Wednesday, November 20, 2013

A sermon on idolatry: cleansing the temple



A Sermon on Idolatry


“Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and benches of those selling doves. “It is written,” he said to them, “’my house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a den of thieves” Matthew 21:12-13

What we worship and what we hold most dear is apparent in several ways: It is what we are willing to put our best energy and passion into. It is what we are willing to make great sacrifices for. It is where we place our trust and where we look for salvation, when we face threat, danger, and uncertainty.

When Jesus cleanses the temple, why does he do so? Why does he become angry and violent, attacking the vendors and chasing them from the temple steps? The disciples remember the Psalm of David, “Zeal for your house will consume me.” We are often told that this story means that Jesus was outraged and indignant at the violation of the “sacred space” of the temple and so he scolded the wrongdoers.

But I have another interpretation. I think Jesus was trying to save their lives. Just as a parent will angrily, even violently pull a child away from fast-moving traffic to save that child from mortal danger, Jesus reacted in violent anger at the mortal danger he saw those souls in. Why were their souls in mortal danger? Because they were attached to their idols: Profits, business.

Do you seriously imagine we, here, would fare any better with the Lord were he to walk into our congregation? Were he to visit our Nation? Would he not instantly react with anger, in a desperate effort to save our souls from the mortal danger in which our idolatry places us?

Where do I place my trust? Where do I look for salvation? We face serious problems today: poverty, injustice, global climate warming, terrorism, job losses, violence. Our Christian leaders in government also give us a clear, and unmistakable message, disseminated through the media, about where we should place our trust, and where we will find salvation from these ills: the Free Market, Technology, and Economic Growth!

We have so much faith in these idols that we will sacrifice the lives of others for them. We will be content to let the poor suffer, the victims of genocide die, the victims of AIDS die, the jobless go without jobs, if we are persuaded that Economic Growth (the “invisible hand” of the market!) will solve these problems. We are content to let global warming wreak its worst, for we are confident that Technology and the energy Markets will come to the rescue in time. We are not worried about oil shortages or high heating costs or those who cannot pay their heat, because the invisible hand of the Market place is going to make it all turn out okay. We are satisfied to let species go extinct, because Technology will make up for those losses with future discoveries (yes, we’ll clone them all back into being in the end!).

As a nation, as a world community, our leading idol is probably Economic Growth. We will sacrifice almost anything to this idol. We cannot protect the environment, help the poor, preserve jobs, or do the right thing, because to do so might threaten Economic Growth!! Our Idol! Haven’t you heard this over and over and over again, on Fox News, in Presidential press conferences, in the pronouncements of the vice-president, the Senators, and the editorial writers? Always, with a righteous tone, the tone reserved for holy men. They know! They serve their god!!
These Idols in turn gives us a clear message: of passivity! Do nothing! Do not worry!

Here is what the Gospel encourages us to say: Let them serve their god. But as for me and my house, I will serve the Lord God Almighty, the Creator of the Universe, the Soul of us all, the Heavenly Father revealed to us in the Person of Jesus of Galilee.

This living God does not encourage passivity, but action and sacrifice for the Truth!

Therefore, if we place our trust not in economic growth, but in God, not in technology, but in God, not in military prowess, but in God, not in free markets, but in God, what would we do? Our choices would change quite a bit. Instead of sacrificing lives and sacrificing souls to preserve economic growth, we would do what is right to honor God, and sacrifice economic growth! A heresy. Things would turn upside down! We would preserve jobs, preserve species, preserve land, preserve air, stop threatening our neighbors with climate change due to our excess use of resources—we would repent and change our ways, even though our stock markets did not grow. Instead of sacrificing the poor to preserve economic growth (and reassure ourselves that this will help the poor in the long run), we would sacrifice economic growth to help the poor today! (and reassure ourselves, in contrast, that God will see to our own economic needs: “Give us this day our daily bread.”).

Jesus would not grow angry with us only because we are being slothful and wrong; he would grow angry because we are placing our own souls in danger, losing our soul. Like a parent angry at a child running into traffic, he would urgently call us back.
 
