Words of Joy: The Future of Gaudium Dei

(In short, we will be concluding updates on this blog for the time being in order to prepare for a relaunch in a few years, when I and other writers have more time to devote to a special project: creating a web center for discussion on how we talk about the Catholic faith, and the rhetoric we use in preaching and discussing it. At the bottom of this post is all the links of where our writers will be going and where to find them. A special word of thanks to all our readers and commentators: thank you for joining us on this journey, and we hope you will continue to follow and one day return to continue a far better and thorough discussion on what God's Joy is.)

St. Paul at the Aeropagus

A year and a half ago, I began a journey to defend the Catholic Church while simultaneous searching for God's joy. In journeys like this, we reach a time where we must take a step back from the world - a retreat. A retreat is not necessarily an abdication to a foe (in this case, to the enormous amount of work I face as a young college Philosophy undergraduate), but also a time to recuperate and prepare to re-advance in the future in a stronger manner.

In the beginning of writing here on Gaudium Dei, I declared that:

I will seek to focus on the issues of the present-day facing the Church, with the conclusion that Her teaching and wisdom doesn't just save the world, but saves it with the joy of God. 

At that moment, as is the situation with many conservative Catholic writers, I believed that joy and strict orthodoxy had a symbiotic relationship. The Church's teaching invigorates our lives with joy, and that joy leads us to desire, in a deeper way, the teachings of the Church and Christ. And, as a Catholic who ascribes to the teachings of the Magesterium, I believe that is absolutely true. 

Yet I hadn't named my blog "Orthodox Catholic Joy." See, the culture of "orthodox" Catholics has characteristics analogous to other cultures. A culture, through introspective celebration, invigorates itself. We must do this in a healthy way to remind ourselves who we are. Yet I had decided to seek and discover the joy of God, that infinite Being whom I believe to transcend every culture, every disagreement, and to work within the lives of every single person on this earth. Little did I know how high of a call I had established with  those two mysterious Latin words.

What once began as a flippant, personal exercise in propagation from a safe distance suddenly became a unique process concerned with the way we express our faith in love of others. I sought to understand people with different beliefs. Then, I wanted to establish dialogue with them.  I felt a deeper call to unify myself with everyone, even those whom I disagreed with. Then my ideas came full circle: I wanted to love them and bring them the joy I have found, without first discovering the joy of their own experiences. Cultural wars morphed into cultural peace and the exchange of ideas. Love through orthodoxy transformed into love despite unorthodoxy.

The events in my life then added fuel to the fire. A kindhearted friend, an atheist who disagreed with me on everything, passed away tragically. We had shared true joy, God's joy, over a select few double dates with our respective girlfriends, where conversations rested on general goods, jokes and genuine love. He was patient with my belligerence over Facebook, and I felt committed to carry on the legacy of our unique friendship.  

Then Bad Catholic wrote a blogpost entitled, "Why I Don't Care," a post I will never forget. It caused me to enter a deeper apropos concerning the culture wars. The road led me further to Gaudium et Spes, where I read the true spirit of Vatican II, and the future spirit of the New Evangelization: the Church's ability to unite the varied cultures of a drastically splintered, globalized world. 

Venerable Fulton J Sheen,

Globalization has been fueled by the proliferation of the internet, the largest paradigm shift the world has seen since the Printing Press. The internet has connected all different types of people. Cultural ignorance, which justified evils from from racism to The Holocaust, is dying. We can no longer live in a cuius regio, eius religio approach to a heretic or heathen. I share my bread and my Facebook - and joyfully so, without regret - with people who are, according to my beliefs, heretics of moral truth. Among these are people who agree with gay marriage, abortion, drone strikes, contraception, laissez faire economic policies, divorce, and other issues. Half my Church desires me to accept any one of these heresies without consequence, and the other half wants me to burn them at the stake with my words. I can do neither.

The response to globalization, for the Church, is not mere orthodoxy: it is a mode of being of loving others, first and foremost. We love ourselves by understanding our ideas, sticking to our guns and convictions, yet being open to learning something new. Yet this love cannot be the same for the other, over whom we have little to no control or influence. We must accept him or her while simultaneously sticking to our guns. We must be open to learning more and making his logic intimate to ourselves while holding it at a safe distance, concluding what our good-pursuing consciences must permit or block. 

