prescriptions delineated in this Rite involve the use of the cathedral or parish church, making the profession at the chair and in the sanctuary, use of fitting solemnity but also eschewing lavishness unbecoming religious poverty, sufficient bread and wine for all, what is necessary for the giving of insigniae, etc. Could a hermit choose to do something else? I suspect they could; whether it would be theologically and liturgically appropriate is something the hermit and her Bishop would need to determine. Certainly the hermit could choose a Mass with a more intimate setting, especially for temporary profession, but again, it is the Church herself that specifies the appropriateness of wide attendance and publicity in her own Rite of Religious Profession.

 You see, none of this has to do with ego or the hermit's desire for public recognition; it has to do with the Church's esteem for this vocation and the appropriateness of a liturgical celebration for life commitments like this. (Thus we do the same with Baptisms, marriages, consecrations, and ordinations --- whenever public commitments are made which establish the person in a new public identity or state in the Church .) As for the claims that the CCC and Code of Canon Law say a hermit need not have a service and may use only a sign of commitment, I don't know anywhere that either book says anything about this with regard to canon 603 hermits. Canon Law (cc 654-658, the section spelling out the law re profession of religious says nothing about this; C 603 itself is merely clear that the hermit may make vows or other sacred bonds. It says nothing about the context in which these are to be made. The CCC does not address either issue of course. In other words, these claims seem to me to be specious and simply plucked out of the ether.

It is true that in dealing with private vows the Church tends to expect these to take place outside Mass so people do not confuse them with public vows or vows made and received in the name of the Church. Perhaps the person you are quoting was speaking of private vows rather than public ones and something other than either the CCC or Canon Law per se. Alternately perhaps s/he got the references wrong. The issue of sources aside, it remains possible s/he was speaking of temporary canonical vows or professions, but perpetual or solemn vows and actual consecration are a different matter and there is no way one makes a solemn commitment like this without a liturgical celebration (Mass).

Your question about my own profession taking place at a Sunday Mass seems to be tied to the notion that it was done out of ego. Let me correct that idea. First , I did not choose to have a Mass; my diocese naturally set up a date and time when the Bishop would preside at my profession and the appropriateness of this occurring at a Mass was understood by everyone. This is not simply custom but at heart a reflection of our sacramental theology and theology of church. So my pastor and I worked with the diocese and used the official texts for the Rites of Religious Profession;  I also worked with a canonist and Vicar for Religious to assure all was done in a way which was legitimate and appropriate.

Details which were worked out in advance included the texts of the vows or vow formula (I used a vow formula I had used before but with some slight changes for the occasion), the insigniae (ring, cowl) and other things (candle, vows to be signed during Mass), readings, and all the persons who would be participating in the liturgy apart from the assembly (servers, lectors, cantors, delegate, concelebrants, etc). The diocese provided a worksheet for all of these things and, immediately prior to the Mass, provided several  legal documents which needed to be signed apart from the vow formula itself. (That is signed on the altar --- in this case by the bishop, myself, my delegate and the pastor of the parish.) In other words, this was a diocesan matter undertaken on behalf of the universal Church, not something I desired out of ego; it was undertaken because the Church clearly saw it as completely appropriate and significant.

But let me be equally clear: there is no doubt I would always choose to make perpetual profession during a Mass. Theologically and liturgically this would have been completely fitting for the solemnity and significance of the event. It should be clear that life commitments of this sort which also mediate God's consecration and the commissioning of the Church are appropriately done during Mass where the effective (real-making) symbolism of self-gift, consecration, and commissioning are clearest and paradigmatic. This is also important since the person making the commitment is assuming public/legal rights and obligations which affect the entire Church, and which most intimately affect her local Church --- both diocesan and parish communities. While the hermit may live a life of essential hiddenness, the act of perpetual profession is both a public and an ecclesial one. It is an act of love celebrating the God who calls us to life in union with him, espousal to Christ, and communion with one another. It marks and implicitly celebrates all the forms of love that have brought the person to this moment: Divine, familial, community, friends, et. al. It is only appropriate that all of these people should be able to participate in such a celebration of love and grace --- and of course that it be done at Mass where Christ is uniquely present, proclaimed, and received.

Further, the Rite of Profession marks a commissioning to make this love even more fruitful in the future and says we do this together. No authentic hermit is ever truly alone and that is certainly true of a diocesan hermit. Not only does she live with and from God, but she lives at the heart of the Church and is publicly commissioned (at the very liturgy we are discussing in fact) to do so in an essential hiddenness. Such life is always nourished by the Church (especially in Word and Sacrament) even as this same life nourishes the Church as a whole. Finally, I should note that if it is appropriate for strictly cloistered nuns to celebrate their own solemn professions in the sanctuary of a church open to visitors (and in the mind and position of the Church it certainly is!), then it is appropriate for the diocesan hermit to do similarly because in either case we are celebrating the Holy Spirit's gift to the Church, a gift which is part of her call to prayer and holiness, a gift which is meant to inspire and nourish her in this goal.

