Archive for the ‘Fr. Robert Barron’ Category

h1

The Eucharist in Babette’s Feast by Fr. Robert Barron

January 5, 2011

In 1956 the Danish writer Isak Dinesen (the pen-name of Susan Blixen) published a story called “Bahette’s Feast,” which, many years later, provided the basis for an extremely popular film. Dinesen’s story is about many things — friendship, loss, religious devotion, sensual delight, loyalty — but it is, I think, primarily about the Eucharist. In fact, I know of no other literary text that so fully expresses the complex of themes that cluster around this central Christian mystery.

The narrative is set in the late nineteenth century in a remote village nestled at the foot of a mountain at the edge of a Norwegian fjord. Two sisters — Martine and Philippa – the daughters of a revered Lutheran pastor who had founded an ardent sect of followers, preside over the small community. Though these disciples of the “Dean” were still admired throughout the country, their numbers were diminishing and the remaining adepts were getting “whiter, balder, and harder of hearing.” The great mark of this austere fellowship was Puritanism, the conviction that earthly joys had to be set aside if the journey toward the heavenly Jerusalem was to be facilitated. They would eat the simplest meals and live in the most frugal surroundings so that they would he free to help the poor and give themselves to prayer. We hear that Martine and Philippa have a maid called Babette.

When they were young women, both sisters were remarkably beautiful and accordingly attracted a number of suitors. But when prospective husbands would come forward seeking the Dean’s permission, the old man would respond that his daughters were `his right and left hand” and thus indispensable to him. Indeed, the girls themselves had accepted an “ideal of heavenly love” and therefore “did not let themselves be touched by the flames of this world.” Nevertheless, in their youth both were beguiled by romantic possibilities.

In 1854, when Martine was eighteen, a dashing military officer named Lorens Loewenhielm presented himself at the Dean’s home and was immediately smitten by the young woman. He followed her about, sought her out, visited her home, but became hopelessly tongue-tied and self-conscious around the Dean’s table, incapable of communicating his feelings. He loved her, but he knew that he would never be able to break down the wall of pious reserve that she had constructed around herself. Finally, on the day before he was due to leave, Martine showed him to the door. In his desperation he grabbed her hand, pressed it to his lips, and uttered, “I am going away forever. I shall never, never see you again. For I have learned here that Fate is hard and that in this world there are things that are impossible.” Upon returning home, he resolved to forget about romance and to concentrate upon the cultivation of his military career.

A year later, an even inure distinguished person came to the small town. Achille Papin, one of the most impressive opera singers of the time, had spent a week with the Royal Opera of Stockholm. He had heard of the ravishing beauty of the Norwegian coast and decided to see it on his way back to France. On a Sunday he wandered into the small church of the Dean’s congregation and heard Philippa sing. The girl had a voice so glorious that Papin became convinced that the music world of Paris would he at her feet. Through the sheer force of his personality, he managed to secure the Dean’s permission and commenced to work with Philippa.

His original intuitions were confirmed in the course of the lessons, and he predicted that soon she would be the finest singer of her time: “My greatest triumphs are before me! The world will once more believe in miracles when she and I sing together!” So ecstatic would he her reception that nobles and ladies in Paris would conduct her, after her performance, to the finest restaurant in the city, the Cafe Anglais, where a sumptuous supper would he spread before her.

During one of their sessions, Achille and Philippa sang the “seduction duet” from Mozart’s Don Giovanni. As the last notes faded into the air, the master took his disciple in his arms and kissed her. Immediately afterward, Philippa asked her father to write to M. Papin, informing him that she wanted no further vocal lessons. Heartbroken, the great singer returned to France on the first boat, convinced that something irrevocable had been lost.

Fifteen years later, the bell-rope of the sisters’ home was violently pulled. When they opened the door, they found a pale, frightened woman who, upon taking one step inside, fell into a dead swoon. When she came around, the mysterious visitor produced a letter, written in French and signed by Achille Papin. It served as an introduction to the woman who stood trembling and anxious before them: Babette Hersant. She had been, Papin explained, a petroleuse [According to popular rumours at the time, the pétroleuses were female supporters of the Paris Commune, accused of burning down much of Paris during the last days of the Commune in May 1871. During May, when Paris was being recaptured by loyalist Versaillais troops, rumours circulated that lower-class women were committing arson against private property and public buildings, using bottles full of petroleum or paraffin (similar to modern-day Molotov cocktails) which they threw into cellar windows, in a deliberate act of spite against the government. Many Parisian buildings, including the Hôtel de Ville and the Tuileries Palace, were burned down during the last days of the Commune, prompting government forces to blame the mythical pétroleuses.] during the recent communard uprising in Paris and had lost both her husband and her son in the fighting.

Unable to remain in France, she was seeking, at Papin’s suggestion, refuge with the kind sisters whom he had known so many years before. He closed the letter with the tossed-off remark: “Babette can cook.” In great generosity of spirit, the sisters took in this forlorn character, and in time, in the friendly surroundings of their household, Babette “acquired all the appearance of a respectable and trusted servant.”

Because they were suspicious of French cooking (the French, they had heard. are frogs), they taught Babette how to prepare their customary meal of split cod-and ale-and-bread soup. Given their religious commitments, they explained, their food must be as plain as possible. Luxury at the table they considered an immoral extravagance. Though she never mastered Norwegian and though she remained something of an enigma to the people of the village, Babette was eventually accepted as a respected member of the community.

We learn (returning to the present day) that the one hundredth anniversary of the Dean’s birth is approaching and that the sisters want to do something special to celebrate the date. Even as they contemplate this happy prospect, they are chagrined that the spirit of their father seemed to have dissipated among his followers, for “discord and dissension had been raising their heads in his flock.” The essential problem, expressed in a variety of ways and contexts, was the inability to forgive. Martine and Philippa vaguely hoped that the upcoming festivity would bring the spiritual family together again.

As they were considering how best to mark the great day, a letter arrived from France for Babette, containing the improbable news that she had won ten thousand francs in the national lottery. Soon after, Babette begged the sisters to let her cook a celebratory dinner in honor of the Dean’s birthday. This suggestion took them aback, for though they intended to celebrate the day, they had no intention of sponsoring a festive dinner. But their cook was so insistent and eager in her pleading that eventually they gave in. And Babette had more to say: she wanted to cook for their guests, not the simple, unappetizing fare to which they were accustomed, but a real, sumptuous French dinner; and she wanted to pay for it herself.

When the sisters balked, Babette stepped forward with great and even frightening resolve and said, “Ladies, have I ever in twelve years asked you a favor? No! And why not? Because I have had nothing to pray for. But tonight, I have a prayer to make from the bottom of my heart.” Their resistance broke down, and they granted her request.

A month before the feast, Babette went on a journey (her first in twelve years). When she returned, she announced that the goods necessary for the dinner were ordered and on their way. Though the very idea of elaborate preparations for a meal, requiring a journey to a foreign country, was preposterous to the sisters, they “gave themselves into their cook’s hands.” During the next days, the food, drink and other accoutrements began to arrive.

They were surprised by the numerous bottles of wine, each with a label carefully providing its name and point of origin (Martine never dreamed that wines could have names!); but they were flabbergasted beyond words by the enormous and primordial-looking turtle that poked its snake-like head out of its greenish-black shell.

The sisters began to fear that, in surrendering to the wishes of their French cook, they were making their father’s house into the setting for a witch’s sabbath. When Martine and Philippa communicated these fears to their friends and neighbors, everyone agreed that they would eat the French meal out of deference to Babette but that, as a protest, they would not speak of it nor take any pleasure in it. One of the white-bearded elders said, “On the day of our master we will cleanse our tongues of all taste and purify them of all delight or disgust of the senses, keeping and preserving them for the higher things of praise and thanksgiving.”

The great dinner took place on Sunday, the Lord’s day. The first guest to arrive was old Mrs. Loewenhielrn, who, at ninety, had lost practically all of her hearing and sense of taste, and who was, as such, the embodiment of the community’s puritanical indifference to the pleasures of this world. She was escorted by her nephew, General Loewenhielm, the man who as a young officer so many years before had sought unsuccessfully to court Martine. He happened to be visiting his aunt at this time, and the old lady, concerned about his listless spirits, had pressed the sisters to invite him.

Though he had achieved all of his worldly goals, satisfying all of his career ambitions, the General felt unaccountably depressed and came to the dinner only reluctantly. In time, the other guests arrived until the drawing room was filled with twelve celebrants. One very old brother, in his trembling voice, then began to sing a hymn that had been composed by the Dean himself:

Jerusalem, my happy home name ever dear to me.

Gradually, the guests took up the well-known tune, and as they sang, they joined hands in fellowship. So caught up were they in the spirit of the moment that they took up a second hymn and, hands still joined, sang it through to the end.

After this impromptu choral prelude, they entered the dining room where they saw the table elegantly prepared, the glasses and silverware gleaming in the light from a row of flickering candles. When everyone was seated, one of the elders recited the lovely grace that the Dean had given them:

May my food my body maintain,
may my body my soul sustain,
may my soul in deed and word
give thanks for all things to the Lord.

Then they all commenced to eat and drink. General Loewenhielm, the only guest at the table who had not vowed to take no sensual delight in the meal, now wore a puzzled expression. For the wine he was sipping was (he could barely believe it) “Amontillado! And the finest Amontillado that I have ever tasted.” And the soup was turtle soup — the best he had ever had.

Then a new dish was served, and as everyone quietly ate, the General thought to himself, “It is Blinis Demidoff!” But when he tasted the main course, his astonishment was complete. Many years before, at the Cafe Anglais, he had eaten “an incredibly recherche and palatable dish” called Cailles en Sarcophage, which had been invented by the chef of that establishment. Turning to the man on his left, the General said, “But this is Cailles en Sarcophage!” Having no idea what the General was talking about, the man said, with utter blandness, “Yes, yes, certainly. What else would it be?”

As the meal progressed, something strange and wonderful was happening. As stories of the Dean were exchanged and as the fine food and wine gradually were having their effect, old animosities were melting away, old resentments were being healed, broken friendships were being repaired. A spirit of forgiveness and good cheer seemed to take hold of all those around the table.

So moved by what he had experienced at the banquet, and still regretting his tongue-tied self-consciousness in this same home so many years before, General Loewenhielm rose to speak. He himself was surprised by the words that came out of his mouth, for though he had been formally trained to give commands and orations on drill grounds and in royal halls, he now felt that he was but a vehicle for a higher presence. “In our human foolishness and short-sightedness,” he said, “we imagine that grace is finite…. But the moment comes when our eyes are opened and we realize that grace is infinite. Grace, my friends,” he went on, “demands nothing of us but that we shall await it with confidence and acknowledge it in gratitude…. Grace takes us all to its bosom and declares general amnesty”

In the wake of this extraordinary oration, the entire place seemed suffused with the very grace that the General spoke of: “the rooms had been filled with a heavenly light, as if a number of small halos had blended into one glorious radiance. Taciturn old people received the gift of tongues; ears that for years had been almost deaf were opened to it. Time itself had merged into eternity.” All during the meal, it had snowed, so that when the guests were taking their leave, they noticed the entire countryside blanketed in white. As they set out, they staggered and wavered on their feet, slipping and sliding in the snow. Some slipped down or fell forward, so that their elbows, backsides, and knees were covered in white, and they resembled, as they walked away, “gamboling little lambs.”

But the story does not end on this gentle note, all things simply reconciled, all enemies simply forgiven. Our attention shifts to the kitchen, so that we can see the price that was paid to make this mystical, grace-filled gathering possible. We are told, bluntly enough, that “Babette alone had had no share in the bliss of the evening.” Like a sacrificial victim, “Babette sat on the chopping block,” surrounded by a plethora of greasy pots and pans, as exhausted and deadly white as she had been on the night when the sisters first took her in. After twelve years of silence on this point, she then spoke her identity: “I was once cook at the Cafe Anglais.” This meant little to the sisters, but Babette continued, laying out to them the full extent of her sacrifice. Her husband and son were gone, lost as we have heard, in the communard uprising, but gone too were the whole bevy of gentlemen and aristocrats who used to frequent the Cafe Anglais. Babette’s world had disappeared. Moreover, she said, “I have no money.” When the sisters protested that she had just won the French lottery, Babette calmly explained that she had spent every centime of her winnings on the great dinner.

This summary that I have presented can barely hint at the artistry in Dinesen’s beautifully understated narrative, but it can serve at least as a framework for discussing the eucharistic symbolism that suffuses the story. The fundamental motif is that the gracefulness of the meal is interwoven with, and made possible by, a whole series of sacrifices, most notably Babette’s.

We recall that the Dean’s congregation is characterized by a rather marked dualism or puritanism, according to which the things of God are divorced from the affairs and pleasures of this world. Though it has haunted the Christian tradition from the beginning, this kind of dualism is, in fact, deeply unbiblical. According to the scriptural reading, God is intimately involved in the world that he has made, and every nook and cranny of creation speaks of the beauty of the Creator.

Accordingly, the biblical imagination is not dualist, but sacramental. Though the world is other than God, the world serves as an icon of the one who made it, and therefore, whatever is good, true, and beautiful in creation functions as a potential point of contact between human beings and God. In their conviction that the heavenly Jerusalem is attained only through the eschewing of the pleasures of this world, in their exaggerated asceticism, the Dean’s congregation had lost sight of this basic truth. In fact, the very sadness and dwindling size of the community could be seen as consequences of this forgetfulness. One of the most poignant features of the story is that this dualist asceticism extended as far as precluding the sisters from romantic involvement. They had, as we saw, rejected “the flames of this world” in order to give themselves to the service of God, and hence both had turned away from giving themselves in love to a man.