There's a secret, though, which will pave the future of this blog. We do all  these things with one main tool: words. We govern our living, dying, meaning, socializing through these very simple yet fickle characters. A picture itself may even be worth a thousand words, but it is still consisting of words in the end. The media is words. Barack Obama's last speech is words. "Pro-abortion" and "pro-choice" are words. This blog is words. The Bible is words. Christ is the Word. 

Love requires action, and this is true. Yet to only love through physical acts is to deny our social nature as humanity, or that most of today's interactions happen over the internet and Facebook. We must also love in our words and love through their style. The very constructions of our sentences can determine our eternal reward or damnation. Their inflection and arrangement say something that cannot necessarily be explained by words themselves. That is because they tap into an abstract and what we signify with the word "eternal." They represent the worst maliciousness as well as the highest beauty. They represent truth or lies, sometimes without changing a letter between different sentences. Ultimately, they are good and evil, love and hate, themselves. 

Examining the way we use words isn't about just increasing persuasion: it will change our own hearts and minds. It will require us to understand the thought processes of the other, in a way that will effect our own. It will ask us to conclude both their rationality as well as (with great care) their sin. It will require us to understand each individual, group, stereotype, and belief we meet. It will teach us the greatest lesson of human nature: that, most of the time, we're all just trying our best to be good. It will require us to be prepared to face the splintered, globalized world, where six billion individuals all think differently.

This is best represented by a recent message I received from a feminist, pro-choice friend. She wrote to me, almost randomly, 

Sometimes your posts piss me off, but you're still a great person with a big heart, and I enjoy being your friend.

Obviously, if she is pro-choice, my writing must piss her off in some way, because I am anti-abortion in my beliefs and commonly express that. Then how can the paradox exist? How can she give me a (way too) magnanimous compliment of who I am, when what I express stands against her own beliefs? Could it be that, while I do disagree with her on beliefs, I can still show her compassion and the love of Christ? Can we love those who disagree with us? Can we love our so-called "enemies?"

Love doesn't merely mean some sort of internal sentiment one has to his enemies, otherwise this would allow for us to still treat and speak to others as we please, leading the above to be impossible. This was the mistake of the old world, where "loving" Catholic crusaders killed their Muslim and Jewish brethren to speed them to heaven. The action was justified because it was considered "loving," yet the action itself  must also achieve love.

Most earthly actions have aligned to this call of love (lynchings of people based on race or sexual orientation
are roundly criticized, praise God). Shouldn't the same happen to our words? If our words represent something we believe to be a loving fact, such as "Abortion is wrong," how should it be said? Can something be said that not only says the same thing, but acknowledges the other? Can it be said to acknowledge the good that the other does? Can it acknowledge his or her genuine concerns?  And so, you get pro-lifers talking about the dignity of women in a way that answers many pro-choice arguments, and saying it with care and compassion. Though it may seem like an abstract approach, its results are concrete: I can speak to many disagreeing people about the Church's dogma, with all of its potential for beauty and joy.

Love, however, is freely given. Thus additional words honestly accompany any fact or assertion I make, and those additional words are the words of freedom and free will. The Church exists as open arms, and does not oppress her belief upon people. That means I must express the same in my words: I must make people comfortable with their disagreeing position, lest their feel those open arms closing in around them. I must remind that I pray and care about them regardless of their beliefs, for I am called to love all people on this earth.

Pope Francis with Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner

These observations, however, leave more questions than answers, since every person and every word-filled interaction is unique. And so, while one door closes at this moment for the blog, another shall open. We will be ceasing updates here on the website for Gaudium Dei until further notice. At the same time, I will be beginning a project of getting together minds and hearts of many different and unique Catholics to contribute to a new analysis of rhetoric here on Gaudium Dei in the future. The website (very similar to the style of Brandon Vogt's project, Strange Notions) will become a center of discussion not on the actions but the words that define good and evil. It will discuss how we talk about the faith, far deeper than just what we say. After at least two years (when I graduate college and hopefully have the time to devote to the renewed blog), the New Evangelization will have had a little more time to mature, and the tiring waste of internet arguments and vicious rhetoric will take their toll a bit further. The time will be ripe for such a discussion.

Until then, I'm looking for help. There needs to be a greater study of the way we speak, and that involves all different types of voices, even dissenting ones. In addition, the divisive, uncaring and vicious voices in the Church seem to speak louder and usually garner the most attention, so to raise a counterpoint of caritas and cooperation in a unitive rhetoric requires a determined and widespread community. Anyone looking to help is free to contact me at jjablonski@gaudiumdei.com.