For this reason God’s spirit asks that I commit, that I sacrifice, and that we do as a society: that we protect the poor now, in practice, not in theory, that we take action, that we step up, and address the injustices in our society. That spirit is not satisfied with pundits’ clever editorials that ultimately reassure us there is nothing we can or should do (for the market and technology will provide, and the best that can happen is already happening), but rather demands we understand and act as God’s people.

Take this into your mind, and then ask, what is moral, what are my idols, how do I free myself from them? Let God’s spirit in, and you will not be able to live with the status quo.

This is nowhere as true as in the case of global warming. Here, we sacrifice the poor—who will not be able to cope with heat waves, floods, disease, or crop losses—because we do not want to risk any economic cost to ourselves to change our ways. We accept the facile and idolatrous reassurances of leaders who tell us the markets and technology will solve this problem—or worse, that it is not even really a problem. It is a lie! It is the priests of the idol speaking! Our Lord would chase them out with whips and cords! People’s lives and livelihood are at risk, because we lack the imagination or the collective will to demand change! Rise up! Demand that your leaders turn this tide, reduce our use of fossil fuels rapidly and decisively (protecting those among us who may have to bear the greatest burden of those changes—probably our poorest members!), and restore our society to moral righteousness!

Monday, October 14, 2013

Assisi, 2013--what do saints mean for us today?



Last week I was able to take a journey, part vacation, part pilgrimage, to Italy and visit Rome, Assisi, Sienna, and Florence. Here are some excerpts from my journal as I thought about history, saints, and our lives.  

October 8, 2013. I am writing on the train from Roma to Assisi. I was in Assisi once before, in 2006, a trip which was decisive in my decision to move to Portland the following fall. This return to Assisi is one that I wondered if I would ever do. It comes on the heels of a day in Rome, which we spent at the Vatican, seeing the Sistine Chapel and St. Peter’s Basilica. Of so many impressions there, I was struck by a few. One was the extensive, ornate gilt of the entire place. By our modern sensibilities it seems overdone, almost garish. It is huge of course; our St Francis church would fit inside one of the many side-bay chapels. Yet this great Basilica conveys the spirit of its builders which was one of a desire for the greatest, the best, and the highest in life. It conveys also the desire to reflect and give a singular quality, which we call Glory. Glory belongs to no human person, but only to God alone, and the Basilica seeks to make that clear with an exclamation point. And yet the entire Basilica in its greatness also reminds us that we are called, not only to labor, suffer, and poverty, but also to certain glory. This is a powerful hope and a powerful vision. This balances out some of the austerity with which I often imagine Christian life, and perhaps allows some wholesome balance. Yet I also worry that the ostentatious quality of the Basilica conveys also a church that is still too wealthy. I fear the day not one stone is left on another, like the vaunted temple of Jerusalem. What will our people feel or think then? Or will they even care? The churches have become museums in much of Europe.

On that note a second observation, which is that I was wearied by the relentless photographing; crowds thronging not to see or experience the divine, but to photograph the place, to be able to say they were there. Constant, constant, constant. Few stopped to gaze, though some did. Most shot photos and moved on. But for a few, perhaps the photo was a way to reverence it. I fell into some traditional Catholic harshness, telling people to be still and, where photos were forbidden, reminding them and interrupting their picture taking.  Here I was a stranger telling people to behave, people I never even met! Where does this come from inside of me? But it did anger me, that there was so little capacity among the visitors to be here with this place, to respect the call for silence and the requests for no photos, and that I myself was finding it difficult to be present.

A third observation was the tombs and mausoleums of the popes. This is remarkable, again, for the tracing through time. Most stunning was to stand before the tomb of St. Peter—is he really buried in that spot there? That amazed me! That man ate and dined with Christ!! And there lies his body! What of the body of Jesus? Where is it? The laws of physics tell me that it lies somewhere, ground to bones, and that his resurrection was a spiritual body, one that left the physical body in the ground. Yet I think our faith insists that the physical body was pulled from the earth. So where does that leave it? The whole thing is a Mystery, one that awes me and is difficult to comprehend, as I gaze at the spot where Saint Peter is buried, the proof that the entire story is grounded in real people, real history, real events. Peter, Paul, these contemporaries of Jesus, stood here in this spot, just some centuries ago, separated from me merely by a stretch of time but not by space! What reverence, what history, here in this place, this cradle of our “western world.”  How many people labored to preserve these burial spots, this place of worship and this sign of aspiration for God, as well as this sign of the mixing of human political aspiration with spiritual aspiration.