Into this dualist milieu, came, unexpectedly, a visitor from another world. Babette, the master chef accustomed to the highest and finest things, arrived from Catholic France, but she was weak and lonely and bore the haggard look of a beggar. This is our first clue that the exiled cook is a figure of Christ. In his letter to the Philippians, Paul said that Christ, “though he was in the form of God, emptied himself and became a slave, being born in the likeness of men.” Christ left his natural dwelling place and willingly entered into the limitations of our world in order to transfigure it by his presence. Paul comments, in a similar vein, that “by his poverty, we became rich.”

Dinesen says, in the very cadences of Paul, that though Babette “appeared to be a beggar, she turned out to be a conquerer.” But the transformation that she effects is not an immediate one. Rather, it is prepared for by a long period of humble identification with those to whom she was sent. Although she was one of the finest chefs in Europe, she willingly agreed to prepare the simplest and least appetizing of meals; although she was used to mingling with the elite of French society, she acquiesced to making the rounds of an obscure Norwegian fishing village. But all the while, clandestinely, secretly, she is having her effect: “Her quiet countenance and her steady, deep glance had magnetic qualities; under her eyes things moved, noiselessly, into their proper places.” In a word, Babette’s humble self-emptying was remaking a disordered world from within.

But we see the full extent of this sacrifice and this remaking only in regard to the great meal. It is a biblical commonplace that God desires to express his intimacy with his people through a festive meal. In the prophet Isaiah, we find wonderful images of a great feast that God will host on the summit of the holy mountain. There will be, we are told, “juicy red meats and pure choice wines.” In the book of Wisdom, moreover, God is pictured as a Jewish mother spreading a sumptuous feast before her people. A meal at which the good things of this world become evocative of the divine presence and at which brothers and sisters sit down in intimacy with God and one another is a consistent biblical symbol of what God wants for us. It is absolutely no accident that Jesus takes up this theme, embodying it in his ministry of table fellowship. All were welcome around the table of Jesus — the rich and the poor, the respectable and the marginalized, the saint and the sinner, the healthy and the sick.

This festive eating and drinking was appreciated by Jesus as an eschatological symbol, as the concrete realization of Isaiah’s dream of divine-human fellowship. And at the culminating moment of his life, Jesus sat down with his twelve disciples and hosted a final meal. Recapitulating the whole of the biblical tradition of the festive meal and summing up the whole of his life and ministry, Jesus fed his apostles with his very self, offering himself to them in a total sacrifice, dying that they might live: “Take this all of you and eat it; this is my body…. Take this all of you and drink from it; this is the cup of my blood.”

And so Babette, as the culmination of her life and work among the people of the village, hosted a meal, which, at the symbolic level, is both the Last Supper and the Mass. It commenced, appropriately enough, on Sunday, the day of the Christian liturgy. As soon as the guests assembled, they sang a hymn, evocative of the opening song of the Mass. They then entered a great dining room and sat at a table bedecked with candles, in the manner of an altar. And at this table, a sumptuous, expensive, delightful meal was served.

As they ate and drank, their spirits were uplifted, old memories were stirred, resentments seemed to melt away, forgiveness was offered, and in the words of Martine, the stars came nearer.” General Loewenhielm’s magnificent speech, in which he invoked the infinity of God’s grace, named precisely the dynamic of the meal. God (who is nothing but grace) had indeed, through the mediation of the sensual sign of Babette’s feast, addressed and blessed his people. Heaven was not, as they had imagined, far away, and in its light, they saw the earth for the first time as it really was. The liturgy is a sacred meal at which God, in sheer graciousness, feeds his people with his own substance, thereby uniting them to him and to one another, offering the forgiveness of sins, and displaying a new vision of the world.

But then we see that this communion was made possible by a terrible sacrifice. Babette had paid a price, emptying herself out utterly, spending money, talent, and energy in abundance, in order to allow the grace to flow. It is a basic biblical truth   that a world gone wrong can be corrected only through sacrifice, that is to say, through an act of love which takes on evil and reworks it from within. In Jerusalem, the night before his death, Jesus indeed hosted a festive meal at which humanity and divinity were reconciled; but at the heart of the feast was sacrifice, the giving away of his body and blood. An act of self-negating love made possible the communion that they enjoyed. Like Babette, Jesus situated himself on a chopping block as the festivity unfolded.

There is a rather shocking detail mentioned at the very end of “Babette’s Feast.” As the dumbfounded sisters were trying to take in the full significance of their maid’s tiff, Martine remembered a tale that an African missionary had recounted to her father. It seems that the missionary had saved the life of an old chief’s favorite wife and, in gratitude, the chief had treated the Christian to a meal. Only many years afterward did the missionary learn from one of his own servants that the main course at the meal had been “a small fat grandchild of the chief’s, cooked in honor of the great Christian medicine man.”

Meal and sacrifice coalesced around the densely textured reality of what was offered. Though it repulsed her even to think of it, Martine realized that Babette had effected something very similar, giving herself away as a sacrifice that made possible a meal of grace. So real was her gift that it was as though they were eating and drinking her very substance.

At the Last Supper, Jesus said, “take this all of you and eat it; this is my body” and “take this all of you and drink from it; this is the cup of my blood.” What the disciples are invited to eat is the very self that Jesus offers in sacrifice. The grace of communion was so real because the sacrifice of self was so real. In this interweaving of meal, sacrifice, and real presence, we discover the heart of a Catholic Eucharistic theology.

h1

Reading Selection from “And Now I See” by Fr. Robert Barron

September 20, 2010

Fr. Robert Barron

One of the things I loved about Fr. Barron’s “And Now I See” is the introduction to a new way of seeing. He strips away some of the mistaken language of our current religious (faith) dialogue and reinstitutes the Greek. Words like” repent,” “believe,” “soul” and “spirit” become infused with new meaning when we contrast them with “metanoia,” “pisteuete,” “magna anima,” and “pusilla anima.” Read on to see what I mean…

Follow Not Worship
Now the Gospel writers agree that the Kingdom of God, the enfleshment of the divine life in human form, the Incarnation, is not something to be admired from the outside, but rather an energy in which to participate. This is, tragically, one of the most overlooked dimensions of Christian thought and experience. If we open our eyes and see the light, we too often stop at the point of admiration and worship, lost in wonder at the strange work that God has accomplished uniquely in Jesus of Nazareth.

But Jesus nowhere in the Gospels urges his followers to worship him, though he insistently calls them to follow him. One of the surest ways to avoid the challenge of the Incarnation, one of the most effective means of closing our eyes, is to engage in just this sort of pseudo-pious distantiation. But the Gospels want us, not outside the energy of Christ, but in it, not wondering at it, but swimming in it.

In John’s Gospel, Jesus speaks of himself as the vine onto which we are grafted like branches, and he compares himself to food which we are to take into ourselves. These beautifully organic images are meant to highlight our participation in the event of the Incarnation, our concrete citizenship in the Kingdom of God. It was the great medieval mystic Meister Eckhart who commented that the Incarnation of the Word in Jesus of Nazareth long ago is of no interest and importance unless that same word becomes incarnate in us today.

Repent/Metanoiete
(In) Mark’s Gospel: “repent and believe the Good News.” The word so often and so misleadingly translated as “repent” is metanoiete. This Greek term is based upon two words, mew (beyond) and nous (mind or spirit), and thus, in its most basic form, it means something like “go beyond the mind that you have.”

The English word “repent” has a moralizing overtone, suggesting a change in behavior or action, whereas Jesus’ term seems to be hinting at a change at a far more fundamental level of one’s being. Jesus urges his listeners to change their way of knowing, their way of perceiving and grasping reality, their perspective, their mode of seeing.

What Jesus implies is this: the new state of affairs has arrived, the divine and human have met, but the way you customarily see is going to blind you to this novelty. In the gnostic Gospel of Thomas, Jesus expresses the same concern: “The Kingdom of God is spread out on the earth, but people do not see it.” Minds, eyes, ears, senses, perceptions — all have to he opened up, turned around, revitalized. Metanoia, soul transformation, is Jesus’ first recommendation. 

Perceiving With A Mind Of Fear
We see and know and perceive with a mind of fear rather than with a mind of trust. When we fear, we cling to who we are and what we have; when we are afraid, we see ourselves as the threatened center of a hostile universe, and thus we violently defend ourselves and lash out at potential adversaries. And fear — according to so many of the biblical authors and so many of the mystics and theologians of our tradition — is a function of living our lives at the surface level, a result of forgetting our deepest identity.

At the root and ground of our being, at the “center” of who we are, there is what Christianity calls “the image and likeness of God.” This means that at the foundation of our existence, we are one with the divine power which continually creates and sustains the universe; we are held and cherished by the infinite love of God. When we rest in this center and realize its power, we know that, in an ultimate sense, we are safe, or, in more classical religious language, “saved.” And therefore we can let go of fear and begin to live in radical trust.

But when we lose sight of this rootedness in God, we live exclusively on the tiny island of the ego, and lives become dominated by fear. Fear is the “original sin” of which the church fathers speak; fear is the poison that was injected into human consciousness and human society from the beginning; fear is the debilitating and life-denying element which upsets the “chemical balance” of both psyche and society.

To overcome fear is to move from the pusilla anima (the small soul) to the magna anima (the great soul). When we are dominated by our egos, we live in a very narrow space, in the angustiae (the straits) between this fear and that, between this attachment and that, But when we surrender in trust to the bearing power of God, our souls become great, roomy, expansive. We realize that we are connected to all things and to the creative energy of the whole cosmos.

Interestingly, the term magna anima shares a Sanskrit root with the word mahatma, and both mean “great soul.” What Jesus calls for in metanoia is the transformation from the terrified and self-regarding small soul to the confident and soaring great soul. The seeing of the Kingdom, in short, is not for the pusillanimous but for the magnanimous.

Believe/Pisteuete
Now like the word metanoiete, the term pisteuete (believe) has been terribly misunderstood over the centuries, coming, unfortunately, to mean the dry assent to religious propositions for which there is little or no evidence. Since the Enlightenment and its altogether legitimate insistence on rational responsibility, faith, in the sense just described, has come into disrepute. It seems to be the last refuge of uncritical people, those desperate to find some assurance with regard to the ultimate things and thus willing to swallow even the most far-fetched theories and beliefs.

Happily, “belief” in the biblical and traditional sense of the term has nothing to do with this truncated and irresponsible rationality. “To believe,” as Jesus uses the term, signals, not so much a way of knowing as a way of being known. To have faith is to allow oneself to be overwhelmed by the power of God, to permit the divine energy to reign at all levels of one’s being. As such, it is not primarily a matter of understanding and assenting to propositions as it is surrendering to the God who wants to become incarnate in us. In Paul Tillich’s language, “faith” is being grasped by Ultimate Concern, permitting oneself to be shaken and turned by the in-breaking God.

Hence when Jesus urges his listeners to believe, he is inviting them, not so much to adhere to a new set of propositions, but rather to let go of the dominating and fearful ego and learn once more to live in the confidence of the magna anirna. He is calling them to find the new center of their lives where he finds his own, in the unconditional love of God.

One of the tragic ironies of the tradition is that Jesus’ “faith,” interpreted along rationalist lines, serves only to boost up the ego, confirming it in its grasping and its fear: I have the faith, and you don’t; do I really understand the statements I claim to believe? The state of mind designed to quell the ego has been, more often than not, transformed into one more ego game. “Believing” the “Good News” has nothing to do with these games of the mind. It has everything to do with radical change of life and vision, with the simple (and dreadfully complex) process of allowing oneself to swim in the divine sea, to find the true self by letting go of the old center.

Bartimaeus The Blind Man
Inspired by this voice, convinced that he has discovered the pearl of great price, the Unum Necessarium, Bartimaeus jumps up, throws off his cloak and comes to Jesus. In the early centuries of the church, those about to be baptized were invited to strip themselves of their clothes, symbolizing thereby their renunciation of their old way of life. In Mark’s story, the blind man prepares for inner transformation by throwing off the cloak of his old consciousness, his old pattern of desire, the lifestyle which has rendered him spiritually blind. Then, at the feet of Jesus, Bartimaeus hears the question that all of us hear in the stillness of the heart, the question which comes from the divine power within and which subtly but firmly invites us to transformation:

“What do you want me to do for you?” God beckons us, but God never compels us, Then, in one of the simplest and most poignant lines in the Scripture, Bartimaeus says, “Master, I want to see again.” Desperately in the dark, hounded by the demons of desire, caught in the narrow passage of ego-consciousness, Bardmaeus wants to see with a deeper, broader, and clearer vision.

In his pain, and also in his confidence, Bartimaeus stands for all of us spiritual seekers, all who hope against hope that there might be a way to live outside the tyranny of the ego. He wants precisely what we have been exploring here: a new attitude, a new perspective, the magna anima. And Jesus’ answer to Bartimaeus, “Go, your faith has saved you,” is perfectly in line with the “inaugural address” which we have been analyzing. What saves the blind man is the metanoia which culminates in faith, the shift in consciousness from ego-dominance to surrender.

What restores the vision of the spiritual seeker is the throwing off of the old mind and the adoption, through God’s grace, of a divine mind. Of course, the story ends with Bartimaeus, “following Jesus up the road.” It ends, in a word, with discipleship. Once the soul has been transfigured, the only path that seems appealing is the one walked by Christ, that is to say, the path of radical self-offering, self-surrender. Fired by the God-consciousness, in touch with the Divine source within us, drinking from the well of eternal life, we are inspired simply to pour ourselves out in love.

The “Metanoetic” Function In The Theology Of The Patristic Period
Paul and the evangelists were the first Christian “theologians,” that is, those seeking to say a logos, a word, about what God has done in Jesus of Nazareth. Their “words” are always in imitation of the Word, who is Christ himself, the embodiment of the Kingdom of God. Thus, their “theologies” are, as we have hinted, not primarily rational, philosophical investigations of the nature of God, but instead efforts in the direction of life transformation, re-presentations of the energy of the original Word. In this sense, Christian theology, in the beginning, had an unmistakably “evangelical,” missionary, practical flavor.