It has been a pleasure to write and edit this blog. My collaborators and I will continue writing and discussing the faith. Tabitha will be writing occasionally with her father on Deus Solus. David has started his own blog on Glory Rediscovered. I will continue, in a more limited capacity, to do my radio show next semester, and have been blogging on my new personal blog, Spark of Joy, where I will examine many of the questions mentioned above. All the posts by our friends, as well as ones relevant to our mission, will be shared on our Facebook Page, where you can like us!

A simple journey with a little Latin has grown to something I couldn't imagine it to be: a vocation and a passion to show people the very demeanor and style of Christ himself. I hope, one day and with God's help, to speak extensively on how Catholics can speak to anyone that disagrees or lacks understanding of Christ's teaching. I hope to break down the barriers of abstraction - that allow us to take pro-choicers and others, and forget that they are people whom Christ has called us to love with compassion and joy. I hope that, through such expression, we can all tap into God's joy which, more than anything else, is finding that lost sheep. If all of heaven rejoices in the finding of a lost soul, then we should all rejoice in a single interaction, a kind word of love and hope that shows someone disagreeing with us  a taste of heaven. Far more than strict orthodoxy, or moral relativism, or abstraction, does this show us the face of God.

And that, my friends, is all that matters. Words aside, it is what they signify and mean that is important. Words and blogs won't be present in heaven in their imperfect fashion, but peace and unity will be. Let us make a new search for Christ. Let us learn to speak as if we were child. Let's find God's joy.

-------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2013 Joseph Jablonski
Photo Credits:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/21/1363827056952/Pope-Francis-and-Cristina-010.jpg

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/images/paintings/raa/large/wmr_raa_pl002247_large.jpg

http://therosarium.org.v3.cloudsites.gearhost.com/Image/fultonsheen.gif

Knights of Columbus Not Welcome at Catholic Colleges

By: David L

There’s been a controversy over at Gonzaga University for the past week ago revolving around a Knights of Columbus council a group of young men is looking to form. The student clubs’ office at Gonzaga has rejected their application for funding because, according to the school's vice-president for student life,

“The Knights of Columbus, by their very nature, is a men’s organization in which only Catholics may participate via membership. These criteria are inconsistent with the policy and practice of student organization recognition at Gonzaga University, as well as the University’s commitment to non-discrimination based on certain characteristics, one of which is religion.”

This actually isn’t an isolated incident; a group of men (including myself) at Fordham University has also been trying to get a Knights council started. They, too, have been denied official club status—but on the grounds that they are an inherently sexist organization.

I’d like to note that, although both schools are run by the Jesuits, it would be unfair to pin this one on the Society of Jesus. The Fordham Knights’ council has received support from a number of Jesuits on campus, and is currently incorporated as a group within Campus Ministry, which is quite firmly under Jesuit control. The Jesuits have limited control over the administrative body overseeing clubs and student activities. I don’t know the specifics of the Gonzaga knights’ situation, but I’ve read that they have also been incorporated within their school’s Campus Ministry, so I imagine that their situation is similar.

I’m not trying to say that it isn’t a disturbing situation when a group like the Knights of Columbus can’t be sponsored by a Catholic university. I’m not saying that criticism of the Gonzaga administration isn’t warranted. However, I think the problems stem from a deeper problem of identity with Catholic universities, and highlights some of the difficulties with running a college in a secular world. 

Quotes, Photo Credit: Catholic World Report:

 http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2172/Professor_Will_Gonzaga_also_consider_removing_the_Society_of_Jesus_from_campus.aspx#.UXCeuzejZLH

c. David L. 2013

It’s Freedom “of” Religion, Not Freedom “from” Religion

By: Tabitha Garnica

“Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:” ~ 1 Corinthians 10: 31-32

Our society seems to be at an interesting point regarding the way religion is treated and looked upon.  We keep hearing about people fighting for “separation of church and state.”  However, I feel as though they are not just fighting for the separation of church and state; they are now fighting for separation of church and everything. Slowly but surely, religion is being abstracted. We are at a time in which people get uncomfortable simply mentioning religion in public events or in the media. Freedom “of” religion means that everyone should be free to live out the faith of their choosing, including the lack of a religion, and without the government’s active role in the process.  However, freedom “from” religion means that religion should not even be mentioned and is not an important part of society. We should actually hide religion from our culture. Sadly, this seems to be the extreme which our society is approaching.  No one should be forced into a religion; yet, no one should feel as though carrying out their religion separates them from normal society. 

