Feast of All Souls: The cleansing fire

Once again, I apologize for posting late. To my embarrassment, I fell asleep in front of my computer while I was in the middle of writing this post, and woke up with just enough time to run an errand before going over to my older brother’s house to celebrate my mother’s 75th birthday. If I’d gotten it done sooner, it probably would have been shorter.

*          *          *

Today is the last day of the annual fall reminder of our mortality, a sort of Triduum for our own deaths that complements Easter.

In many countries, All Souls’ Day functions as a Memorial Day, where people go to visit, clean and maintain the graves of loved ones and have family gatherings in their memories. In Mexico and other Spanish-speaking areas, the “Day of the Dead” (El Día de los Muertos) is celebrated with altars at gravesites and at home loaded with memorial candles and ofrendas (grave offerings); images of skeletons abound, in artwork, tattoos, costumes and Catrinas (models of skeletons wearing traditional dresses), making the Goth subculture look pretty tame and Halloween absolutely pasteurized.

St. Thomas More tells his daughter Margaret, in Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons, “Death comes for us all; even at our birth, death does but stand aside a little. And every day he looks toward us and muses somewhat to himself whether that day or the next he will draw nigh. It is the law of nature, and the will of God.”[1] In the procession of the dead, as well as the old European artistic tradition of the Todtentanz or Danse Macabre, something is retained that the American celebration of All Hallows’ Eve, pounded by commercialization into something bland and uninspired, has lost: Quod fuimus, estis; quod sumus, vos eritis (What we were, you are; what we are, you will be).

Things that go bump in the lab

In all my life I have met only one person who claims to have seen a ghost. And the interesting thing about the story is that that person disbelieved in the immortal soul before she saw the ghost and still disbelieves after seeing it. She says that what she saw must have been an illusion or a trick of the nerves. And obviously she may be right. Seeing is not believing.[1]

Unlike C. S. Lewis, I’ve never met anyone who’s seen a ghost. I don’t automatically believe ghost stories. But I don’t automatically disbelieve them, either. Nor do I reflexively write off stories of possessions, visions, miracles or other creepy stories of the paranormal.

Context is everything. I can disbelieve in orcs because I know J. R. R. Tolkien made them up for his epic universe. I can disbelieve in Martians because we know Mars to be inhospitable to all but the simplest organic life. I can disbelieve in the Flying Spaghetti Monster because it was some wiseass college kid’s attempt to poke fun at religious beliefs while questioning the need to present intelligent design in school curricula.

But we have no such context of knowledge which makes ghosts or demons inherently impossible … or even unlikely.

Faith, Evidence and Anonymous

In today’s Telegraph.co.uk blog post, Francis Phillips did a fairly good job of explaining why Shakespeare lovers should avoid the Roland Emmerich film Anonymous.

The premise of the movie is the ill-regarded theory that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford,  wrote the plays attributed to the Bard of Avon. The only attraction the theory ever had is its contention that a college graduate must have written such masterpieces of literature as Hamlet, King Lear and The Merchant of Venice … certainly not some lout of a glover’s son from Warwickshire with “little Latin and less Greek”.

It’s not my task here to re-write her take-down, which could have gone further into the why of the “de Vere authorship” theory’s falsehood. Rather, I would draw your attention to her penultimate paragraph, where she quotes scholar James Shapiro: “Mr. Emmerich has made a film for our time, in which claims based on conviction are as valid as those based on hard evidence.” To which Phillips adds the sideswipe, “I am surprised that author Dan Brown hasn’t (yet) taken up this theme.”

Phillips is a Catholic writing for a Catholic journal, so I doubt she saw what I saw. Truth is, it took me a minute or so to see the implications of Shapiro’s comment, as funny as it was. Eventually, though, it dawned on me that you could substitute “faith” for “conviction” in Shapiro’s jab without changing his meaning.

Wait a minute. Let’s drill into this a little further before we move along.