Tuesday, Oct 8, evening. We have spent the day in Assisi. The first place we walked was the Basilica de Chiara (Basilica of Saint Clare). Here, looking to contemplate the life of St. Clare. I knew little about her. She was attracted to Francis’ way of life and went to join him, not as a lover but as a sister. How many times are we sent to one another as brothers and sisters, and we misunderstand it? Down here, in the crypt, her body is buried. There is a side chapel where I can kneel and pray. The place is filled with a Spirit. She is here. I kneel. I sense nearby, her as Sister, and Friend, and Francis, as brother, the two of them as good close friends, who encouraged everyone: encouraged everyone in joy! I feel their encouragement, their closeness, their strong support to continue to seek to follow Christ. No matter how poorly I do it, they cheer me on, with a sense of immense strength and joy surrounding me. I sense, as if remembering it myself, how truly it was a life of happiness they lived! By embracing lady Poverty, they were able to forget about stock markets and interest rates, debt defaults and savings balances. They lived in poverty, while ministering to the poor. I sense in them the ability to face the spirit of Despair that rules out world, which works through government shutdowns and global warming to lead everyone to passive despair or else the active despair of mindless ideologies. Instead, they inspire me, us, to do like the Psalmist invites: “as they go through the bitter valley, they make it a place of springs.” To go through the place of exile—singing! They did, and we can, and they invite that even now: To transform the despair into happiness, and Hope. Their worldly concerns revolved around peace and protection of those who cared for them and depended on them, including the entire population of Assisi. So that vivid presence touches me here, with a sense of “wow!” I am held for a moment by these two—so singular, yet also personified again and present in people in my own life. I am no example. But I still seek, seek, to do what God desires, in my own halting way, and find here only encouragement to continue on. This journey is a worthy one, no matter how badly you think you are doing it.

Both Clare and Francis had the courage to be completely who they really were, says my aunt, a former Franciscan. They overcame strenuous opposition from their family. They endured abuse and mockery from strangers and former friends. And they helped one another for their entire lives, Clare and her sisters nursing Francis, who she saw as a spiritual father figure, in his final months of illness. Now that I am older, I remember the idealism of my youth, and I remember Clare and Francis when they were idealistic youths. I hope I can encourage the young in their ideals, and never discourage them. It is part of my role to support those ideals. The young can do more than the old, in this way. Both Clare and Francis were courageous and extraordinarily contemporary. Unlike other saints, who are often exhibited a mixture of qualities that are both inspiring and confusing to modern minds, these two still make complete sense. Their ideas are still very current. They foresaw the need for a third way for lay people to join with vowed religious in living a holy life. They used nonviolent symbolic action to directly confront armed enemy soldiers, successfully, foreshadowing the non-violent resistance actions of today, foreshadowing Daniel Berrigan and Vaclav Havel and Rachel Cory. Francis sought inter-religious dialogue between Christian and Muslim, instead of war—at a time when other saints called for crusades—foreshadowing Vatican II. Even then, having seen plenty of war up close, he saw the horror of war as out-weighing any possible benefit—and this before gunpowder--and he entered the battlefield unarmed to try to stop it. Francis envisioned a relationship with nature that works for us today: in a powerful symbolism, he required that his followers never cut an entire tree down—only cut limbs or part of a tree so the tree could regenerate. Not bad advice for our idea of sustainability. Francis made everyday piety easier—he developed the Christmas crèche, the stations of the cross. He developed the idea of lay people living a Franciscan life by doing all things for the glory of God, the idea picked up on later by Ignatius of Loyola and anchoring the Jesuit spirituality of our own Pope Francis. His ideas are timeless and current and generative to a remarkable degree.