The way Christmas has been treated in our society has always fascinated me.  Years ago, one would be able to say “Merry Christmas” on television without being regarded as insensitive.  I understand that not everyone celebrates Christmas, and we should not behave as though everyone does. However, I do not think that saying “Merry Christmas” should be regarded as an attack on anyone who is not Christian.  After all, Christmas has become a much commercialized holiday, and many people who do not actually believe in its religious significance still take part in Christmas traditions.  There are songs that have the word Christmas in them that have nothing to do with the birth of our savior.  Irving Berlin, who actually wrote “White Christmas”, was Jewish.  He obviously was not offended by the inclusion of the word “Christmas” in our society.  When I say “Merry Christmas” to someone I do not mean to say, “I am Christian and you must be too!” Rather, I mean to say, “I am joyful about Christmas and I want to share that joy with you!”   However, now our society has become so bothered by Christianity that it wants to eliminate the importance of Christmas in our culture. I would, of course, not be offended if someone wished me a Happy Chanukah.  It does not bother me that not everyone celebrates Christmas, but it does bother me that I am not allowed to express my happiness about Christmas in public circles. 

An experience that I had last school year comes to my mind when I think about the way religion is being treated in our society.  The Sisters of Life came to visit our campus and table with the Students for Life club.  Shortly after we started tabling, we were told by an authority from the Campus Auxiliary Services that we were not allowed to table on campus with nuns.  Even though the nuns were just standing there without trying to impose themselves on students, the presence of religious orders seemed offensive. We were unaware that religious tabling required additional paperwork, which had not been filled out. While the fact that religious tabling needs additional paperwork is upsetting in and of itself, we quickly responded that the Students for Life Club was not a religious organization. The sisters were not trying to “evangelize” or push a specific religion. They were simply standing there giving out pamphlets about how they help women who are pregnant. He responded by saying that it did not matter what they were promoting. Nuns have a religious connotation simply by their appearance, therefore, had the potential to make students uncomfortable. They were being unwelcomed on my college campus because of their religious vows.  I am saddened by the idea that priests, nuns, rabbis, and others of religious life cannot function in society without the public having an aversion to them. 

Religion is supposed to be a respected aspect of culture.  When we learn about ancient civilizations, their religious beliefs and rituals are fascinating, even if we do not share in their beliefs.  As an American culture, we should be proud of all the diversity our religions have given us.  We should find joy in learning about different religions without fearing that we will have their beliefs forced upon us. Religion should be regarded with the same interest and respect as different languages, backgrounds, and personalities. The more our society hides religion and is embarrassed by it, the less beautiful and tolerant we will be as a country. 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright (c) Tabitha Garnica 2013

Photo Credits:

• No Religion Sign
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:No_Religion.svg

Catholic Compassion and Homosexuality: A Universal Path, Ignored Universally

By Joseph Jablonski

Fr. James, on his Facebook page during the Triduum, boldly posted the story of two gay male teens being allowed a Junior Dance together at a Jesuit high school in upstate NY. What seems to be a situation of a breach of the Church's teaching, however, reveals the nuances that I (and others)(and even more others) think should more often mark the discussion about homosexuality in the Church.

The decision came down from the school's president himself through a long and well-written letter. As is commonly the case with the media, we find the intricacies of the letter, as well as its beautifully complicated solutions, are glossed over and tossed in favor of highlighting the feebly odd and the interesting points. This is done because the reporter wants either conflict or his or her own agenda. Even so, the one statement that is being trounced by everyone as the key statement in this article is the one showing the school president's rhetorical aptitude. For the president states that "if our two brothers who have asked to attend the Junior Ball together wish to do so, they will be welcomed."

Scenes from the March for Marriage in Washington, DC.

Brothers. The debate about gay marriage, gay rights, and homosexuality spirals so quickly into a discussion on perversions, either of justice or of sexual norm, that we fail to see potential for unique relationships that homosexuals can have. We condemn the negative and fail to uphold the positive, and, in fact, the positive ceases to exist in our discussion. We also prefer to uphold our own points rather than take the discussion to answering the genuine concerns of others. Defending and upholding traditional marriage may be great, but by doing only that, we don't answer the elephant sitting in the room for the past few years: how do we show love, care, and concern for homosexuals, now publicly acknowledging their orientation? Denying the existence of a natural cause to homosexuality (i.e., that they are created like that in the image of God) leads us on a short route to alienation, even if we are to discover one day that homosexuality occurs in a person by nurture alone. If we can answer the genuine concerns of homosexuals, we can sidestep that whole muddle.