On monks and changing the stamp of nature

On Virtuous Pla.net, Sr. Lisa Marie Doty (whose reflections will make any Catholic nostalgic for the days when nuns were an everyday presence in parish life) has a beautiful piece on marriage: the union of man and woman reflecting the union between Christ and his Church, and the three “M’s” that lie behind every vocation (Mass, Maturity and Mission).

One of my friends from the Bright Maidens, Elizabeth Hillgrove, responded, “This is beautiful, Sister. Thank you! I love reading a reflection on marriage from your perspective as one in the religious life.” To which Sr. Lisa replied (with a wink), “Thank you, Elizabeth! It would be interesting too, to read a post from you on the ‘possibility of religious life today’. God bless!”

Elizabeth recorded the exchange on her own blog, Startling the Day. She then admitted, “Other than the occasional pop culture reference, the majority of my childhood exposure to women in religious life was at family events (several non-habit-wearing nuns in my family) and from the 1966 classic, The Trouble with Angels.” From there, she summarized the film (which I’ve not seen, but will as soon as I can) … and evaded Sr. Lisa’s deeper challenge.

If you’ve gone to Elizabeth’s post, you’ll see I called her out on it. And she’s promised to make good on the challenge. But discussing personal vocations can be a bit soul-baring, and it wouldn’t be fair of me to dare her without daring myself.

30th Wednesday in Ordinary Time, Cycle I: The predestination problem

Ordinarily, in working with the daily Mass readings, I present the texts as part of the post. Today, however, I want to save some extra space for the discussion. The first reading is from Romans 8:26-30, the psalm is from Psalms 13:4-6, and the gospel is from Luke 13:22-30.

Let’s say your brother wants to buy a new Mustang convertible, and has asked your advice on the matter. You know his particular financial situation, so you know it’s a very bad idea. But you also know that when he wants to do something, opposing his will is likely to get his back up: “You’re not the boss of me!” Nevertheless, you can’t in good conscience advise him to do whatever he wishes.

Now here’s the question: Supposing you told him in the strongest terms possible, “Don’t buy that car,” and he reacts precisely as you suspected and buys the car anyway. Did you take away his free will? Or did he have free will to begin with?

This is as close a hypothetical as I can create for the conundrum that our Scripture passages hand us today. For while Jesus tells us to try to enter through the narrow gate (Lk 13:24; cf. Mt 7:13-14), Saint Paul tells us that some people God has “predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom 8:29). So how does free will work in light of predestination?

30th Tuesday in Ordinary Time, Cycle I: The waiting is the hardest part

[Jesus said], “What is the kingdom of God like? To what can I compare it? It is like a mustard seed that a person took and planted in the garden. When it was fully grown, it became a large bush and ‘the birds of the sky dwelt in its branches’” [Ez 31:6].

Again he said, “To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed (in) with three measures of wheat flour until the whole batch of dough was leavened” (Lk 13:18-21 NAB).

So what precisely is the kingdom of God?

The reign or rule of God: “the kingdom of God is … righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom 14:17). The Kingdom of God draws near in the coming of the Incarnate Word; it is announced in the Gospel; it is the messianic Kingdom, present in the person of Jesus, the Messiah; it remains in our midst in the Eucharist. Christ gave to his Apostles the work of proclaiming the Kingdom, and through the Holy Spirit forms his people into a priestly kingdom, the Church, in which the Kingdom of God is mysteriously present, for she is the seed and beginning of the Kingdom on earth. In the Lord’s Prayer … we pray for its final glorious appearance, when Christ will hand over the Kingdom to his Father.[1]

Vatican reform note: Anyone got a better plan?

My friend Steve – who really should be writing this blog instead of me – had this to say about the Pontifical Commission’s note:

What I take as one of the points of the document is that the world economy is largely controlled by, and at the mercy of, private financial institutions who do not have anyone’s interests at heart but their own. In an ideal world there would be a beneficent central authority managing the economy in a fair and just matter, with the interests of all in mind.