This “metanoetic” function is perfectly evident in the theology which grew out of the New Testament tradition and flourished in the first centuries of the church. In the patristic period, the most prominent theologians were pastors, bishops, catechists, and monks — and not what we would call “academicians.” No theologian of the early church was writing for an academic audience or to receive tenure or to be published in technical journals of theology, On the contrary, they were writing (to be sure, at a very sophisticated level) for the spiritual benefit of the people they were concretely serving. Theology was, like preaching and pastoral care, for the sake of salvation.

In this context, it is helpful to consider the example of Origen, the third-century catechist of the Christian church at Alexandria. This ingenious pastor and teacher speaks of theology as theoria. Obviously, we have derived our word “theory” from this Greek term, but we must beware of identifyng the two. For the ancient Greeks, and for Origen, theoria designated, not abstract knowing, but rather mystical vision and contemplation, the type of seeing that awakens and sustains wonder. For these ancient thinkers, one did not engage in theoria in order to satisfy the curiosity of the mind, but to assuage the deepest longings of the spirit. In his homilies, his scriptural studies, and his voluminous theological works, Origen of Alexandria offers his readers a “theoretical” vision of Jesus Christ; he holds up an icon of the Lord and hopes thereby to change the souls of his audience.

“Theoretical” Icons Have A Saving Power
St. Athanasius, the embattled and feisty fourth-century bishop of Alexandria, was the impassioned defender of the Christological formulas of the Council of Nicea. Against the powerful, numerically superior, and well-organized Opposition of the Arians, Athanasius proclaimed the legitimacy of the homoousios teaching, the conviction that Jesus is “one in being” with the Father, fully divine. To safeguard this doctrine, Athanasius not only engaged in fierce theological polemics, hut he also withstood public humiliation, exile, and the constant threat of violence. When we read the account of Athanasius’s travails today, we are tempted to smile, perhaps a bit condescendingly.

Why, after all, would a man go through so much simply to defend an idea, a dogma? Our confusion is the result of our profoundly truncated understanding of the nature of ideas. Athanasius did not put his life on the line for the Nicean formula simply because he thought it was a relatively adequate rational expression of Christian belief He stood contra mundum, defending Nicea ferociously because he believed that the salvation of the Christian community depended on that doctrine.

To fudge the teaching, as the Arians had, was not only to misplay a theological language game, but to compromise radically the dynamics of inner transformation in the minds and hearts of believers. Like his contemporaries and like the New Testament authors, Athanasius was convinced that “theoretical” icons have a saving power only when they are painted correctly.

Spirituality Vs Theology
If one had asked Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, or Aquinas to distinguish between his technical theology and his “spirituality,” he would have been at a loss. He would probably not even have understood the question. For the great thinkers of Christianity, from the New Testament period up through the Middle Ages, the “metanoetic” quality of theology was taken for granted. But a split between what we call today “spirituality” and “theology” began to open up sometime around the beginning of the fourteenth century, that is to say, in the period just after the death of Thomas Aquinas.

Theology, words about God, became increasingly a formal academic discipline, taught alongside of law and medicine in the great universities, whereas spirituality, reflection on the experience of God in one’s life, became a more or less underground concern of monks and mystics. In their effort to find intellectual respectability, theologians endeavored to conform to the more and more objective and disinterested style of the academy, thus consciously putting aside feeling, personal commitment, the focus on conversion. It is interesting to me that, according to the general consensus, Catholic theology went into decline just after this tragic rupture occurred, deteriorating into a cold and arid scholasticism, ready-made answers for technical questions unrelated to anyone’s lived experience of the faith.

It wasn’t until the twentieth century that the terrible division between theology and spirituality was addressed by Catholic theologians, The thinkers associated with the controversial nouvelle theologie (the new theology) — Henri de Lubac, Jean Danielou, Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and others — sought to return to the biblical and patristic sources that had given form to Catholic thought. And what they saw in the Bible and in the fathers was precisely the dynamic that we have been exploring; theology, not as a lifeless game of question and answer, but as seeing, as transforming, as a catalyst for soul conversion.

The Imago Dei
The Christian answer to these questions is contained in the doctrine of the imago Dei. There is indeed something terribly the matter with us, and there is, at the same time, something foundationally good, something “divine” at the heart of us, a power or principle that keeps us hoping and living and striving. As the weed pushes its way through the harsh cement of the city sidewalk, so the human soul grows stubbornly and almost inexplicably toward, the light.

When Jesus uttered his call for metanoia, he was assuming the presence of what our tradition has called original sin, and he was also presupposing the imago, some elemental goodness, some capacity for change and transformation. And people came to Christ, drank in his words, reveled in the provocativeness of his gestures, precisely because they felt the same tension of sin and imago Dei in themselves: they were sick, but they recognized what would make them well.

Thus, the proper starting point for any healthy Christian theological anthropology is a clear sense of the togetherness of original sin and likeness unto God, for without the first, metanoia is unnecessary, and without the second, it is impossible. Thus, just as we must look at the dark face of our own sin, so we must look at the beauty that is God’s enduring presence within us. Both of these facts must he seen, accounted for, experienced if effective metanoia is to take place. We must know and, more to the point, feel in our bones, what is wrong in us; we must look it in the face and acknowledge it with uncompromising honesty.

Without this “searching moral inventory,” without this journey into our own inner Hell, we will not feel the compunction to shift our way of being and seeing. And, at the same time, we must awaken to what is god-like in us, what is rich and fecund and unbroken, what is in continuity with the saving designs of God. Without this clear sense, we will fall into complacency or hopelessness and see metanoia as, at best, a cruel illusion, Yes, the pusilla anima must be acknowledged, but the magna anima must be hoped for with confidence.

h1

The Angels And The Beasts

April 16, 2010

Thomas Cole, "Angels Ministering to Christ in the Wilderness", 1843

 And the Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him.
Mark 1:12-13

 Fr Robert Barron (from the Word on Fire ) comments on this scriptural passage here:

“MEDIEVAL CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS said that human beings are a kind of microcosm of the whole created order, since we bear within ourselves both the spir­itual and the physical. Through our bodies we reach down to the lower elements and are one with the animals and minerals, but through our minds we commune with the upper realm of spirits and angels. We know instinctively how right this characterization is. On the one hand, we can explore the intricacies of mathematics and geometry; we can soar with Mozart and Shakespeare; we can design high-level computers and machines that move through the galaxy; we can enter into the depth and silence of mys­tical prayer, coming close to the angelic way of knowing.

In all of these ways, we demonstrate the capaciousness of our souls. On the other hand, we are, whether we like it or not, animals. We need food and drink; we get too hot or too cold; we experience instincts and emotions that often get the better of our reason; we revel in the sheer pleasure of the senses and the thrill of being touched; we love to run and to exercise our muscles; we exult in the rough-and-tumble of very physical competition and play. This coming together of the spiritual and the material is our glory — since we combine, in a sense, the best of both worlds — but it is also our agony, the source of much of our sadness and conflict.

A kind of metaphysical mongrel, we bring together in our very persons elements that are, often enough, at odds with one another. The spirit strains against the body (think of Michelangelo’s “athletes” on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel); and the body struggles against the spirit. Sometimes the mind commands, and matter refuses to obey, or matter makes demands that the mind cannot or will not accommodate. One way to handle this problem is imperialist ag­gression, the dominance of spirit over body or body over spirit. Let us consider the first option.

In so many philosophies and spiritualities — both East and West — we find a celebration of the transcendent spiritual ca­pacity and a concomitant longing to escape from the drabness of materiality. Plato, for instance, thought that the entire philosophical life was but a preparation for the wonderful day when the soul — the angel-like spirit — would escape through death from the prison of the body. One way to read Plato’s Republic is as an intricately conceived training manual for prospective jail breakers. Plotinus, an ardent disciple of Plato and one of the most influential philosophers of the late Roman period, was described by one of his followers as “never quite at home in his body” — and that was meant as a compliment.

This dualist strain of thinking can be found in modernity as well, René Descartes, the founder of modern philosophy, starkly separated the body, which belongs to the realm of “extended things,” from the mind, which is a “thinking thing,” and this “angelism” conditions all of Descartes’ program. At a more popular level, one can discover this preference of spirit over body in much of the New Age spiritualities of the present day. Just think of those sad members of a New Age cult who, not many years ago, committed suicide in the hopes of releasing their spirits from the “lower vehicles” of their earthly bodies.

But the imperialism comes from the opposite side as well, when the body seeks, as it were, to escape from the mind. Alongside of Platonism in the ancient world, there was the competing philosophy of hedonism, which put an exclusive stress on pleasure and the satisfaction of bodily desire. And up and down the centuries, this perspective has attracted many, from the Marquis de Sade to Hugh Hefner. On this reading, the “spiritual” dimension is something of an illusion — at best a more ratified form of bodily desire, and at worst a collection of inhibitions and complexes that ought to be repressed or deconstructed. For the hedonist, the human being is not qualitatively different from the other animals; rather, he is an especially clever beast, particularly adept at ac­quiring what his body craves.

Think, in this context, of Sigmund Freud’s insistence that the rational mind is not so much the tamer of the elemental desires as their ser­vant. As is true in regard to political imperialism, which tends to stir up the resentment of the tyrannized party, so this psychological and spiritual imperialism leads, easily enough, to civil war within the person. When Plato and his disciples treat the body as a prison, the body reacts, often in psychologically destructive ways; and when the hedonists treat the mind as an epi-phenomenon of the body, the spirit rebels.

A third option does remain. A person can live alter­nately in the upper realm and the lower, keeping the one carefully sequestered from the other. One of the greatest theologians of the last century, a man of exquisite cul­tural and religious refinement, the author of a massive systematic theology and of deeply moving homilies, also frequented the red-light districts of the cities he visited and assembled an extensive collection of pornography. It was as though body and mind lived side by side in him, unintegrated and unrelated to one another. This sort of isolation of the elements of the self is no solution, for in the long run it leads to a radical bifurcation and disintegration of the personality.

Throughout the Bible, we find the claim — some­times explicitly argued, other times implied — that these tensions between body and soul, these fundamental disin­tegrations, are symptoms of sin. In the Genesis account of creation, we hear that God made the whole of the cosmos, things seen and unseen, the spiritual as welt as the physi­cal. He made, as the crown of his efforts, a rational animal, capable of speech and divine communion, and he placed him within a garden of physical delights and surrounded him with all of his brother animals that fly through the air and creep and crawl upon the ground. But in the wake of the original sin, divisions begin to appear.

Adam and Eve, who once were comfortable with their physicality, now seek to cover themselves, their bodies having become an object of shame. And nature, symbolized by the serpent, has now emerged as the enemy, the cunning tempter. This interpretation is confirmed in the story of the flood. We see that God protects from the waters (evocative of the power of sin) not only his human creatures, but all the creatures on the planet– including, presumably, all those lowly crawling things. Moreover, as the flood waters recede, God concludes a covenant, not only with us, hut with the whole of creation. The biblical teaching seems to be that the harmony of the spiritual and the physical is what God savors arid intends.

The scriptural understanding of the tight relationship between the two elements of the person is nowhere bet­ter expressed than in St. Mark’s laconic account of the temptation of Jesus in the desert, In Mark’s telling, we find none of the dramatic details that characterize Mat­thew’s and Luke’s narratives. Instead, we have only these sober lines: “He was in the wilderness forty days1 tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts and the angels waited on him.”

This picture of Jesus, surrounded by the animals and ministered to by the angels, is a sort of sacred icon of the right relationship between spirit and matter. It is as though Jesus — in opposition to Satan — brings together, in his person, the warring elements of soul and body, angel and animal. The new Adam, he unites what sin had divided; the new creation, he integrates the cosmic order that sin had disrupted. We shouldn’t commune with the angels alone (in the Platonic mode) or with the animals alone (in the hedonist mode); and we certainly shouldn’t oscillate back and forth between the two. Rather, we should abide with both, keeping the physical and the spiritual in a mutually correcting harmony. Then we live out our deepest metaphysical identity; then we become the creatures God intended us to be: embodied spirits and spiritual bodies.”

h1

The Woman at the Well

November 17, 2009

The Samaritan Woman at the Well - by CARRACCI, Annibale - from Pinacoteca di Brera, Milan

The following is a reading selection from Fr. Robert Barron’s The Priority of Christ.

The English word sin is derived from the German term Sunde, which carries the connotation of sundering or dividing. The Greek word diabalos, from which various terms for the evil one derive — diablo, diable, devil, Teufel — means basically “scatterer.” In the book of Genesis, the original sin — incited by the serpent — amounts to a sundering of the human relationship to God (expulsion from the Garden) and a radical division and scapegoating among creatures. When Adam is challenged by God, he responds, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate,” and when the woman is confronted, she passes the buck to nature: “The serpent tricked me, and I ate” (Genesis 3:11-13). Over-and-againstness, separation, suspicion, mutual hatred, blaming — all are signs that the scattering power of sin is let loose.

In the course of the Old Testament, the twelve tribes of Israel — gathered together as one people through the power of God’s covenant — are periodically separated, divided, carried into exile because of their infidelity to that covenant. The hope for a united Israel, for a return of the exiled tribes, is expressed in the Prophets and in Psalms: “Jerusalem — built as a city that is bound firmly together. To it the tribes go up” (Psalms 122: 3-4), “the joy of all the earth, Mount Zion, in the far north, the city of the great King” (Psalms 48:2). A large part of the mystique of King David was that he had united the disparate people of Israel and had governed them from the central capital city, Jerusalem. And despite his numerous failings, David’s son Solomon enjoyed great renown, first because he had built the temple in Jerusalem, which had become a physical and spiritual focal point for the nation, and second because his reputation had drawn to the capital potentates from around the world, most famously the Queen of the South. In this he had embodied Israel’s mission to be a light to the nations, the true pole of the earth, the gathering point of the world.