Wednesday, Oct 9th. Today, in the rain, we visited the Basilica San Francesco. Again, like six years ago, I could not be in there very long; it was too much big church, too much people taking photos despite the signs asking them not to, and not being in prayer, too much hubbub and buzzing about. The tomb of Francis was sobering, solemn, and yet, I thought clearly, “He is not here.” He seemed nearer when I went back outside, onto the street.

My sister Cathy and I then walked down the new trail behind the Basilica to the old Benedictine abbey below the town. Here we experienced the regenerating forest as Francis might have, and the lowland farms as he might have. Through her eyes (she is a bird expert and a wildlife biologist) I noticed the birds—similar yet different than ours, the tree species, likewise, and the chickens. She tells me the flocking starlings belong here, not in North American where they are invasive, and it feels good to her to see them in their native habitat. We could smell the earth, hear the stream. My sister thinks that here, of all places, there should be bird watchers and so she goes about Assisi asking this, to the puzzlement of the locals. She persuades one local keeper to write down in Italian all the birds he knows of. He complies with a page-long list in alphabetical order! I don’t think the people of Assisi have met anyone like my sister before.

With my aunt I then went up to the Eremo de Carcera, a monastery built in a spot Francis retreated to pray up in the mountain. It was here that I was inspired six years ago, as I realized that Francis loved the high mountain in the same way I do—as a place where God is there, easily visited, relaxed, and present. Once again I felt the thrill of joining him here, 3000 feet above the valley floor, simply to admire the view, to gaze out at it all in wonder and joy. We stumbled upon a group of Croatian pilgrims saying Mass in the woods here; they burst into beautiful song, a familiar melody and we sang along the English words. The universality of the Catholic church suddenly incarnate and real. Here, in Assisi, are places that are not museums; these are “working” sacred places where people come and renew their faith. It makes me happy, I’m not sure why. Maybe I feel here that I am in a place where everyone is really serious about knowing God. That’s a kind of home for me.

Thursday Oct 10. The highlight of today was the Porziuncola. This is a small stone church big enough to hold about 10 or 20 people about 3 miles from Assisi. Legend says it was built around 350 AD, by hermits who had brought relics from the grave of the Blessed Virgin, and passed to the hands of Saint Benedict in 516. It was given by the Benedictines to Saint Francis in about 1208 at the beginning of his ministry. It is where he and his first brothers lived and the center house of their movement. Down in the valley, at the time of Francis it was in an oaken woods. Now it is all cleared out and built up around there, and a big cathedral built over the top. It is amazing to stand inside this simple stone structure that Francis himself helped to rebuild with his own hands. His hands worked on this stone. He built a new thing. Here in this spot, he cut off Clare’s beautiful hair the night she ran from home to give herself to God; the cutting off of her hair was a symbol of her renouncing of worldly ambition and joining with his movement. It was one of the key symbolic actions that convinced her family and relatives that she was dead serious—another example of non-violent symbolic action that stopped the ambitions of the violent, when knights came to carry Clare back and could not—both because she clung to the altar, invoking sanctuary, but also because they saw her sheared head and realized there would be no going back. Francis secured for this church one of the most powerful indulgences ever granted outside of the Holy Land, and the “pardon of assisi” has consoled many over the centuries. Here again I sensed their spirit, especially Francis and his brothers. I did not want to leave. And then 30 feet away, the spot where Francis died is memorialized as well by a small chapel. Here he laid on the ground at that time, sick, in pain, nearly blind, looking up the hill to the sunlit town that supported him and to which he gave such graces, before he died. I love this spot. I never saw it before. His spirit is here, more than at the Basilica where he is buried, even though he asked to be buried up on that spot. Did he envision the giant basilica they would build?? His spirit is not there, where they go to see him and take their many pictures; rather, it is here. Here where he lived, where he built, in the forest, away from the town, where his friends and he gathered to talk about the year.