HABEMUS PAPEM! Franciscum; We Have a Pope! Francis

As far as initial impressions go I am impressed with the language and manner of our new Pope. He calls himself the Bishop of Rome. He speaks of himself as one of a community of Brothers and Sisters. He does not speak of the Diocese of Rome, but the community of Rome and he jokes about his brother Cardinals going to the ends of the earth to find such a Bishop! Francis refers to Benedict as the Bishop Emeritus -- because he is speaking in Rome; but clearly he has a sense of local Churches and their dignity. He asks first for the prayers of all of those present before mediating God's blessing to them --- and bowed profoundly towards all of us in requesting that blessing. His pectoral cross is made of wood, not gold encrusted with jewels. He wore only a white simple cassock and used the stole only while acting to give the blessing --- not as though everything he is and does is done "in persona christi" (as priest) but rather that it is done in Christ as is so with the rest of the Baptized. The media writes that the new Pope:  [[is known to live simply—before calling Vatican City his home, he lived in an apartment in Buenos Aires instead of the archbishop’s palace. He cooked his own meals, and instead of taking a private car to work, he took the public bus.]] And, after his introduction from the loggia, he apparently took the shuttle with the rest of  his "brother Cardinals" back to the house where they had all been staying and dismissed the papal limousine --- consistent with his former habits and values!

We know that names are very important and the choice of Francis is no small matter. St Francis of Assisi was known as called by God to reform the Church; he was humble, a lover of Christ, a man who empowered others and collaborated with St Clare and her Sisters. He walked with the poor and marginalized, preached without license to do so, and was famous for saying we had to preach the Gospel and use words if necessary! Because the Cross of Christ was truly at the center of his life he was a man of incredible joy and one who today is beloved by all Christians --- indeed by all mankind. And our new Pope is Francis I!! There is no doubt that Pope Francis is signaling there is to be something new afoot in the Church, something specifically "Franciscan" for instance. I am personally reminded of John XXIII's comments at the beginning of the Vatican II Council that we are not to be prophets of doom but of openness to a new era. As he wrote:

 [[In the daily exercise of Our pastoral office, it sometimes happens that We hear certain opinions which disturb Us—opinions expressed by people who, though fired with a commendable zeal for religion, are lacking in sufficient prudence and judgment in their evaluation of events. They can see nothing but calamity and disaster in the present state of the world. They say over and over that this modern age of ours, in comparison with past ages, is definitely deteriorating. One would think from their attitude that history, that great teacher of life, had taught them nothing. They seem to imagine that in the days of the earlier councils everything was as it should be so far as doctrine and morality and the Church's rightful liberty were concerned.

 We feel that We must disagree with these prophets of doom, who are always forecasting worse disasters, as though the end of the world were at hand. Present indications are that the human family is on the threshold of a new era. We must recognize here the hand of God, who, as the years roll by, is ever directing men's efforts, whether they realize it or not, towards the fulfillment of the inscrutable designs of His providence, wisely arranging everything, even adverse human fortune, for the Church's good. ]]

St Francis of Assisi was a man who truly saw the hand of God in things and helped usher in a new era in Church history, in the history of religious life, and in a revival of the Gospel's own option for the poor and marginalized. Francis I is known for having said after Benedict's conclave that he would have, dreaded living among the Curia, the introverted bureaucracy that holds the core of the Catholic Church in its grip. [[In the Curia I would die,]] he said in 2005. [[My life is in Buenos Aires. Without the people of my diocese, without their problems, I feel something lacking every day.”]] JP II called for the reform of the papacy and curia. Vatican II before him desired it but Paul VI had it taken off the table for papal (and curial) attention specifically. No reform has ever come and the impression sometimes given is that the curia is controlled by prophets of doom who are inheritors of the approach John XXIII condemned.

Thus, Francis I is certainly in my prayers and so is the Church. I am feeling a cautious excitement I have not felt in a very long time. I think it is the flowering of hope --- hope that perhaps the Holy Spirit has done what I feared human projects, agendas and sinfulness had made impossible --- or at least only very remotely possible! If our new Pope can be and do even a fraction of what St Francis was and did (and what Christ's Church so desperately needs today), the Cardinals will have elected a prophet and true pastor who helps remake the Church and world in light of the Gospel of the Crucified Christ. All of the little signs are there, signs of a new Spring after the cold and deadness of an extended Winter. Benedict was not able to break the hold of this long winter. May the Lord bring these small signs to full flower in Francis' pontificate! Like so many of the stories in Scripture, and like a Lent which leads to a true Easter, we have waited for a very long time.