When a Jewish prophet of the first century announced that the reign of God is at hand, N. T. Wright has argued, he would be taken to mean something very specific: that the scattering of the tribes of Israel (in both a literal and a spiritual sense) was over and that Yahweh was coming to reign in Jerusalem, this reconfiguration inaugurating the illumination and salvation of the entire world.

In other words, he would be interpreted as saying that the dream of Israel-realized only fitfully and inadequately throughout its history-was now coming definitively true. So when Jesus of Nazareth said, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news” (Mark 1:15), he was not calling attention to general, timeless spiritual truths, nor was he urging people to make a decision for God; he was telling his hearers that Yahweh was actively gathering the people of Israel and, indirectly, all people into a new salvific order, and he was insisting that his hearers conform themselves to this new state of affairs. In this gathering, he was implying, the forgiveness of sins — the overcoming of sundering and division — would be realized.

In a word, the proclamation of the kingdom was tantamount to an announcement that the Gatherer of Israel had arrived and had commenced his work. What is most remarkable about Jesus, according to Wright, is that he not only indicated this fact but embodied it and acted it out, taking, in his words and gestures, the very role of the Gatherer. Origen said substantially the same thing when he described Jesus as autobasileia, the kingdom in person.

We continue our analysis of the Gathering by looking at one more splendid Johannine icon: the carefully crafted story of the meeting between Jesus and a Samaritan woman alongside a well. Like many of the other narratives in John’s Gospel — the woman caught in adultery; the man born blind, the raising of Lazarus-this story is both a literary and a theological masterpiece. And like the wedding feast account , it is, I will argue, a nuptial tale, a presentation of the process by which Jesus gathers to himself a bride.

As the fourth chapter of the Johannine Gospel opens, Jesus is making his way from Jerusalem (where he had cleansed the temple) back home to Galilee. Perforce, he passes through Samaria, that in-between country taking the term in both a geographical and a spiritual sense. Samaritans stood on the margins of official Judaism, partaking of its Scriptures and most of its practices but barred from full participation in temple worship and community life. Jesus’s work during his brief stay in this land will be to draw the marginal to the center.

At noon, he sits down to rest by the side of Jacob’s well, a place of powerful symbolic significance. There are numerous encounters at wells in the Old Testament that are associated with engagements and marriages. In the book of Genesis, the servant of Abraham finds a wife for Isaac at a well after uttering this prayer: “I am standing here by the spring of water; let the young woman who comes out to draw…let her be the woman whom the LORD has appointed for my master’s son” (Genesis 24 :43-44).

In the book of Exodus, we read of Moses’s sojourn by a spring of water: “But Moses fled from Pharaoh. He settled in the land of Midian and sat down by a well.” After chasing away shepherds who were interfering with the daughters of the priest of Midian, Moses was welcomed into the priest’s home and given his daughter Zipporah in marriage (Exodus 2:15-21). Most important for our purposes, there is the Genesis narrative of Jacob’s journey to the land of Laban, his mother’s brother. ‘While reclining near a well, Jacob inquires after Laban and is told that Laban’s daughter Rachel is approaching. When he meets her, Jacob kisses her and then weeps for joy; later, of course, after many adventures and misadventures, he marries this girl, whose effect on him was like that of Beatrice on Dante. So as Jesus sits down beside a well (especially because it is identified as Jacob’s), we know that an engagement and a wedding are in the offing.

John tells us that Jesus rested at the well because he was “tired out by his journey” (John 4:6). Augustine commented that the fatigue of the Lord was a function of his total identification, through the “journey” of the incarnation, with the condition of sin. Sometimes the Gospel speaks of the Logos in forma Dei (in his exalted form as Son of God), and other times it shows him informa servi (in his humble incarnate state). The “tired” Jesus is a prime example of this second form of description, and what it points to is not simply the physical weariness of Christ but his entry into the life-denying and energy-draining state of sin. “I have come that [you] might have life and have it to the full,” says Jesus (John 10:10); but he brings that life through solidarity with the lifelessness of those who have wandered from grace.

So his sitting by the well is quite similar, theologically, to his standing shoulder to shoulder in the waters of the Jordan with those seeking John’s baptism of repentance: both are saving acts of identification with the debilitating condition of the sinner. We also hear that this session took place when it “was about noon” (John 4:6). We are at the high point of the day and hence a natural time to stop to rest and eat, but at the symbolic level we are at the moment of greatest illumination, a time when the light of the world will be on particular display.

“A Samaritan woman came to draw water” (John 4:7). From the standpoint of a Jewish man, we are dealing here with a triple outsider. First, as a woman, she would be considered inferior; second, as a Samaritan, she would be looked down upon as a half-breed and a heretic; and finally, coming as she does at midday (hardly the optimal time for physical labor) and unaccompanied by other women, she would be suspect as a person of probably questionable morals. Barriers religious, ethical, racial, and cultural would naturally separate her from someone like Jesus and make of her an exile par excellence.

As is his wont, Jesus reaches out to establish contact with the outsider:

“Give me a drink” (John 4:7). Throughout the Gospels, Jesus identifies himself with food and drink-”J am the bread of life” (John 6:35); “Take, eat, this is my body…Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant” (Matthew 26:26-28)-but here he assumes the stance of one who needs sustenance. This thirst on Jesus’ part has nothing to do with divine “neediness,” as though God required something from the world that he makes in its entirety. It has everything to do with the establishment of the loop or pattern of grace that I discussed in the analysis of the prodigal son.  Jesus asks the woman to give him a gift, but this is only so that he can give her an even greater gift. The point is that he wants to draw her out of her isolation and exile, her tendency to be curvatus in se, and his strategy is to tempt her into generosity.

Conditioned by years of prejudice and the violence of marginalization, she naturally draws back: “How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?” (John 4:9). She has come to get water for herself, and a powerful enemy is asking her to give him the very thing that she seeks. This sounds, in short, like a typical game of antagonism in the realm of ousia, and so she turns in on herself in a defensive crouch. John 4:9 signals the lack of grace-the “far country” quality of the Jew-Samaritan relationship-in a wonderfully laconic aside: (“Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans.”) Anti-coinherence is the rule.

Under the full light of the noonday sun, Jesus then commences the disclosure of his identity: “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water” (John 4:10). What better description of the being of Jesus is there than this pithy formula “the gift of God”? Like the father of the two sons who entrusts his entire being to his children-”all that is mine is yours” — Jesus, the Icon of God, presents himself as the giver of gifts, and the purpose of his gift is the gathering of those who have themselves forgotten how to receive and give. He wants to draw the Samaritan woman into that peculiar rhythm of grace through which alone authentic being can be maintained. The loop of grace is the engagement ring that this new Jacob, this new Moses, is proffering to his bride.

In line with John’s usual way of advancing a spiritual argument, the woman takes Jesus’ words at the literal level: “Sir, you have no bucket, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water?” (John 4:11). Earthly realities can only hint symbolically at the spiritual truth of the law of the gift, for no matter how superabundant, any material source eventually gives out.

What Jesus is driving at is the divine life that is never exhausted even as it is given, since it is, in its essence, nothing other than giving: “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but those who drink of the water that I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life” (John 4:13-44). When the divine gift is received, it becomes in the recipient that which can be given away infinitely and indefinitely, and that which, even as it is given away, never gives out. This is why it “bubbles up” to inexhaustible life.

On Augustine’s reading, the well water which the woman seeks every day and which leaves her thirsting for more, represents the various objects of concupiscent desire. The deepest thirst in us is for the divine life, and when we seek to slake that thirst with something less than God — money, sex, power, the esteem of others — we necessarily become thirsty again, much as a drug user becomes increasingly addicted to the narcotics that fail to satisfy him.

Further, we turn those finite goods, which are meant to be used as instruments in the flow of grace, into “substances,” what is ours, what is coming to us. What is being revealed in the exchange between Jesus and the woman at the well is that the fiercest thirst in us is not for possession but for the capacity to give, and this to the ultimate degree; to have this (by not having it) is to experience the spring of eternal life within.

In light of this clarification, Jesus’ sitting by the well in his fatigue takes on a new resonance His tiredness is a participation in the weariness that follows from the sinner’s repeated journeys to the well, which is to say, the incessant attempt to satisfy the desire that cannot be satisfied through possession.

Finally beginning to see with spiritual eyes, the woman replies, “Sir, give me this water, so that I may never be thirsty again or have to keep coming here to draw water.” (John 4:15). Her words reveal that she is well acquainted with the rigors of the life of sin, with the fatigue that comes from concupiscent desire.

With that, the conversation takes a most unexpected turn: “Jesus said to her, ‘Go, call your husband, and come back” (John 4:16). Why would the woman’s husband be of such concern? As we have seen, this entire episode is a wedding story, an account of how the Samaritan woman finds her proper spouse. In the context of an admittedly sexist culture, a woman’s quest for a husband is her search for governance and direction in her life.

Hence, once Jesus sees that she has come to a sufficient spiritual insight to ask for the living water, he explicitly introduces the theme of the husband or “headship,” essentially asking this: “Show me who or what governs your life.” When she says, “I have no husband,” she is witnessing, on the one hand, to her moral drift (she is at the mercy of her conflicting desires) but also to her openness to a new orientation (as spiritually unattached, she is able eventually to take Jesus as her husband). Sometimes it is our very dysfunction that allows for the advent of grace.

Jesus then compliments her for her honesty, but like a good spiritual director, he spies the rest of the truth hidden by her cagey response: “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband” (John 4 7-18). In accord with the hermeneutic that I have been developing, Jesus discerns that the Samaritan woman’s life is currently unfocused (no husband) but that she was formerly under the thrall of five powers from which she has managed to free herself.

Who or what are these five? Augustine suggests that they represent the five senses or the five books of the Torah. In her quest for meaning, she had submitted herself, first, to the tyranny of the senses, orienting her life to the empirically verifiable world of color, sound, taste, and pleasure, embracing the hedonist option. When this failed, as it necessarily would, she turned to a somewhat more refined form of idolatry, seeking satisfaction in the rigors of a moralizing religion.

This progression is, of course, a familiar one: the hedonist becoming the puritan, while retaining the same basic spiritual maladjustment of seeking joy in some worldly object or set of values. The fussy moralist is often just the sensualist in a flimsy religious disguise. By reminding her that she comes each day to the well and never finds satisfaction and that she has, in frustration, discarded five husbands in turn, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman’s hard truth, compelling her to see her spiritual condition: anyone but the Word made flesh is inadequate food for the soul.

Impressed by his clairvoyance, the woman tells Jesus, “Sir, I see that you are a prophet,” but then, with almost comic alacrity, she changes the subject: “Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem” (John 4:20). The prophet has revealed her truth, but she is not yet ready to deal with the implications of that revelation, so she redirects the conversation onto the far less threatening plane of abstract religious controversy. The Samaritans based their cult on Mount Gerizim, while the Jews centered their religious practice on the temple in Jerusalem. Perhaps if she can direct the attention of this “too perceptive young rabbi” to this speculative question, she can avoid the issue of her life’s direction.

But the prospective bridegroom is not so easily put off the trail. With breathtaking directness and clarity, Jesus dissolves the question that had helped to divide Jews from Samaritans: “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem …[but] in spirit and truth” (John 4:21-24). We recall that one of the principal tasks of the Messiah was to gather the tribes of Israel and then, through them, to gather the nations of the world. What the Messiah opposes, therefore, is division (Origen knew this when he said, “Ubi divisio, ibi peccatum”), especially that division which is perversely caused by religion itself. The Samaritan-Jewish battle over the correct place of the cult is a prime example of just this sort of corruption.

What the Father of Jesus desires is not geographically correct worship, but worship in “spirit and truth” (en pneumati kai aletheia). Both of these central Johannine symbols speak of the force of unity. The pneuma of God is the breath that God breathes into living things, awakening in them the corresponding breathing in of the psyche (from which our word suck is derived). Thus worship en pneumati is praise born of a living relationship with the Spirit of God, a breathing out in prayer of what was breathed in from the divine source. It is to be in the loop of grace, giving what had been received.

And the truth, which God is, is a universal power, transcending time, space, and artificial cultural boundaries. To worship in truth, therefore, is not to be sectarian or cultish but to pray in the power that unites the tribes of the world. We might draw a contrast between the twin mountains of Gerizim and Zion, standing over and against one another in opposition, and the well of Jacob that serves as a point of contact between Jesus and the woman. The mountains embody the great divorce, while the circular well bespeaks the wedding ring.

Beginning to sense that she is speaking to one who is even more than a prophet, the Samaritan woman says, “When he [the Messiah] comes, he will proclaim all things to us” (anaggelei hemin hapanta, John 4:25). This is one of the most extraordinary descriptions of the Messiah in the Bible. She is implying that in the Christ, the Icon of the living God, the fullness of truth, will be announced and made clear, not so much in the sense that he will give us every piece of data as that he will be the lens through which the whole of reality is properly viewed. The highest truth about God and ourselves will be made plain iconically in his way of being.

Genesis tells us that Yahweh walked with Adam in the cool of the evening as a friend. This easy relationship was interrupted when Adam sought on his own terms and through his own power to seize the knowledge that belongs naturally to God and that can be received by another only as a gift. In attempting to cling to this knowledge of good and evil (this lens through which the whole of reality can be properly viewed), he put an end to the friendship he had enjoyed with God. The Messiah, the person through whom God wishes to reestablish intimacy with the human race, is thus correctly described as the one “who will tell us everything.” But the key is that this divine interpretation must be given and received as grace.