Francis and his brothers were mendicants. They went about preaching. Often he and his friars were laughed at, abused, beat up, mocked. But they also drew followers. And this is what mattered. The message is spread to all that it may take root where it is fertile. Thus for us, our mission is to do our work and share our story. It does not matter that some people will mock it or find it pointless; the story is for those for whom it is intended, for whom the ground is fertile, and where it can bear fruit. So the lesson is to not think about the barren soil but to focus on those who will need to hear, and to give thanks for those. They may be one, or ten, or a hundred. What matters is to share whatever it is that God has given me to share.

And to hear Francis speak, how I wish I could. It is said by the eye witnesses that he spoke of God with such beauty, such joy, that everyone was inspired, strengthened, and wanted to hear him more. In this way he won an ally in a skeptical Pope, he disarmed a Muslim Sultan, and won them over as allies with warmth, humility, love, and joy. Perhaps our own Pope follows in his spirit very well. I can hope to do some of the same.

A central thought that I reflected on as I encountered so many saints through story and place was holism and sanctity. First on holism, or the appropriate holding in tension of paradox in our lives. The holism defined by Saint Benedict is that the holy life integrates and balances the interior life, or mental life, with physical activity; and it balances the life of self with the life of community. It balances stability and commitment with openness and change. Saint Francis, for all his radicalism, was extraordinarily practical when people asked him for advice.  Too much interior or mental life, and I become isolated, unbalanced, and physically weak, and ungrounded, and stressed out. I forget that I am incarnate with bodily interests, needs, sensations, that are vital to my own wholeness. Too much emphasis on the physical and I become absorbed in my own narcissism, my health, my body, my fitness. Too much social and I become a party animal, in need of constant attention, or perpetually in conversation and busy with people, and lose contact with my inner ground and interiority. I begin to have an identity through others instead of for others. I can extend this in some detail to consider the holism required to hold in tension intellectual pursuit, the “is-ness” of spirituality and prayer, and the fantasy world within each of us that serves both to help us cope as well as to lead us into escape. I can extend it again to think about tensions within our physical life—exercise, nutrition, rest, sexuality. I can extend it again to think about tensions within our social and communal engagement—balancing family and community activism and a circle of friends and a job. Balancing, holding in proper relation, these different aspects is essential to living as a whole human being. We can reflect on this at some length and see how true and practical it is.

So given that basic wisdom, what of the limits of holism? How do we put holism itself into context? On the one hand, we say that holism is not flawed—it is the right way to live. It is organically balanced. We need, I need, that to be whole, to achieve holiness. While holism appears in tension with single-pointed dedication, we can say that from one perspective this tension is an illusion. Holism does not mean doing a little bit of everything, but doing each thing very well. We do not call an athlete half-hearted because sometimes he sleeps, sometimes he eats, and sometimes he relaxes—rather we see him as even more dedicated because his entire life is organized around maximizing his readiness. We do not call him half-hearted because sometimes he spends his workout on strength, other times on endurance, other times on flexibility. We know that if he works on all these aspects in proper ratio, he will maximize his success. In the same way, living our spiritual life for God, we maintain a healthy balance of physical life, social engagement, and interior life, so that we maximize our capacity to experience God, to know God, and to participate in society and in building up God’s kingdom. 

Now we come to the tension between holism and self-donation. When do we, imitating Christ and the saints, dedicate everything to one vision, and sacrifice all the rest? When do we turn our life upside down, and walk away from it all for God? Did Saint Francis have holism? Well—perhaps in one way he did. He lived radically for God, but he worked with his hands, he prayed, he rested, he built close and powerful friendships in community. But at all times he dedicated and did what was for God and when it came time to take a stand, he was “all in” for God and ready to surrender life itself at a moment’s call. So for me, for us, the challenge of holism is to keep things in their perspective so they serve us and serve God, while not going after balance for the sake of balance. Our ideal is not balance, our ideal is Christ. We use balance so that we become ever sharp, ever ready, to serve God. Thus, we remain ever free, to go any direction—toward intimacy, toward social donation, toward interior reflection, or toward physical exertion and activism---as God’s call and spirit require. The single value, the single focus, is to know God and reflect his spirit, his kingdom, here. The method is holism, itself sacrificed when the moment so requires.