An hopelessly idealistic dream and totally impractical? Sure, but that’s nothing new, is it? The Church also dreams of a world free of war, hunger, suffering, cruelty, and other (often self-inflicted) plagues on mankind. Their solutions to those problems are not always very practical either, but they are ends worth talking about and working toward.

I concede that I have not read or watched the entirety of these folks’ comments [i.e., the comments I linked in yesterday’s post], but what would they suggest would bring greater economic opportunity and fairness? Just letting the markets work unfettered, which will eventually result in a trickle down to the underprivileged among us? Show me when that has worked. We had a little laboratory to test how laissez faire works during the Industrial Revolution, and it was a mixed bag. Great advances in technology and overall wealth, no doubt, but it also exposed the ugly underbelly of unfettered capitalism and necessitated all sorts of laws and regulations to protect workers, children, public health, etc. To argue against these would be difficult, even for the most hardened Randian.

In other words, do Catholic conservatives have any better ideas?

Vatican reform note cause for conservative face-palms

Whatever else you can say about the various cardinalatial functionaries at the Vatican, this much is true: Media-savvy they ain’t.

This weekend, on the eve of the G20 economic summit, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace released Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Public Authority. In this document, the PCJP looks at the current economic situation and forecast, and critiques the presumptive causes from the perspective of Catholic social doctrine.

The one recommendation the document (hereafter shortened to TRIFMS) makes that’s causing much conservative Catholic garment-rending begins well into the document:

In the prophetic encyclical Pacem in Terris of 1963, [Bl. John XXIII] observed that the world was heading towards ever greater unification. He then acknowledged the fact that a correspondence was lacking in the human community between the political organization “on a world level and the objective needs of the universal common good”. He also expressed the hope that one day “a true world political authority” would be created.

In view of the unification of the world engendered by the complex phenomenon of globalization, and of the importance of guaranteeing, in addition to other collective goods, the good of a free, stable world economic and financial system at the service of the real economy, today the teaching of Pacem in Terris appears to be even more vital and worthy of urgent implementation. …

As [Pope Benedict XVI] reminds us, if this road is not followed, “despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations” [Caritas in Veritate §67].

29th Friday in Ordinary Time, Cycle I: Interpreting the present time

[Jesus] also said to the crowds, “When you see a cloud rising in the west you say immediately that it is going to rain – and so it does; and when you notice that the wind is blowing from the south you say that it is going to be hot – and so it is. You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky; why do you not know how to interpret the present time?

“Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right? If you are to go with your opponent before a magistrate, make an effort to settle the matter on the way; otherwise your opponent will turn you over to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the constable, and the constable throw you into prison. I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny” (Lk 12:54-59 NAB).

“Discerning the signs of the times” is the favorite activity of many people. In particular, “the signs of the times” are always telling certain Catholics that the Church should change its teaching on x, y or z. But as we unpack this passage, we find that “interpreting the present time” isn’t a license but a warning.

29th Thursday in Ordinary Time, Cycle I: The real outsider

[Jesus said,] “I have come to set the earth on fire, and how I wish it were already blazing! There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished! Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. From now on a household of five will be divided, three against two and two against three; a father will be divided against his son and a son against his father, a mother against her daughter and a daughter against her mother, a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law” (Lk 12:49-53 NAB).

I look at young people who are, for some odd reason, still into the “Goth” shtick, and I pity them.

Not as poor, misunderstood souls, no. I pity them because the whole “Goth” business is so 1996. It’s old. It’s no longer shocking or upsetting; it’s darn near mainstream. Stick it with a fork, ‘cause it’s done.

No, if they want to be misunderstood and feared and still get to wear black clothes, then they should become Catholic priests and religious. I mean, go all out — the theology, the spirituality, the rosaries and Liturgy of the Hours, the cassocks, robes and habits, the whole megillah. Instead of listening to Marilyn Manson (is he even still around?), they should be listening to the Cistercian Monks of Stift Heiligenkreutz.

In fact, the bare minimum they need to do to be feared and misunderstood is to practice Christianity in spirit and truth.