The letter from the president of the school highlights the USCCB’s very own document, "Always our Children." Passages about showing love and care for others no matter their decision about their orientation are supplemented with beautiful ideals about chastity that not only conforms to the sexual ethics of the Church, but answers the concerns, to the best we Catholics can, of gays and lesbians:

"I would like to let a ray of light enter into possible misunderstanding of the Church's teaching. In that same message, Always Our Children, the Bishops are clear --"Nothing in the Bible or in Catholic teaching can be used to justify prejudicial or discriminatory attitudes and behaviors." The Bishops continue: "It is also important to recognize that neither a homosexual orientation, nor a heterosexual one, leads inevitably to sexual activity. One's total personhood is not reducible to sexual orientation or behavior." In that same message, the Bishops refer to a 1986 Letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which emphasizes that "Respect for the God-given dignity of all persons means the recognition of human rights and responsibilities. The teachings of the Church make it clear that the fundamental human rights of homosexual persons must be defended and that all of us must strive to eliminate any forms of injustice, oppression, or violence against them."
 “The Bishops continue, "It is not sufficient only to avoid unjust discrimination. Homosexual persons 'must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity' (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2358). They, as is true of every human being, need to be nourished at many different levels simultaneously. This includes friendship, [brotherhood] which is a way of loving and is essential to healthy human development. It is one of the richest possible human experiences. Friendship can and does thrive outside of sexual involvement.""

While the mass media will simply look upon this as a liberalizing Church on some overly idealistic yellow-brick road towards gay marriage, I can see a way for the Church to move forward in acceptance without moving backward into possible error. The Church, and we as Catholics of various backgrounds, must accept that the modern homosexual man chooses to live publicly. He is public about his homosexuality, and unabashed.

However, this does not merely mean that we must accept the culture's flawed, hastily created, and troublesome answer to the publicly gay man. I have the highest respect for him, in fact, because he tolerates a total war made in his own name, as well as an equally vicious counter-attack. The culture, in response to his existence, immediately cries that a liberalization of marriage is the answer. This is so ingrained to our brains that, when we see a post like this on Fr. James Martin's Facebook wall, we immediately imply he has some sort of deep-seated desire to legalize gay marriage. On the other side, if one doesn't support gay marriage, one doesn't support gay anything, apparently. This contrast is not only ridiculous, but worrisome: it must be shattered by love if love, which always has had a path moderate and peaceful, is to make its course.

And this is where I plead that a response to the publicly homosexual man becomes one more like that of Fr. Edward Salmon. No love comes from coercion; when faced with such a difficult situation and petition in his school, the president opted for peace. He did not, however, allow his action to go unexplained - in the meek letter, he outlines a bold rebellion to the cultural paradigm, avoiding error, while moving forward in an acknowledgement that should stir hope inside of us. Why would he reiterate multiple times the openness towards a non-sexual relationship? Can we see the marriage of the conservative sexual ethics of the Church with the liberal call to love the public homosexual man?

If gay rights is only about legally redefining marriage, you have decided the answer for yourself. The Catholic, however, doesn't ebb and flow with the times. He is a man for all ages, moderate in his kindness, zealous in his adherence, and rebellious to all sin, both sexual and discriminatory, in his desire for heaven.

-------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2013 Joseph Jablonski

Photos
Dominican and Pride Flag: http://www.worldmag.com/mobile/article.php?id=25660
Two men...arguing http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/how-paul-clement-avoided-looking-huge-homophobe

Easter: How Little We Understand, Yet How Beautiful It Is

By Joseph Jablonski

Happy Easter!

I want to extend an apology for our readers who may be wondering where all the articles are. We've all been a bit busy at school and during Easter Break, but, thanks to David, we've been doing well. As for me, your clumsy and sporadic editor, I'm recovering from a bout of writer's block.

However, I wanted to share with you in its entirety my Easter reflection from my personal blog, Sparks of Joy. I will be writing still for Gaudium Dei, but the personal blog has given me a place to help exercise more causal creativity, wit and wisdom while healing myself of writer's block. I have articles already prepared for Gaudium Dei for this and next week, including an exclusive interview with Dr. Robert George!

May you all have a beautiful Easter! He is risen!