Thus if I am to be available to others, my own life has to be in balance, yet not so balanced that I am comfortable and closed off to the action of the spirit disturbing me. So without getting too comfortable, I also maintain enough holism that I don’t remain constantly deprived, constantly over-extended, and therefore without availability for anything other than my own agenda. Rather I keep myself as strong as I can, but relying on God’s strength not my own, so that I have something to offer for God and for the human enterprise, the divine enterprise, which can be united.

So much for holism. But now what about the saints? What do they mean for us, today? I am in love with them this week, being in Italy in a land that loves its saints as much as it loves its great artists. The land that gave us Michelangelo and Leonardo also gave us Francis and Clare and Catherine and Anthony. What moves me, grips me, about them is not their holism; it is that they were totally obsessed with serving God. In this I feel like I can relate to them, like they are people who would understand me, would not think I am weird, or different, but would instantly understand what bothers me. They encourage me, in this way, to really follow my heart and my desire for God all the way to the end, all the way to death, and not to give up on it, just because most of my surrounding world has no interest in it. And in particular they encourage me to seek God as understood by Christian religion, not just some alternative hip or novel way, not just new age or American ‘buddhism” (I scoff because I don’t think a lot of it is really the true beauty of Buddhism, but has been reduced to a pseudo-spirituality that has become a way that people find inner contentment and a tool for coping with our society). But Christ, Christian faith, that unique path that is like no other in the world. That uniquely compelling journey of recognizing God here in the physical world, and recognizing redemption and therefore freedom in a profound and total way—freedom even from religion or from dogma, true freedom to be with God because God is with us, as near as our own breath and as our own neighbor. Unlike Islam or even to some extent Judaism, God is not only transcendent, mystery beyond us. God is also immanent, with us, incarnate, expressed in the world, in the human person, in the creation, fully near us, and able to be known by us and approached and befriended, not only worshipped. Yet my goal is not to oppose or to contest other faiths, who ultimately are fellow travelers, but rather to affirm my own when so few do, when so many mock and disregard my Catholic Christian faith, I want to follow it—even as I criticize it, even as I remake it, even as I try to be a small part of making it new, again, because it has grown stale in this age as it has grown stale in other ages. The saints wanted to make it new. They shared our deepest passion, and in this way give us our greatest encouragement.

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Pope Francis gives an interview



Last week America and its sister Jesuit publications around the world published excerpts from an interview with Pope Francis. (It can be read at http://americamagazine.org/pope-interview).

When I was young, in my 20’s, I spent a lot of time reading the Gospels with fresh eyes. I was encouraged to do so by a Jesuit named Howard Gray, a man many knew as a gifted spiritual director. Although I never joined the Jesuits and have had unfavorable experiences with them,  the genius of Ignatian spirituality was present with Howard and again apparent in Pope Francis’ remarks. Ignatius taught that we follow God by following our inner peace and fulfillment, while studying the world to respond to what its people need. Do all things for the glory of God. Pope Francis offers wisdom in how to follow God, in this elevated, courageous tradition.

And in reading the Gospel with fresh eyes, I made a discovery that shaped me the rest of my life, and which never left me: that Jesus did not promulgate a system, a theory, or a program. His only preaching was this: The Kingdom of God is at hand! To prove that, he simply responded, with immense creativity and compassion, solidarity and bravery, to the people he encountered. That response was the demonstration of the Kingdom of God. He invited everyone to do the same. In so doing, He revealed a God who is unconcerned with theory, with philosophy, and instead is vividly engaged with individual people, critiques the structures that bind them, and then acts to free them. Freedom! That vivid freshness made me love Jesus and the Gospel in a new way. It made me seek to be like that, to try to follow and imitate Jesus in my original, creative, compassionate response to others, to heal, to set free, to be in solidarity with everyone, not to judge. Because each person is different, Jesus had different responses to each person he met. To one he said, “dine with me.” To another he said “Return home.” To one he said “Give away half of what you have and steward the rest.” To another: “Give away everything.” To some he said “Go and tell what you see.” To others he said “Tell no one what you have seen.” To one, “woe” to another “joy.” He did not insist on blind belief, but on direct experience. “Come and see,” was his unforgettable, upsetting, irresistible invitation to those who asked him what he was about.