As many of us sang at our perpetual professions: [[Uphold [us] Lord, according to your promise and [we] shall live, and do not bring to nothing all [our] hope!]] (Ps 119:116)

Followup Questions, Theology of the Cross

[[Dear Sister, thank you for your post on the cross. When I was growing up we heard the idea that  our salvation was bought with every stroke of the whip and every stroke of the hammer. We also heard that our sins were like adding strokes to those. It is confusing to think that Jesus' suffering per se does not save us but that it is his obedience that does. Can you help me understand this? . . .]]

Thanks for the chance to clarify what I have already written. When we think of the extremity of what Jesus suffered, not just physically, but in terms of failure (because his project did look to end in failure) and shame as well, I think we begin to see more clearly how difficult obedience (openness and responsiveness to God) really was for him --- and also how critical. The temptation to close ourselves off from suffering, to shut down physically, mentally, emotionally, psychically, etc is never stronger than when we are in pain. This will usually include the kind of shockiness we experience when we are betrayed or treated with incredible insensitivity and cruelty. It can include all the mental gymnastics or defense mechanisms we "naturally" fall into regarding blame, justification, defensiveness, refusal to stay in the present moment, etc.

The problem here is that when we start to shut down, or when we act in ways which seem to allow us (ourselves) to regain some control, we shut down to other things as well and we will not be WHOLLY dependent on God to bring what he can both within and out of the situation. (We may open to God afterward and ordinarily this seems to be the reasonable thing to do, but we do not usually remain open to God during such situations. In other words, we may pray AFTER the situation is over, and we may call out to God to take us out of the situation, but we tend not to pray the situation itself.) Obedience in the NT sense is very difficult for us because we really are sinners, we really are estranged from God. Jesus, who was not estranged from God, prayed the whole situation and what he found was human betrayal, desertion, and divine abandonment! Even then he remained faithful and trusted in God. Even then he remained open to whatever God would do with him and with this situation.

Because of his openness every bit of Jesus' suffering was unmitigated --- including his experience of God's absence. We see this symbolized in his refusal of the gall-laced-wine; we see it in his refusal to speak in front of Pilate (no defenses, no explanations, no mitigation), we see it in his experience in Gethsemane and his cry of abandonment on the cross (surely the very worst thing Jesus himself experienced!). And yet, this unreserved openness to suffering was the measure of his openness to God's will as well.

Still, unless God enters into the situation it speaks mainly of sin's victory over God's anointed one. If Jesus had merely remained good and dead, his suffering would have been for nothing. More, it would have proven the God he believed in so exhaustively does NOT have the power to definitively overcome sin and godless death and human cruelty, ambition, etc, etc will have the last word. The Kingdom Jesus proclaimed would have been a fraud --- or perhaps Jesus' delusion. As Paul says so tellingly, [[If Jesus is not risen from the dead we (Christians) are the greatest fools of all.]] So, while I am not saying that his suffering was unimportant (it was critical in deepening and extending his obedience to God) it was not his suffering per se that was salvific.

Questions on the Theology of the Cross

As we approach Holy Week and the Triduum I am beginning to get some questions about the theology of the cross, etc. Here is an email I received from a long-time friend.

[[Dear Laurel, I feel sort of negative about the crucifix and communion. Here are the reasons: I know the church teaches that Christ died for our sins, but the crucifix also represents a very violent and bloody act. What kind of example is that to set in front of our already troubled youth? I know the church teaches that communion is the body and blood of Christ, but the idea of drinking human blood and eating human flesh seems very savage and cannibalistic to me. Again this seems like sick thinking to me. What can you say about this? Now that I have had my say, how are you and what is going on in your life? Love and Peace,]]

Hi there!
Regarding your questions: It is important to remember that in the events of the cross the violence and evil done were human acts (or, more accurately, literally inhuman acts unworthy of God or humankind). They tell us what happens when the sacred (and truly human) is put into our sinful hands. Part of the redemption God achieves on the cross is the redemption of our horrific treatment of one another and of God himself. Part of it is the redemption of our inhumanity and the making possible of authentic humanity in Christ.