Realizing that his interlocutor is ready for marriage, Jesus discloses his true identity: “I am he, the one who is speaking to you” (John 4:26). The Greek formula behind the first phrase is ego eimi (I am), evoking, obviously, the “I AM WHO I AM” of Exodus 3:14, the title by which Yahweh announced himself as the deliverer of his people. So the Samaritan woman, an archetype of the sinful and searching human race, is being rescued from the slavery of concupiscent desire through the taking of the Messiah as her bridegroom. And this Messiah is the one who is speaking personally to the woman (ho lalon soi).

Sin, the rupture inaugurated in the Garden of Eden, is a breakdown in the easy conversation between divinity and humanity. In the playful, almost teasing repartee between Jesus and the Samaritan woman, we witness the act by which God, through grace, puts himself and humanity back on speaking terms.

After the full manifestation of Jesus’ messianic identity, we see the dramatic effects of grace in the sinner: “then the woman left her water jar and went back to the city” (John 4:28). The jug that she had carried on her head day after day, seeking after the water that would never finally quench her thirst, is symbolic of the weight of concupiscence. Fixed to worldly objects, human desire can never adequately enter into the ecstasy associated with the loop of grace and hence remains tied down, burdened.

In Dante’s the Purgatorio, the prideful are compelled to carry around huge boulders in order to feel the weight of the ego pressing them down; when Dante is freed from sin, at the end of his purgatorial journey, he is weightless and can therefore fly through the spheres of paradise. The putting aside of the water jar is evocative of this lightness of being which comes from the correct orientation of desire. Gifts are not heavy; for once they are received, they are given away, only to be received and given again.

I suggested at the outset of this analysis that the isolation of the woman probably indicated her social ostracization. How fitting therefore that, having set down her burden, she immediately runs into the town. Whatever had shamed her is now eclipsed, and she is filled with enthusiasm to speak: “Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done. He cannot be the Messiah, can he?” (John 4:29).

Hans Urs von Balthasar has argued that the beautiful calls to the one who perceives it and then sends him on a mission to spread the word. Having seen the young Beatrice, Dante is seized by the compulsion to write a poem more beautiful than any other; having spied his future wife in the surf off the Dublin strand.  James Joyce is compelled to become an artist, the reporter of epiphanies. So the woman at the well, having been drawn into a saving conversation with the Son of God, having been freed from concupiscent desire, and having realized that water is bubbling up in her to eternal life, becomes a missionary, indeed the first evangelist in the Gospel of John. The beauty of the coinherence has seized her, and now she must tell of it. We notice that the heart of her message is that the divine hermeneutics has appeared: “[He] told me everything I have ever done.” The implication is that this saving insight — this knowledge of good and evil, which was lost through grasping — is now available to everyone through grace.

The effectiveness of her evangelization becomes clear when we hear, a few verses later, that “many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman’s testimony” (John 4:39). The prime consequence of the divine gathering is a desire on the part of those gathered to gather others in turn. Like a storm over water, the circle of grace grows as it moves, irresistibly drawing others into its power.

h1

Thèrése Of Lisieux: An Example Of Elevated Prudence

November 6, 2009
Thèrése Of Lisieux

Thèrése Of Lisieux

In The Priority of Christ Fr. Robert Barron gives us vignettes of various Saints and the theological virtues, showing us how the infusion of divine grace while exercising these virtues leads to a supernaturally elevated life. To be perfectly honest, I never liked Thèrése Of Lisieux and always found her life somewhere between gruesome and cloyingly sentimental.

The last time I encountered such a combination was the 2004 Boston Red Sox: coming back from a three games to none deficit to defeat my beloved Yankees amidst signs in the stands of “You Gotta Believe,” etc.  But I digress…

Fr. Barron takes Thèrése’s sappy tale and transforms it into something I can relate to, a story that illustrates divine grace in action. Reading Selections follow:

The Queen Of The Virtues
In the classical philosophical tradition, prudence is the regina virtutum (the queen of the virtues), that quality around which the other moral virtues cluster and find their order. This is because prudence is the power according to which the ethical life as such unfolds. Thomas Aquinas tells us that prudentia is a sort of vision, a governing insight in regard to those things that should be done and sought: recta ratio agibilium. As such it is distinguishable from artistic knowledge, which is right reason in regard to things to be made, and speculative reason, which is contemplative insight into truth for its own sake.

One of the marks of prudence is its orientation to particulars, to what Aquinas calls singularia, all of the elements, features, and contingencies that constitute a given moral situation. To be sure, a dimension of prudence is a firm grasp of the generalities by which the ethical life is governed, but its real distinguishing characteristic is a feel for the hic et nunc (here and now) of the moral playing field. This is not unlike the sense that an experienced quarterback has for the flow of the football game, the shifting configuration of the defense that opposes him, the opportunities that can suddenly present themselves in the middle of a play.

In the breakthrough of grace, this natural virtue is transformed, elevated into supernatural prudence, which is to say, a moral sensibility radically in service of the love of God. The ratio of the supernaturally prudent person is rectified, ordered, by the radical desire to be like God, to will the good of the other as other. This is why Augustine can define elevated prudence as amor bene discernens ea quibus adiuventur ad tendendum in Deum ab his quibus impediri potest (the love that well discriminates between those things which foster the tending toward God and those which can impede it). A feel for the expression of divine love in concrete situations is infused or supernaturalized prudence.

Thèrése’s Seemingly Imprudent Way Of Love
I will take St. Thèrése  of Lisieux as a model of this form of the moral life. What will become eminently clear in the sketch of her life that I offer is that many of her decisions and acts were anything but prudent in the accepted sense of the term. Thèrése ’s extravagant way of love will seem imprudent to the ordinary observer attuned to the finalities of the natural order. But hers is the virtue not of the “gentlewoman” but of the saint, and the very exaggerated quality of her ethical moves will help us to discern that difference.

Evaluating The Story of a Soul
Practically every commentator on Thèrése of Lisieux confesses to an initially negative reaction to The Story of a Soul, the saint’s wildly popular spiritual autobiography. Ida Friederike Gorres’s account of her first assessment of Thèrése ’s book is typical: “How small everything is. How painfully little. It is as though we must stoop to enter into a world where everything is made to a bird-like measure, where everything is sweet, pale and fragile, like the lace in which the saint’s mother dealt. What a shut-in faintly perfumed air seems to rise from it.”I must confess that when I first encountered The Story of a Soul in the context of a seminary course, I too found it off-putting, and my post-Freudian mind was only too eager to see in it ample evidence of neuroses and repressions.

But two phenomena tend to produce in even the most skeptical reader a desire to go back, to reconsider. First, some extremely sophisticated intellectuals have found Thèrése  compelling: Popes Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, and John Paul II, Thomas Merton, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Dorothy Day, and Edith Stein, to name but a few. My thesis director in Paris, Michel Corbin, commented one day on the French custom of referring to Teresa of Avila as la grande Thérèse and Thèrése  of Lisieux as la petite Thérèse, and he mused, “Mais je crois bien que c’est Thèrése  de Lisieux qui est vraiment la grande Thèrése .

Second, there is the practically unprecedented phenomenon of Thèrése’s postmortem popularity. Within a few years of her death, reports of favors and miracles granted through her intercession began to flood into the convent at Lisieux from all over the world. In The Story of a Soul, Therése had written that after her death she would send a pluie de roses (a shower of roses) on the earth, and this promise, it seemed was being fulfilled.

In 1925, just twenty-eight years after her death, a volume of three thousand closely printed pages reproducing excerpts from those letters was published, and that same year, supported by enormous popular acclaim, the nun who at her death was known to perhaps thirty people was canonized a saint and declared by the pope to be “the greatest saint of modern times.” There is clearly something here, something beyond bourgeois religious sentimentality and Freudian repressions..

The Noncompetitive Divine Reality Of Divine Love
Thèrése  tells us that she endeavored to write down her spiritual memoir at the prompting of her sister, who was also her religious superior to whom she was bound in obedience After praying that she say nothing displeasing to Christ, she took up the Gospel of Mark, and her eyes fell on these words “Jesus, having gone up the mountain, called to him those whom he chose, and they came to him “This verse, she says, is the interpretive key to her life, for it describes the way Christ has worked in her soul “he does not call those who are worthy, but those whom he pleases “

Hers will be a story of a divine love, graciously willing the good of the other that awakens an imitative reaction in the one who is loved. It is not a narrative of economic exchange — rewards for worthiness — but of the loop of grace, unmerited love engendering disinterested love, the divine life propagating itself in what is other

But there is more to it. She says that for a long time this purely gracious quality of the divine love bothered her, for it smacked of injustice how could we explain how God gives more to some and less to others, if all reference to merit is removed’ ‘What solved the problem for her was a comparison with the variety of flowers “I understood that if all the flowers wanted to be roses, nature would lose her springtime beauty, and the fields would no longer be decked with little wild flowers.” Aquinas said that God is an artist and his canvas the whole of creation and that the variety of created goods contributes to the beauty and complexity of the design that God is crafting. Thèrése will tell how, then, God the artist of creation worked in her case, cultivating one of his smaller flowers.

Then Thèrése uses a magnificent metaphor that shows that she grasped something about the divine-nondivine relationship that was also central to Aquinas “Just as the sun shines simultaneously on the tall cedars and on each little flower as though it were alone on the earth, so Our Lord is occupied particularly with each soul as though there were no others like it.”The noncompetitive divine reality, which does not become ingredient in the created world, is not “closer” to the greatest of his creatures than to the least and cannot be preoccupied with one at the expense of the other. Thus, Thèrése can honestly speak of herself, one of God’s smallest flowers, as though she were the privileged object of God’s affection and interest.

A Keen Sense Of Order
One notices in the pages of The Story of a Soul, amidst all of the girlish enthusiasms, a keen sense of order. Thèrése  tells us that her life can be neatly divided into three periods: from her birth until the age of four, when her mother passed away; from the age of four until the age of thirteen, when she had a powerful “conversion” experience; and from the age of thirteen until the present, her time in the Carmelite convent of Lisieux. It will be useful for us to follow this same division. Thèrése  was born on January 2, 1873, the youngest child of Louis Martin and Zelie Guérin, extremely pious and industrious members of the solid French middle class.

Her mother was quite a successful purveyor of the delicate laces for which her native region of Alencon was internationally known, and her father was a watchmaker and jeweler. Both had, in their youth, sought the religious life — he among the Augustinians and she with the Sisters of Charity — but both had finally opted for secular careers. They married in 1858, when Louis was thirty-five and Zelie twenty-seven, and for the first ten months of their marriage they lived as brother and sister, until, at the prompting of a spiritual director and at Zelie’s insistence, they commenced a sexual relationship. They eventually produced nine children, five of whom, all daughters, survived into adulthood. Though both parents were professionally tied to the world of fine things, they cultivated a home life that had an intensely religious, almost monastic flavor. Prayers, devotions, Mass, fasting, and abstinence according to the liturgical season were the structuring elements of their daily life.

By her own admission, Thèrése ’s childhood was idyllic. She was surrounded by an adoring family, all of whom doted on her. The youngest Martin’s cherubic looks and pleasant, pious disposition only intensified the affection of her parents and sisters. With her father — whom she referred to as le petit roi and to whom she was la petite reine –Thèrése  developed an especially intense rapport. Since he was nearly fifty when she was born, from Thérèse’s perspective Louis was always a venerable and rather delicate old man, and there is no question that her strong sense of the fatherly love of God — evident throughout The Story of a Soul — was mediated to her by the unconditional affection of her petit roi. Very early in her life, she had the intuition that she would become a religious. When someone told her that her sister Pauline was going to become a Carmelite, Thèrése  thought, “I too will become a religious.” This, she comments, “is one of my first memories and I haven’t changed my resolution since then.” It is certainly a mark of her elevated prudence that in regard to the religious life Thèrése  would remain adamant, steadfast, clear, unambiguously committed to her last day. That she was called by God to serve him radically was the principal light by which she steered.

A Moral Know-How Informed By Divine Love
Supernatural prudence is a moral know-how informed by divine love, and divine love is, by nature, inexhaustible, all-embracing, and relentless. We discern a sign that Thèrése  was in its grip in an anecdote from the opening section of her autobiography. “One day Léonie [one of her sisters] . . . came to us with a basket filled with dresses and pretty pieces for making others; her doll was resting on top. ‘Here my little sister, choose; I’m giving you all this.’ Céline stretched out her had and took a little ball of wool, which pleased her. After a moment’s reflection, I stretched out mine saying: ‘I choose all!”

She comments that, surprisingly enough, no one in her family saw anything wrong with this. She herself sees it as a summation of her entire life: “Later on, when perfection was set before me, I understood that to become a saint one had to suffer much, seek out always the perfect thing to do and forget self . . . Then as in the days of my childhood, I cried out: ‘My God, I choose all! I don’t want to be a saint by halves.”To govern one’s life in accordance with the divine love is to be not moderate but necessarily excessive. Indeed, in the Christian moral tradition, charity is seen as the one virtue whose practice cannot be exaggerated, for it partakes most directly of the infinity of God’s to-be. In The Everlasting Man, G. K. Chesterton notices that the great Christian saints are marked always by a quality of excess: “Francis of Assisi was a more shouting optimist than Walt Whitman…and St. Jerome, in denouncing all evil, could paint the world blacker than Schopenhauer.”Whatever form the saintly life takes, it can never be a halfway proposition, and it belongs to the heart of supernatural prudence to grasp this.