Many of these ideas that I thought of in those deep moments of prayer, yearning for my notebook (even yearning for a notebook, oh flawed and human heart. Yet that fault is happy!), surrounded a central theme of helplessness. Who are we to say we know and understand Christ's death and resurrection, when itself it is a joyful mystery? We are completely undeserving of Christ's sacrifice for our sins, yet he gives it. And, to defy all odds, he rises again. The atheist may believe he holds the truth, but I hold the mystery, the story which has not the cold, factual, definable answer. I prefer it yet lament such a state, for humankind will not ever fully understand the love of Christ. If it ever does, it only does so for a moment and soon forgets. It is like death: it may be months or years, but we forget a loved one's death. We learn to live again, for thinking about death at every waking moment only drives us to insanity and to death. If we recall for a moment, we are sure to forget. However, death is truth and the one truth which we can all know as a fact. We all surely die, and when we realize this, even in the momentary throes of woe and sadness, we realize what is real. However, unlike this metaphor of thought of death, the Easter mystery has one aspect we cannot and do not forget: the life of Christ and the rising which gives us hope after death, a hope which requires our faith and governs our love.

However, all of these are mere words. Though I have discovered their meaning in prayer, I will surely forget their poignancy. However, I will try not to forget that I, for one brief moment before the Lord, found them poignant. When we all remember only this, and hold onto this vestige in our hope, we should be reduced to one prayer, the prayer of the criminal next to Christ: Remember me, Lord, when you enter into your kingdom. 

He is risen! May you all find joy with your families today, as in all days, and may you for one moment realize, like I have, how little we truly understand of Christ's infinite love. How little we understand, yet how beautiful.

Awkwardness on Holy Saturday

By David L.

What are we to do with Holy Saturday? It seems to be the most awkward holy day. What happened on the original Holy Saturday? On Thursday, you had the Last Supper and institution of the Eucharist; on Friday, the Passion; on Sunday, the Resurrection. But on Saturday? The Apostles are in hiding, mourning their friend, waiting for something to happen, Jesus has died but not risen. To Jesus’ followers on earth, Holy Saturday is a period of waiting.

However, tradition shows us a considerably more exciting picture of Holy Saturday, in terms of what Jesus was doing. In the interim between death and resurrection, Jesus experiences death. We recall this teaching whenever we recite the Apostle’s Creed, with the line “He descended into hell.” Recently, there’s a bit of a tendency to downplay the idea of Hell as a place at all, so this is somewhat lost on us. However, this episode, called The Harrowing of Hell is the completion of Christ’s incarnation and messianic mission. Christ descends to the realm of the dead because, in a very real sense, He has died for us and as one of us. Hell here has a somewhat elastic meaning, referring not only to fire and brimstone but to the realm inhabited by everyone awaiting the Christ, including the heroes of the Old Testament. Jesus has to go there to complete His messianic mission as well; He has to be the savior for those who have died before Him. 

The Catechism notes: "The gospel was preached even to the dead.’ The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfillment. This is the last phase of Jesus' messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ's redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption.

So, as we’re awkwardly waiting for Easter, we can know that Jesus isn’t taking the day off.


Image Credit: Wikipedia
Copyright c2013 David L

Why Freedom?

By David L.

Lately, I've been noticing a meme in public discourse. We're always talking about freedom to do this or that, and these freedoms rarely seem to point to any deeper reality of the human person. Freedom to own property, for instance, doesn't seem to point to a reasonable ownership of goods, but rather a barely-controlled plunder of the market, in which the goal is to obtain as much material wealth as possible.

Bl. Mother Teresa commented that there exists in the Western world a sort of poverty that is worse than that found in areas of the world where material, social, and political inequality are much greater, and freedom more limited. In her Nobel Lecture, she noted finding impoverished people who had much deeper wounds than those brought by hunger and disease: “a person that is shut out, that feels unwanted, unloved, terrified, the person that has been thrown out from society - that poverty is so hurtable and so much, and I find that very difficult." 

While material inequality and poverty warrant compassion, concern for a person’s lack of material goods is incomplete. Concern for a fellow human being ought to speak to the deeper reality of his or her existence, going beyond his or her material state to the soul. Little seems to speak to this deeper need in contemporary political discourse. Freedom is good, but much of its goodness comes from it being a condition for love. However, freedom is often reduced to license to do what one wants. If you use your freedom to own property merely to horde as many material goods as possible, haven't you wasted that freedom? 

Perhaps Pope John Paul II says it best: "When freedom does not have a purpose, when it does not wish to know anything about the rule of law engraved in the hearts of men and women, when it does not listen to the voice of conscience, it turns against humanity and society."

Mother Teresa's Nobel Lecture can be found at http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1979/teresa-lecture.html

--------------------------------------------------------
Copyright c2013 David L.