Secondly, it is important to remember that Jesus' physical and psychological suffering per se was not salvific. What was salvific was that in the midst of this terrible suffering, injustice, shame, failure of mission, and betrayal, he remained open to God (the One he called Abba) and to whatever God would bring out of it. The word we use for this openness and responsiveness is "obedience". It does NOT mean that God willed Jesus' torture by venal, cruel, ambitious, and frightened human beings. What God DID will, however, was to enter into all of the moments and moods of human life including sinfulness and death so that he could redeem and transform them with his presence. Jesus allows God to do that by remaining open to him even in such extremity. (He does not shut down, nor does he try to assume control, for instance.)

Neither is Jesus' death by itself salvific. Again, even in death and beyond natural death in what the NT calls "godless" or "eternal death" Jesus remained open to what God would bring out of this. Because he did, God was able to enter into these godless realms and for that reason they no longer are signs of God's absence. Instead, because of Christ obedience unto "death, even death on a cross" as Paul puts it, even in sin and death we will meet God face to face and God will bring life not only out of the unexpected place but the unacceptable place --- the place where human reason says God should never be found.

God never changes his mind about us. He loves us --- actively, passionately, without reserve. (He IS love-in-act; this creative, dynamic, unceasing love is God's very nature!) What God changes through the events of the cross is reality itself. Unless once we are face to face with God we actually choose eternity without God there is no longer sinful or godless death. Even should we choose this I think it will mean we choose an eternity facing  a Love we have been offered without reserve, but which we have definitively refused. (It is hard for me to think of a worse situation than to be locked inside one's own hatefulness while faced with a Love which frees and gives eternal life.)  What we have to teach our youth is exactly what Paul says in Romans 8: neither life nor death nor powers nor principalities, nor heights nor depths, etc etc will EVER separate us from the love of God. God has made sure that he is present in even the unacceptable place (in this case, the realms which are properly called godless); he has assured the truth of what Paul asserts in Romans 8 and it is Jesus' openness and responsiveness to God in the face of human evil of unimaginable lengths and depths that spurred Paul's profession of faith.

One other note: The NT speaks of divine wrath. This does not mean anger in the sense we know it ourselves. It means something akin to a tough love that allows the consequences of our choices to catch up to us. God respects our choices even if he does not respect WHAT we choose. He allows the consequences of our choices to catch up with us. However, at the same time, if we choose sin and death (knowing we cannot fully conceive what we are choosing in this way), he makes sure we will find him even there. 

The Church has never asserted a single interpretation of the cross nor a normative theology of the Cross. Unfortunately what we hear too often is Anselm's interpretation. Anselm's world was a feudal one where notions of shame and honor were driving forces. Thus he saw God as infinitely offended by human sin and wrote that an infinite price had to be paid for God's honor to be regained. Further, that price had to be paid by a human being since human beings had caused the infinite offense while only someone divine COULD do so. The biggest problem though was that he saw God as needing to be reconciled. This is exactly the opposite of what Paul says in 2 Cor 5:19: [[God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.]] In other words, it is the world which needs to be reconciled to God; in Christ God brings everything home to itself and to himself. He sets all things right. This is the nature of divine justice. He asserts his rights or sovereignty over a broken creation by letting nothing stand between us and his creative love (himself). It is not God's honor that needs to be appeased but a broken and estranged world that needs to be healed and made one with God (the ground of existence and meaning). That is what happens through Jesus' crucifixion, death, and resurrection. In Christ God takes the worst human beings can do and brings divine wholeness and life out of it.

2) Regarding Communion: The Church does not and has never taught that Jesus is PHYSICALLY present in the Eucharist. In order to speak about the Real presence she uses the terms real, true, and substantial. She does so to avoid crude physicalisms like those we sometime hear associated with private visions, etc --- things like munching on toenails and the like. Further, the Church teaches that the Eucharistic presence is the presence of the Risen Christ not Jesus of Nazareth per se, and so, this involves a resurrected body/self which, though really present and consistent with the historical Jesus, is not subject to the conditions of space and time. In the NT the Gospel writers speak of the Risen Xt as walking though walls or being in two places at once (Road to Emmaus and Galilee, for instance) or of eating fish in order to be able to convey all of these things. The Risen presence is real, true, and substantial but NOT physical in the sense cannibalism (or munching on toenails) requires. It is a transcendent presence, a mysterious presence, not a strictly historical one. 

I hope this helps.

"The Music We Are" by Rumi

In thanksgiving for the gift of a new friend who leaves tomorrow morning for the upper Midwest.  Bob gave me a collection of poems by Rumi as part of his leave-taking. I have written here a number of times about the songs we are, and especially about the song that is the hermit, so that this poem seemed  a perfect way to mark my own appreciation of the past few weeks --- and the nearing of Easter! Deo Gratias!!!