The End Of Childhood
The idyll of her childhood came to an end with the death of her mother in 1877, when Thèrése  was only four. One of the soberest passages in The Stoiy of a Soul is Thèrése’s account of her mother’s reception of extreme unction. What she finds most remarkable was how unmoved she herself was, how emotionally distant from the scene, though her mother was everything to her. This repression signaled the commencement of what she terms “the most painful” of the three stages of her life. In the months following her mother’s passing, Therése became “retiring and sensitive to an excessive degree,” scrupulous and self-regarding. She also began to develop a keen sense of the ephemerality of this world and a consequent longing for the permanence of heaven. While listening to sermons on Sunday mornings, Therése would gaze at her father’s “handsome face” and take in his otherworldly air: “he seemed no longer held by earth, so much did his soul love to lose itself in the eternal truths.”Her spiritual feelings — both melancholy and blissful — came to full expression on Sunday, the beautiful sabbath day that seemed to pass far too quickly: “I longed for the everlasting repose of heaven, that never-ending Sunday of the Fatherland.”° This deepening of perception and sentiment, occasioned by the loss of her mother, would in time become essential to Thèrése ’s mature religious prudence, but more immediately it would trigger terrible storms in her emotional life.

During this period, she experienced the terrifying vision that would haunt her and her family and that would later beguile innumerable biographers and commentators. While her father was away on a business trip, Thèrése  was looking out her bedroom window on a particularly lovely day. To her surprise, she saw a man dressed like her father and of about his physical proportions, though far more stooped than M. Martin. She then noticed that his face was covered with something like an apron. Convinced that her father was home early from his trip and endeavoring to play a trick on her, she cried out to him, but the figure ignored her and continued to walk around the garden at a steady pace. He went toward a grove of trees, and Thèrése eagerly waited for him to emerge on the other side, but he had disappeared: “the prophetic vision had vanished.”

Only many years later did the meaning of the scene became clear to Therése. In his old age, after four of his five daughters had entered religious life, M. Martin became psychologically imbalanced. He would sometimes speak incoherently and, to the horror of his children, would occasionally wander off to distant towns, leaving no indication as to his whereabouts. During these last sad years of his life, M. Martin would also, curiously, be known to cover his face with a cloth. His youngest daughter thus interpreted the vision as a sort of proleptic sign of her father’s future suffering, and she furthermore linked it to the passion of Jesus: “just as the adorable Face of Jesus was veiled during his passion, so the face of His faithful servant had to be veiled in the days of his sufferings in order that it might shine in the heavenly Fatherland.”Now was all of this in fact a prophetic perception or simply a hallucination born of a young girl’s anxiety and sense of loss? Perhaps it was both, for nothing prevents God from Using a psychological disturbance to communicate some spiritual truth, but what matters is that Thèrése  perceived the tight connection between the painfully self-emptying love of her father and the paradigmatically self-emptying love of Christ and that she used that link to bolster her sense of God’s intimate providence in her life.

The Saddest Years Of Her Life
Her unsettled psyche would become even more shaken during what she termed “the saddest years” of her life, the five years spent at the Abbey school in Lisieux, the village to which the Martins had moved after Zélie’s death. Academically gifted but socially inept, Thèrése  had to endure the taunts and practical jokes of her relatively crude classmates. The incessant persecution she underwent helps to explain the insensitivity, even arrogance, of this remark: “It seemed hard to see myself among flowers of all kinds with roots frequently indelicate; and I had to find in the common soil the food necessary for sustenance.” She hated the rough games that the other children played, but she found one friend with a quiet soul like her own, and with her she engaged in the unlikely “game” of hermit, in which each child would pretend to be a desert monk and outdo the other in silence and self-denial! One does not have to be an expert in child psychology to know that such behavior was bound to make her unpopular with her peers, and Thèrése  internalized their critique, seeing herself for the first time in her life as something of a failure, “counted, weighed and found wanting.”

The full effects of her mother’s death would appear when her eldest sister, Pauline — whom Thérese had claimed as a substitute mother — decided to enter the Carmelite convent. This second maternal loss proved to be too much, and not long after Pauline enter the Carmel, Thèrése  fell victim to a frightening and mysterious malady, which she describes vividly in her autobiography. Toward the close of 1882, she began to experience severe headaches, but not so debilitating as to keep her from school. Around Easter of 1883, M. Martin went on a business trip with his older daughters, and Thèrése  stayed at home with her late mother’s brother.

While they were talking about her mother, Thèrése  began to cry so violently that her uncle became alarmed. Surprised that the emotional wound was still so tender, the uncle tried to divert her by talking about plans for an upcoming holiday, but it was too late. The fit of crying was succeeded by another round of severe headaches and then an attack of shivering, like fever chills. This physical assault went on the entire night. When her father returned, he found Thèrése  surexcité, overstimulated, but he was convinced that she would soon enough be back to normal. In March, she felt well enough to attend the veil-taking of her sister Pauline, but the next morning, she fell again into a state so alarming that her family seriously feared that she had lost her reason. Here is Gorres’s description: “The child screamed and shrieked in extreme fear, contorted her face, rolled her eyes, saw monsters and nightmarish figures everywhere, sometimes failed to recognize members of the family, was shaken by convulsions, twisted her limbs, tried to throw herself out of bed and had to be forcibly restrained.”

In a passage not included in the original published version of Story of a Soul, Thèrése  remarked of her state of mind during this illness: “I was absolutely terrified by everything: my bed seemed to be surrounded by frightful precipices; some nails in the wall of the room took on the appearance of big charred fingers, making me cry out in fear. One day, while Papa was looking at me in silence, the hat in his hand was suddenly transformed into some indescribably dreadful shape, and I showed such great fear that poor Papa left the room, sobbing.”

Given these symptoms, it is not surprising that Thèrése  herself would conclude, “I can’t describe this strange sickness, but I’m now convinced it was the work of the devil.”Once again, it is easy enough to speculate that this was a psychotic episode prompted by a personal loss to a pampered and narcissistic child, but what matters is not so much the etiology of the struggle as Thèrése ’s reaction to and assessment of it. God operates through secondary causes, and these can include emotional and psychological disturbances. She came in time to appreciate her illness (see Learning To Dwell In This Desert)  as “a real martyrdom” for her soul, a testing, a trial, a cleansing, a putting to death. What was being purged in her? Perhaps it was precisely the narcissism, fussy self-absorption, and spiritual athleticism that had been inculcated in her by her family. Perhaps it was the childish overreliance on the approval of her peers and the need to be the center of attention.

Unmerited Love, A Manifestation Of Grace
In any case, what saved her was a manifestation of grace, of unmerited love. On Pentecost Sunday, May 13, 1883, Thèrése  was, as usual, in bed, unable to function. ‘While she muttered to herself her sister Marie knelt by her bed and prayed to a statue of the Blessed Mother that stood on the table nearby. Thèrése  joined her in prayer, and “all of a sudden, the Blessed Virgin appeared beautiful to me, so beautiful that never had I seen anything so attractive; her face was suffused with an ineffable benevolence and tenderness, but what penetrated to the very depths of my soul was the ravishing smile of the Virgin.”At that moment, she tells us, all of her pain — physical and emotional –disappeared, and two tears of “unmixed joy” rolled down her face.

Was this a miracle or a hallucination, a supernatural phenomenon or a wish-fulfilling fantasy? Again, though we could debate those questions endlessly, they are perhaps not the central questions. What matters is that Thèrése  took it to be a grace, a sign that she was loved by God despite her debility, and this realization rescued her from her fears. A person cannot live the divine life until he drops all her strategies of self-justification and allows himself to be drawn into the loop of grace. Supernatural prudence — concrete know-how in the arena of love — is impossible without this breakthrough. And this is why the smile of the Virgin is such a key moment in the spiritual development of St. Thèrése .

This sense of immersion in grace was intensified at Thèrése ’s First Communion the following spring. Introducing one of the most rapturous passages in The Story of a Soul, she tell us that “the smallest details of that heavenly day have left unspeakable memories in my soul.”At the heart of the experience was the feeling of being unconditionally loved by the divine reality. Regarding reception of the body of Christ for the first time, Thèrése exclaims, “Ah! How sweet was that first kiss of Jesus! It was a kiss of love; I felt that I was loved, and I said: ‘I love you and I give myself to you forever!” Then the nature of that love is made plain: “There were no demands made, no struggles, no sacrifices; for a long time now Jesus and poor little Thèrése  looked at and understood each other. That day, it was no longer simply a look, it was a fusion; they were no longer two, Thèrése  had vanished as a drop of water is lost in the immensity of the ocean.

The Dynamics Of The Divine Life
When one enters into the dynamics of the divine life, all games of calculation, payment and return of payment, and economic considerations are necessarily set aside. The love that one receives awakens an answering love, but it is not a matter of strict justice, as though something were owed; it is rather a joyful participation, a desire to imitate what one loves. This is why the nonviolent language of “looking at” — found, by the way, in the Curé of Ars, Jacques Maritain, and a number of other spiritual writers — is so important. What this mutual regard effects is the coinherence that I have spoken of throughout the book, the radical one-in-the-otherness that Thèrése  so evocatively refers to as “fusion.”

Suffering
Then comes the typically Christian consequence, the embrace of the cross: “The day after my Communion…I felt born within my heart a great desire to suffer and at the same time the interior assurance that Jesus reserved a great number of crosses for me… Suffering became my attraction.”This has nothing to do with masochism and everything to do with coinherence. When we are connected to the divine life made available in Jesus, we become enamored of the cross, the instrument by which he effected a coinherence with the sinful human race, bearing and carrying away its sinfulness. We want to suffer, not because suffering is desirable in itself but because it is what he chose to endure out of love. Now we can understand that when Thèrése spoke earlier of the encounter with God in love that involved no “sacrifice,” she did not mean that friendship with God is painless, cheap grace. Rather, it is a love — free of the complications and distortions of economic exchange — that makes one want to suffer on behalf of the other that makes suffering, in this sense, attractive.

Thèrése concludes her reflection on First Communion thus: “Up until this time, I had suffered without loving suffering, but since this day I felt a real love for it.”As a child, she had “offered things up” to God and had endured trials and accepted mortifications, but these were all part of a game of the ego, a calculated attempt to win the approval of her family and of God. They were the strategies of the prodigal son’s elder brother. But the “fusion” that took place at her First Communion burned those childish attitudes away.

Thèrése’s Conversion: The Infusion of Charity
But there was yet another decisive step in what Thèrése calls her “conversion.” Like almost all the other events of her life, it was small, private, nothing to which a biographer would ordinarily call attention. But with her exquisite sensitivity to the subtle ways that grace insinuates itself into nature, she read it, quite properly, as spiritually momentous. It took place, appropriately enough, on Christmas Day, the memorial of the time when nature and grace met most definitively and dramatically.

Thèrése tells us that prior to this event, she found herself in an ambiguous spiritual condition. On the one hand, the grace of her First Communion — the desire to suffer in love only because she was loved by God — was clearly operative; but on the other hand, she still felt the tug of her childish preoccupation with being praised and petted. She would typically perform simple acts of kindness for the benefit of her sister, but “if Celine was unfortunate enough not to seem happy or surprised because of these little services, I became unhappy and proved it by my tears.” What would enable her to love purely and simply, with the charity characteristic of the Trinity? “God would have to work a little miracle to make me grow up in an instant, and this miracle he performed on that unforgettable Christmas day.”As we’ve seen, the theological virtues — which elevate all of the natural virtues — cannot be merited or attained through repetition or habituation; instead they must, as Thèrése  rightly perceives, be received as gifts, “little miracles.”

The Martins had returned from Midnight Mass, and Thèrése , as was her wont, hurried to look at her shoes, which, in accord with a family Christmas tradition, would be filled with little presents. She tells us that. her father used to take particular delight in hearing his youngest daughter’s I cries of happiness as she “drew each surprise from the magic shoes.” But this time her father seemed annoyed at the ritual, and while Thèrése  was making her way upstairs and presumably out of earshot, he muttered to no one in particular, “Well, fortunately this will be the last year!”

Both Thèrése  and Celine heard the remark, and Céline, exquisitely sensitive to her sister’s feelings, said, “Oh, don’t go downstairs; it would cause you too much grief to look at your slippers right now!”

It was one of those quiet but decisive moments in a young person’s psychological development, when an illusion is shattered and a veil is pulled back, when reality breaks through a carapace of self-protection and self-delusion. The petit roi was not a flawless saint, and the petite reine was not the center of the universe. One would suspect that this cross remark of her father might have precipitated in Thérese another breakdown, comparable to the one that followed Pauline’s entry into Carmel, or at the very least a flood of self-pitying tears:

 “But Thèrése was no longer the same; Jesus had changed her heart!” Suppressing her tears, she went rapidly back down the stairs, placed the shoes directly in front of her father, and with unfeigned enthusiasm took each item out and rejoiced over it. So contagious was her happiness that M. Martin regained his customary good cheer and commenced laughing along with his daughter.

When faced with the temptation to self-regard, she resolved to love, to will not her own good but the good of her father. And this reversal came not through habituation or moral achievement but as a sheer grace. Like the apostles in the Gospel story, she had fished all night and caught nothing but then Jesus took the net himself and cast it into the sea. “I felt charity enter into my soul, and the need to forget myself and to please others; since then I’ve been happy!” I cannot think of a more succinct summary of the Christian way: the divine life, which can come only as a gift, changes us in such a way that we want to live for the other, and this conversion produces joy. Everything else in Christian ethics and dogmatics is commentary.

Prudence Transformed
With the infusion of charity comes, as we have seen, the transformation of the natural virtues. In Thèrése’s case, prudence was especially transfigured and rendered prominent, so that she became adept at discerning the demand of love in the particular situation. We see this discernment immediately operative in Thèrése’s desire to save sinners, to thirst for them with the intensity of Jesus himself “I wanted to give my Beloved to drink and I felt myself consumed with a thirst for souls… I burned with a desire to snatch them from the eternal flames.”Not long after her Christmas conversion, she heard of the notorious case of Henri Pranzini, a man convicted of multiple grisly murders and awaiting his execution in what appeared to be an attitude of complete impenitence. She made his conversion her special project; he became “her sinner.”