Jesus often challenged religious authorities who were preoccupied with rules and laws, chewed them out, warned them, urged them to be better than that. When his disciples were hungry, he let them pick grain on the Sabbath so they could eat. When challenged by the religious authorities for this apparent lapse in orthodoxy, he vigorously defended the disciples: “man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man.” He did not overturn the law: rather he relocated it, from primary to secondary; from end, to means. When the woman is caught in adultery, he stops the execution. “Has no one condemned you?” “No sir.” “Then neither do I condemn you. Go—but from now on, avoid this sin.” Thus she is forgiven but also exhorted. Thus, the Person is more important than the “rule”. The human beings are more important than the rules and laws designed to help and govern them. Notice that moral rules and guidelines are not abandoned, but they are put in their proper place—to be used to help people, not to condemn them. How fundamental this is, how often we forget.

What is freedom? Jesus was interested in freedom. So were the saints. Saint Benedict said, “This rule is not meant to be a burden to you. It should help you experience and discover how great is the freedom to which you are called.” This puts the person, the relationship with God, primary, and the Law, the Rule, secondary, as an instrument of transformation not a tool for condemnation. How backwards we have gotten it, and how backwards the Catholic church sometimes seems to have gotten it, and how backwards the Pharisees, and how clearly Jesus challenged this, and Pope Francis echoes all this and brings us to right. Saint Augustine said, “Love, and do as you will.” To continue, “whether thou hold thy peace, through love hold thy peace; whether thou cry out, through love cry out; whether thou correct, through love correct; whether thou spare, through love do thou spare: let the root of love be within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good.” I think he meant that if you can be like Christ, and be pure love, you can do whatever you want because when you act in love you will act as God—that law and morality are ultimately relativized by love. But we who aren’t such clean vessels likely need a few rules and moral principles to help us along, or else we deceive ourselves into thinking we are acting in love when in actuality we are not acting in love at all but in selfishness and folly.  

But it can help to see that the "rules" are just that—guides to help, not a reason to condemn others. Jesus also said, “Do not think I have come to abolish the law—no, for I have come to fulfill it!” This again means that the laws and teachings of religion exist to set us free, as He as free, not to bind us. So we should follow them in that spirit, not in a spirit of condemning those we don’t think are following them. What a fundamental important difference.
Pope Francis seems to express all of this, and so seems to know the same Jesus I know! Pope Francis: "God has revealed himself as history, not as a compendium of abstract truths." Yes, he seems to have noticed. He said, “I do not see a homosexual, I see a person. Never forget the person.” This Pope seems to have embodied this same Gospel. In so speaking (and living in a way that embodies this same view), his words and way of life haunt me with a familiarity that I cannot place. They return me home, return me to myself. The Pope articulates the best of Catholic genius, a genius that prioritizes Life and especially the human person, as an image of the person of God, and that seeks to build communion and unity and human dignity on earth. It brings me to myself. This is core Catholic philosophy and has no equal on that front. (It has its failings—including failure to prioritize the earth, which is where Teilhard helps us forward—but the classic teaching preserves human dignity and this, which is fundamental, is lost in fundamentalisms of all kinds).  
I find myself resonating, like a guitar string resonating to the same note in another guitar, to his words and vision. It is a vision about context, person, specifics, experience, not about dogma, theory, or “belief in certain statements”.

But that is not all. Then in a lightning bolt, he goes further. He quotes from the Commonitorium Primum of St. Vincent of Lerins: “Even the dogma of the Christian religion must follow these laws, consolidating over the years, developing over time, deepening with age.”