After offering innumerable prayers, arranging for Masses, and drawing others into her circle of concern, she asked God for some sign that Pranzini had been brought to penitence. The morning after the execution, a copy of the newspaper La Croix came into her hands, and she read with astonishment that just before putting his head in the guillotine, Pranzini had “taken hold of the crucifix the priest was holding out to him and kissed the sacred wounds three times.” The ruthless killer had become Thèrése’s “first child” in the: order of grace. Her elevated prudence had told her what to do, even in what appeared to be a hopeless situation.

She also, very quickly, knew precisely what to do with the rest of her life. The desire for Carmel, which had been present to some degree ever since she was a small child, now became a burning conviction, a “divine call so strong that had I been forced to pass through flames, I would have done it out of love for Jesus.” She felt, she tells us, the support of her mother from heaven, and Celine was, as usual, her great advocate, but she was afraid to tell her father of her vocation. She was, after all, barely fifteen. She broke the news to him on Pentecost Sunday 1887; after some hesitation, he became convinced that her desire was from God, and he accordingly gave his permission.

In the months that followed, Thèrése  met obstacle after obstacle as key figures, both in her own family and in the church, expressed deep concern about the advisability of allowing a girl so young to make such a weighty decision. The section of The Story of a Soul in which this period of her life is narrated is actually quite funny, for we hear how this pampered and inexperienced teenager met with high ecclesiastics and bishops and, through a combination of intelligence, charm, stubbornness, and sheer moxie managed to outstare them and wear them down. When the bishop of Bayeux refused to circumvent the usual procedures and allow her to enter Carmel early, Thèrése  resolved to bring her case to the highest court, to the pope himself.

With her father and sister she joined a group of ultramontane French pilgrims on an Italian journey that was far more sightseeing expedition than pilgrimage. Thèrése  was both fascinated and disgusted by the worldly ways of these purportedly religious people, and she, with her exaggerated pieties, was undoubtedly a source of amusement to them. They arrived, finally, in Rome, and on November 20, 1887, after donning the traditional garb, Thèrése  had her papal audience. All of the pilgrims had been carefully instructed not to address the pope, but Thèrése  ignored this instruction. Kneeling before Leo XIII, she blurted out, “Most Holy Father, I have a great favor to ask you. Holy Father, in honor of your jubilee, permit me to enter Carmel at the age of fifteen!”

When apprised of her situation, the pope responded, “Well, my child, do what the Superiors tell you.”

But Thèrése  persisted: “Oh! Holy Father, if you say yes, everybody will agree”

Looking at her intently, he said, “Go…go . You will enter if God wills it.” At that point, still begging and weeping, she was carried off bodily by two papal guards.

It probably would have appeared to any neutral observer that with this bizarre performance Thèrése had spoiled any chance she might have had to enter Carmel early. Nevertheless, just a month later, the bishop of Bayeux granted permission for her to enter the cloister after Lent. We will never be able to say with certainty precisely what it was that convinced the various ecclesiastics to give in, but the sheer persistence and singleness of purpose so plainly evident in Thèrése must have been decisive factors.

So amidst much rejoicing and in the presence of the bishop, who kept calling her “his little girl,” Thèrése was formally received at the Lisieux Carmel on April 9, 1888. For the remaining nine years of her short life, she would remain cloistered within the walls of this small Carmelite world and in the company of twenty or so sisters. But in this very restricted environment she would develop the distinctive spiritual path for which she became famous, the “little way,” which I will read as the fruit of elevated prudence.

Thèrése’s Spiritual Doctrine
The best introduction to Thèrése ’s spiritual doctrine is a text that she wrote at the behest of Sr. Marie of the Sacred Heart, a sort of memoir of the retreat that she made in September 11896, just a year before her death. What she offers is a “science of love,” a way of knowing and acting that is utterly conditioned by the love that Jesus has placed in her heart “Jesus deigned to show me the road that leads to this Divine Furnace, and this road is the surrender of the little child who sleeps without fear in its Father’s arms.”

Two Old Testament sources are particularly important for her: Proverbs 9, which includes “Whoever is a little one, let him come to me” (see v. 4); and Isaiah 40, where we find “[God] will feed his flock like a shepherd; he will gather the lambs in his arms, and carry them in his bosom” (v. 11). God, Thèrése concluded, is pleased to work with those who have become utterly docile to his direction, who have acknowledged their total dependence upon him, their readiness to receive gifts. As we have seen already in her account of her First Communion, any sense that God’s love must be earned or that a relationship with him is a product of economic calculation is repugnant to a healthy spirituality: “Jesus does not demand great actions from us but simply surrender and gratitude.” Hans Urs von Balthasar comments that “her battle is to wipe out the hardcore of Pharisaism that persists in the midst of Christianity; that human will-to-power. . . that drives one to assert one’s own greatness instead of acknowledging that God alone is great.”

When this attitude is in place, anything and everything is possible: Gloria Dei homo vivens. Thèrése writes that she had always longed to be a spouse of Christ, a good Carmelite, and a mother of souls, but that during her retreat she had begun to cultivate a desire for more: “And yet I feel within me other vocations. I feel the vocation of the warrior, the priest, the apostle, the doctor, the martyr. Finally, I feel the need and the desire of carrying out the most heroic deeds for You, O Jesus.” We notice that these mighty deeds and heroic vocations follow from the divine love and are not the condition for it. Filled with Jesus’ love, Thèrése would know what to do in these various roles. If she were a priest, “With what love, O Jesus, I would carry you in my hands when, at my voice, you would come down from heaven”; if she were a martyr, “I would be scourged and crucified. I would die flayed like St. Bartholomew. I would be plunged into boiling oil like St. John; I would undergo all the tortures inflicted on the martyrs.”

Her Insight Into Love
But she is acutely aware, at the same time, that she is a very “little soul,” confined to the narrow space of the Lisieux Carmel, and thus can never realize such lofty ambitions. The tension between the intensity of her desires and the truth of her situation becomes terrible: “Is there a soul more little, more powerless than mine? Nevertheless even because of my weakness, it has pleased you, O Lord, to grant my little childish desires and you desire, today, to grant other desires that are greater than the universe”Like the prodigal son kneeling humbly at his father’s feet, Thèrése  intuits that her smallness is the condition for the possibility of her being filled, but it is not at all clear to her how this will happen.

During her retreat, she turned to the epistles of Paul to find a resolution of the tension. In 1 Corinthians, she read that not all can be apostles,, prophets, doctors, and so on, but this did not satisfy her, for the desire that she felt was precisely to be all these things and more But then she read to the end of the twelfth chapter of 1 Corinthians and found this passage “Yet strive after the better gifts and I will show you a still more excellent way” What follows in chapter 13, of course, is Paul’s hymn to, love, wherein it becomes clear that love is the form of every other virtue and accomplishment within the life of grace “If I have faith to move the mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own but have not love, I gain nothing “Thèrése  intuited that love is the energy that makes possible the preaching of the apostles, the endurance of the martyrs, the teaching of the doctors, the spiritual ascent of the mystic, and thus that it is love that she is secretly seeking when she, desires to fulfill all of those roles “Then, in the excess of my delirious joy, I cried out O Jesus, my Love, my vocation at last I have found it my vocation is loveShe concluded that in the heart of the church she would be love — and the heart of the church could be as small as the Carmel at Lisieux.

Now she was in possession of a sure guide, a principle of spiritual measurement “It (the insight into love) was rather the calm and serene peace of the navigator perceiving the beacon which must lead him to the port: O luminous Beacon of love, I know how to reach you, I have found the secret of possessing your flame”She had become a person of supernatural prudence, for she knew how to order all the moves of her life in the light of the highest possible good, the inner dynamics of the divine life The breakthroughs that had occurred at her First Communion and on Christmas Day 1886 had now been fully appropriated “the smallest act of pure love is of more value than all other works together.”This means that she can be pleasing to God and valuable to the church in the humblest places and through the simplest acts.

Acting On A Supernatural Prudence
This supernatural prudence — acquired through grace — gave Thèrése supreme confidence. Even when dealing with priests, the dignity of whose office she clearly recognized, Thèrése easily and naturally assumed the role of spiritual director. When others spoke of their spiritual guides, she could unabashedly say, “My spiritual director, Jesus, teaches…“ And supernatural prudence enabled her to live, even in narrow Carmelite confines, a life of heroic sanctity. All she had to do was to discern the path of love in whatever situation she found herself — and follow it.

A number of vividly related narratives in Story of a Soul exemplify this little path. Again, we will miss the point of these stories if we concentrate on the externals — which seem so homey and unimportant — and miss the quality of love that informs them. Thèrése tells us that there was a nun in the convent with whom she had what we would call a serious personality conflict; in her own words, “someone who managed to irritate me in everything she did.” Knowing that love is not a matter of feeling but of works born of the will, she resolved to do for that sister what she would do for the person she loved the most. Thus, “each time I met her I prayed to God for her … and I took care to render her all the services possible, and when I was tempted to answer her back in a disagreeable manner, I was content with giving her my most friendly smile.”

So convincing was her manner that one day, during recreation, the troublesome nun asked her, “Would you tell me, Sister Thèrése of the Child Jesus, what attracts you so much towards me; everytime you look at me, I see you smile?” Thèrése’s public response to the other nun was “I am happy to see you,” but her private response, shared with her readers, was “Ah! ‘What attracted me was Jesus hidden in the depths of her soul.”As we have seen many times throughout this book, rootedness in the divine love connects us to everything else and everyone else in creation; to realize one’s deepest ontological ground is to realize simultaneously a coinherence with even the most difficult or repugnant fellow creature. To act out of this awareness is to follow the little way.

During her novitiate, Thèrése  was given the assignment of taking care of Sr. St. Pierre, a fussy and demanding elderly woman, “not easy to please.” The younger sister’s task was to escort the infirm sister from her stall at evening prayer to the refectory and then to help her prepare to eat. Here is Thèrése ’s humorous and psychologically penetrating account of her dealings with this difficult colleague: “I had to remove and carry her little bench in a certain way, above all I was not to hurry…It was a question of following the poor invalid by holding her cincture; I did this with as much gentleness as possible. But if…she took a false step, immediately it appeared to her that I was holding her incorrectly.” Then the old nun would protest: “Ah! My God! You are going too fast; I’m going to break something.” When Therese would slow down, Sr. St. Pierre would say “Well, come on, I don’t feel your hand; I’m going to fall” Adding insult to injury, she would then mutter “Ah! I was right when I said you were too young to help me.

When they would arrive at the refectory, further difficulties arose. Therese had to get Sr. St. Pierre seated, but this had to be done skillfully “in order not to hurt her”; then she had to turn back the elderly nun’s sleeves, again just so, lest the old lady be upset.

Night after night this ritual was repeated, and each time Therese resolved to conquer her feelings of annoyance and act in accord with the dictates of love. One winter night, in the midst of her routine, she indulged in a bit of fantasy: “I pictured a well-lighted drawing room, brilliantly gilded, filled with elegantly dressed young ladies conversing together and conferring upon each other all sorts of compliments and other worldly remarks.” Then she surveyed her own surroundings, and all she took in were the drab colors of the cloistei the complaints of Sr. St. Pierre, the dimness and cold of the refectory. Her conclusion: “I would not have exchanged the ten minutes employed in carrying out my humble office of charity to enjoy a thousand years of worldly feasts.”The faculty that enabled Therese to make that extraordinary and counterintuitive assessment is supernatural prudence, a feel for the path of love.

A Dark Passage
I mentioned at the outset of this sketch that many readers of Story of a Soul are initially put off by Therese’s cloying and sentimental style. However even the most skeptical of her readers are usually converted by the account of her terrible struggle, at the end of her life, with unbelief. There is nothing childish or naive about this part of her story. Practically contemporaneous with the onset of the tuberculosis that would eventually kill her was the arrival in Therese’s mind of the worst sort of doubts concerning the existence of heaven. She who had, throughout her life, enjoyed the easiest confidence in the spiritual realm now wondered, Hamlet-like, whether there was anything that followed the sleep of death. And this was no passing bout of intellectual scrupulosity; rather it lasted up until the moment of her death. In The Story of a Soul, she states the facts with a bluntness bordering on desperation: “This trial was to last not a few days or a few weeks, it was not be extinguished until the hour set by God Himself and the hour has not yet come.” What is most important to note is the highly paradoxical way in which Therese interprets this struggle. She reads it as participation, granted to her by God, in the pain experienced by her contemporaries who do not believe in God: “During those very joyful days of the Easter season, Jesus made me feel that there were really souls who have no faith and who, through the abuse of grace, lost this precious treasure, the source of the only real and pure joys. He permitted my soul to be invaded by the thickest darkness.”

On the cross, Jesus cried out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Chesterton interpreted this as “the moment when God became an atheist,” that is to say, when God entered so fully into the state of those abandoned by God that he felt their agony. There is something very similar in Therese’s spiritual hermeneutic. Her wrestling with the possibility of atheism or agnosticism was not dumb suffering; rather, it was a gift given to her by God in order to facilitate her entry in love into the state of sinners. It was darkness to be sure, but a darkness that made possible a fuller coinherence. Strangely enough, even when she was “underground” in the murkiness of disbelief her elevated prudence remained a sure guide. This is why Balthasar has it quite right when he maintains that her doubts — though real and painful — were not so much agnosticism as a participation mystique in the psychological and spiritual state of the modern unbeliever. It was her supernatural prudence that allowed her to turn even this dark passage in her life into a way of coinherence.