Here he has now joined in line with Teilhard. And here echoed my own experience and my own conviction: If the Holy Spirit is dead, then revelation is done and there is no more. We just keep quoting the Bible and call it good enough. But if the Holy Spirit is alive, then revelation is ongoing, and more about God is to be discovered. Then the world reveals God to us everywhere, not only in the evolving Creation but also in the evolving human society and culture. I choose the second as my faith: The Spirit is alive, and the community of faith learns more about God all the time. Thus new theology---and, in a leap: thus new knowledge, thus new science, thus new art and even, in truth, new dogma. New liturgy, new music, new symbols.

Teilhard taught that God is revealed ever more in science, in art, in the ever unfolding of human culture. He too was silenced and censored at the time. But in fact he was imbued with genius. The universe has ten billion more years of revelation to go, and here we are, at the beginning. Of course God is still being revealed! And so of course, the religion that is alive must evolve, change, grow, learn. How obviously true! This does not mean we will overturn our prior revelation, but that it will continue to expand, for as Teilhard added, the heart of Christ is an infinite mystery that can be explored for all time. But this message can seem threatening, to any of us who want to hold on to what is, who do not want change. How unmoored we may feel. On what ground will we stand? On the ground of God alone, Christ alone, rather than on dogma. Pope Francis proposes no specific changes, in fact affirms all church teaching, yet embodies a fundamental change in tone and spirit, and seems thus unafraid of any other changes that may come. This is not merely a “charm offensive” as the politicians like to engage in. It is genuine, it is authentic, it is in fact a change. It is changing the tone and therefore changing the experience. Words do matter. Love does matter.

In considering our wish to cling to what is, our fear of new truth, the modern “tension” between science and faith, an additional thought may be of use. Science is not equal to wisdom in regard to spiritual truth. Rather, as Aquinas taught, we are called to find the good and the true everywhere that we can. To again quote Augustine: “One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: "I will send you the Paracele who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon."  For He willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians.”
Thus, we do not use science to dismiss our spirituality, but we use our faith to see God revealed in the wonders of science, and in the wonders of the creation that science observes. We believe with St Thomas that truth is one and that we have nothing to fear from science. For this reason Catholicism is the most pro-science of the great religions, and the Jesuits the most pro-science of the Catholics. This is long tradition. Even while a church tribunal reprimanded Galileo on legalistic nuance (despite Galileo’s appeal to Augustine’s quote above),[1] Jesuits and other astronomers in Rome, funded and supported by the Church, were verifying his observations. And now we have a Jesuit as Pope.  

And these fundamentals—the dignity of the person, the primacy of compassion over law and religious dogma, the ongoing living reality of Revelation, the vivid freshness of Jesus and his Spirit today—are all core to me, to my experience, to my reading of the Gospel, to my experience over a lifetime as a person of faith. Yet it is startling, to hear it from the Pope! And so where I least expected it, when I had almost stopped listening, I hear a familiar voice, a familiar song, I realize I am closer to home than I knew: a voice from within my own heart, speaking to me from his words.

Haunted, challenged, inspired, awed, I listen, and resolve to follow Christ ever more fervently. By his humility, his gentleness, his large heart and his true words that speak to what is true in me, this Pope has already made me better as a Christian. I wonder how many others out there are having the same experience.


[1] According to Wikipedia (on 9/28/2013), Pope Urban VIII and the Jesuits supported Galileo, although official scientific belief held against heliocentrism and Catholic teaching on scriptures was fairly literalistic, making Galileo appear to be challenging the church. The initial judgment by the Roman Inquisition against him in 1615 merely asserted that heliocentrism should be taught as a possibility not as a fact, which was consistent with scientific consensus at the time. But Galileo stayed away from the topic for many years. Years later, the controversy resturned. After Galileo published “Dialogue” which was interpreted by a weakening Pope Urban as a personal attack, intrigue and a much harsher inquisition, condemnation, and silencing followed in 1632. Galileo lived out his life under house arrest but continued to write and published some of his best work.  In the subsequent century and a half, the Catholic church gradually withdrew objection to Galileo’s writings and the affair was often cited as a failure of the Catholic ideal of support for scientific discovery.