A Last Step On The Little Way Of Elevated Prudence
On April 3, Good Friday morning, 1896, Therèse coughed up blood, the harbinger of tuberculosis. Though she appeared to be in fairly good health that summer and fall, the disease was progressing. By the spring of 1897, she was gravely ill and had to be relocated to the infirmary of the Carmel. Doctors who came to see her determined that the tuberculosis was widespread and that her illness was terminal.

During these last months of her life, Thérèse engaged in a series of extraordinary conversations with her sisters, wherein she continued to explicate her spiritual doctrine, in the midst of enormous struggles both physical and psychological. Sometimes she became exasperated with their fussing over her but generally she remained kind and responsive during this terrible time. She was convinced that her final illness was a gift from Jesus, a final opportunity to love, the last step on the little way of elevated prudence.

h1

The Wedding At Cana: A Picture Of The Divine Gatherer At Work

October 15, 2009
Jacopo Robusti Tintoretto - The Wedding at Cana

Jacopo Robusti Tintoretto - The Wedding at Cana

This is a selection from Fr. Barron’s The Priority of Christ:

The Gathering
The English word sin is derived from the German term Sunde, which carries the connotation of sundering or dividing. The Greek word diabalos, from which various terms for the evil one derive — diablo, diable, devil, Teufel — means basically “scatterer.” In the book of Genesis, the original sin — incited by the serpent — amounts to a sundering of the human relationship to God (expulsion from the Garden) and a radical division and scapegoating among creatures. When Adam is challenged by God, he responds, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate,” and when the woman is confronted, she passes the buck to nature: “The serpent tricked me, and I ate” (Genesis 3:11-13). Over-and-againstness, separation, suspicion, mutual hatred, blaming — all are signs that the scattering power of sin is let loose.

In the course of the Old Testament, the twelve tribes of Israel — gathered together as one people through the power of God’s covenant — are periodically separated, divided, carried into exile because of their infidelity to that covenant. The hope for a united Israel, for a return of the exiled tribes, is expressed in the Prophets and in Psalms: “Jerusalem — built as a city that is bound firmly together. To it the tribes go up” (Psalms 122: 3-4), “the joy of all the earth, Mount Zion, in the far north, the city of the great King” (Psalms 48:2). A large part of the mystique of King David was that he had united the disparate people of Israel and had governed them from the central capital city, Jerusalem. And despite his numerous failings, David’s son Solomon enjoyed great renown, first because he had built the temple in Jerusalem, which had become a physical and spiritual focal point for the nation, and second because his reputation had drawn to the capital potentates from around the world, most famously the Queen of the South. In this he had embodied Israel’s mission to be a light to the nations, the true pole of the earth, the gathering point of the world.

When a Jewish prophet of the first century announced that the reign of God is at hand, N. T. Wright has argued, he would be taken to mean something very specific: that the scattering of the tribes of Israel (in both a literal and a spiritual sense) was over and that Yahweh was coming to reign in Jerusalem, this reconfiguration inaugurating the illumination and salvation of the entire world.  In other words, he would be interpreted as saying that the dream of Israel — realized only fitfully and inadequately throughout its history — was now coming definitively true. So when Jesus of Nazareth said, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news” (Mark 1:15), he was not calling attention to general, timeless spiritual truths, nor was he urging people to make a decision for God; he was telling his hearers that Yahweh was actively gathering the people of Israel and, indirectly, all people into a new salvific order, and he was insisting that his hearers conform themselves to this new state of affairs. In this gathering, he was implying, the forgiveness of sins — the overcoming of sundering and division — would be realized. In a word, the proclamation of the kingdom was tantamount to an announcement that the Gatherer of Israel had arrived and had commenced his work. What is most remarkable about Jesus, according to Wright, is that he not only indicated this fact but embodied it and acted it out, taking, in his words and gestures, the very role of the Gatherer. Origen said substantially the same thing when he described Jesus as autobasileia, the kingdom in person.

The Wedding at Cana
The first narrative that I will consider under the rubric of the Gathering is the Johannine account of the wedding feast at Cana. Throughout the Old Testament, the motif of the wedding is used to symbolize the marriage of God and his people as well as the good cheer that obtains when human beings come together in love. It is accordingly a particularly apt expression of the overcoming of the sundering of sin. Thus it is no accident that in the context of John’s Gospel, Jesus’s first public “sign” takes place at a wedding feast, for he himself is the marriage of divinity and humanity. The narrative begins with an elegant Johannine code: “On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee . . .“ (John 2:11). Throughout the Gospel, te hemera te trite (on the third day) is the expression for the day of Jesus’s resurrection from the dead. More to the point, this marriage feast takes place in Cana of Galilee, and Galilee, in the symbolic system of John, is the country of resurrection, that place where Jesus would meet his friends after Easter. Therefore, this story must be read through the lens of the resurrection, which is to say, the act by which God in an unprecedented and unsurpassable way gathered humanity to himself and inaugurated the process of the universal gathering (“Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died,” 1 Corinthians 15:20). The wedding feast of Cana and the wedding feast of the resurrection will stand in one another’s hermeneutical light.

We hear that the disciples of Jesus — presumably at this point Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip, Nathanael, and the disciple whom Jesus loved — were invited to the wedding along with the Lord himself and his mother. The presence of both the mathetai and the mother are key. In calling disciples to himself, Jesus had already inaugurated the gathering of his people (eventually the Twelve will be seen as evocative of the twelve tribes of Israel), and so their presence signals the novelty and future purpose of Jesus’s ministry. Mary is a rich and multivalent symbolic figure in all of the Gospels. In Luke’s infancy narrative, she emerges as the spokesperson for ancient Israel, speaking, in her Magnificat, in the words and cadences of Hannah; and as the recipient of an angelic announcement of a miraculous birth, she calls to mind not only Hannah but also Sarah and the mother of Samson as well.

In Matthew’s Christmas account, she is compelled to go into exile in Egypt and is then called back to her home, recapitulating thereby the journey of Israel from slavery to freedom. She is thus the symbolic embodiment of faithful and patient Israel, longing for deliverance. In John’s Gospel, she is, above all, mother — the physical mother of Jesus and, through him, the mother of all who would come to new life in him. As mother of the Lord, she is, once again, Israel, that entire series of events and system of ideas from which Jesus emerged and in terms of which he alone becomes intelligible.

Hans Urs von Balthasar comments in the same vein that Mary effectively awakened the messianic consciousness of Jesus through her recounting of the story of Israel to her son. So in the Cana narrative, Mary will speak the pain and the hope of the chosen people, scattered and longing for union.

We hear that in the course of the wedding celebration “the wine gave out” (John 2:3). In an era when such parties lasted upward of several days, this was not a minor difficulty. With the wine depleted, the spirit of conviviality would dissipate, the celebration would wind down quickly, and the hosts, as well as the bride and groom, would be profoundly em barrassed. Noticing the difficulty, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine” (John 2:3).

Let us press ahead with a symbolic reading of this iconic episode. Wine — that which changes, uplifts, and enlivens the consciousness, that which produces good feeling and good fellowship — evokes the Spirit of God, the divine life. When we are linked to that infinite source, when we partake freely of it, we are brought to personal joy and a deep sense of community connection. It is the elixir that makes of human life a communal celebration; it is the condition for the possibility of the gathering. To be in sin is nothing other than to be sundered from that source and hence to fall into a depression of the spirit, a listlessness and loneliness.

When Mary quietly suggests to Jesus that the wedding party has run out of wine, she is ancient Israel speaking to its God, reminding him that the people have run out of joy, purpose, and connection to one another, that they have become dry bones with no life. She is taking up the lament of so many of the Hebrew prophets and sages: “How long, O Lord?”

What follows is the most puzzling part of the story, Jesus’s seemingly cold distancing of himself from this reasonable request of his mother:

“Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come” (John 2:4). First, his addressing her as “woman” should not be construed as a mark of disrespect; rather, it should be interpreted as a densely textured symbolic act. Eve, in the Old Testament context, is the woman par excellence; Mary is presented here as the new Eve, the new representative of the human race, with whom God is seeking union.

As is fitting in this Cana setting, the theme of human bride and divine bridegroom is being hinted at. But if she is the Woman with whom God seeks union, why the aloof and off-putting words? The best explanation, in my judgment, is that this is a narrative device that serves to highlight the importance of Jesus’s “hour” and shows the relation between what he does at Cana and what will transpire in that hour. Like “the third day,” “hour” is code for the Paschal Mystery, Jesus’s passage through death to life. In that event, God will effect the perfect marriage between himself and the human race, for he will enter into the most intimate union with us, embracing even death itself and leading us into the bridal chamber of the divine life. Thus, the exchange with Mary brings to our attention the ultimate purpose and correct symbolic setting for the action that Jesus will perform for the humble bride and groom of Cana.

Unfazed by her son’s response, Mary says to the diakonoi (the table servers), “Do whatever he tells you” (John 2:5). Once again, this is Israel who is speaking. The rupture between God and humanity is irreparable from the human side and through human effort. The dysfunction into which men and women have fallen is like an addiction or an obsession: any attempt on their part to overcome the difficulty will onlv sink them deeper into it. Therefore the proper attitude in the presence of the saving God is obedience and acquiescence, imitating his moves, responding to his commands, doing whatever he tells us.

We come to the heart of the matter as Jesus commences his work of transformation. “Now standing there were six stone water jars for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons” (John 2:6). These huge containers, used in connection with the religious life of the people, are empty, and this calls to mind the tiredness and uselessness of a religiosity unconnected to the divine Spirit. In this regard, these jars play the same symbolic role as the priest and Levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan. But they are, we might say, eloquently empty, for they represent the potential for life: in relation to God, human religiosity; indeed human being, is a passive receptacle, something waiting to be filled.

Jesus now does two things — one visible and one invisible — and we must attend carefully to both. He first tells the servants to fill the jars with water, and John pointedly tells us that “they filled them up to the brim” (John 2:7).

The divine giver is now responding to the request of long-suffering Israel. The first thing he gives is the opportunity for them to contribute to the process of their vivification. Mind you, this is not in conflict with what I just specified concerning the attitude of total acquiescence, since he himself is giving, through his command, their very capacity to cooperate. So the filling of the jars to the limit is symbolic of all that human agency — through the divine prompting and power — can bring to the task of cultivating human flourishing: art, music, science, technology, politics, spirituality. All of this is obviously good, but it remains provisional and inadequate, for remember that the problem is that they are out of wine, not water. What they (Israel, the human race) require is not just the ordinary nourishment that water provides but rather intoxication, elevation, something greater.

Jesus tells them, “Draw some out, and take it to the chief steward” (John 2:8). When the steward tastes the water (now transformed into wine), he remarks on its extraordinary quality and undoubtedly passes on to the bride and groom the good news that they have wine in superabundance –  80 gallons! Jesus has changed the water into wine, taking something relatively insipid and making it tasty and intoxicating. He has received what they gave him and has not negated it, but rather raised it to a new pitch of intensity.

Augustine’s comment that Jesus simply accelerates and concentrates a natural process that occurs all the time — rainwater gives rise to grapes, which give rise to wine — is pertinent here. The water isn’t cleared out in order for the divine contribution to be made; instead, the divine contribution is precisely the “perfecting” of the water. This quality of God’s giving is congruent, of course, with the Christology of Chalcedon, the noncompetitive coming together of the divine and human natures: when God and a creature meet, the creature is confirmed and made more authentically itself.

What is being hinted at in the Cana miracle is the elevation and expansion of human culture under the influence of the divine life. Filled with God’s Spirit, architecture, art, science, politics, etc., become more completely themselves and realize their own deepest purposes. God gives our very capacity to give, and then he gives further by transfiguring our gift to our greater benefit. This miracle is hence a particularly apt iconic representation of divine-human coinherence.

Now we mustn’t forget that the purpose of this water made wine is to increase and prolong the celebration of a wedding. Because of Jesus’ miracle, a large group of celebrants will continue to be gathered around a couple who have chosen to form, themselves, an intimate community for the rest of their lives. Read symbolically, this wine is the divine Spirit which alone grounds authentic human coinherence. When human solidarity is based upon something other than God’s love — mutual self-interest, political considerations, shared convictions, etc. — it will inevitably shake apart and dissolve.

Aristotle knew that a friendship endures only in the measure that both friends have commonly given themselves to a good that transcends them individually, and Augustine knew that people love each other most appropriately when they do so for the sake of God. What both appreciated was that without a transcendent ground or point of reference, the other orientation of the partners would quickly devolve into self-preoccupation. When God and humanity are married, the connections between human beings intensify and deepen, vertical coinherence giving rise to horizontal coinherence. This fully developed one-in-the-otherness is on iconic display in the story of the wedding at Cana. It is a picture of the divine gatherer at work.

h1

The Parable of the Prodigal Son

October 5, 2009

rembrandtProdigalSonI haven’t quite figured out how to read the Bible yet. Obviously I do but I never get as much out of my own reading as I do out of reading others. Case in point this marvelous writing on the Parable of the Prodigal Son. I’ve read several commentaries on the parable but never one as knowledgeable or illuminating as the following. How does one get to be able to read as well as Frs. Barron, Cantalamessa or Guardini or do? They are my favorites. I know there must be more, so if you know them, leave me a comment here. This Fr. Barron piece comes from The Priority of Christ, a book where he seeks bridge the divide between Christianity and secular liberalism.

“One of the greatest showings of the Gathering (Jesus’ work of gathering the scattered tribes of Israel) is Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son, or better, of the father and his two sons. In considering this narrative, we are, hermeneutically (hermeneutics is the science of interpretation, esp. of the Scriptures), on interesting ground, for we are dealing with an icon of the Father told by the one who is himself the Icon of the Father. Thus we have Jesus indirectly crafting a subtle self-portrait. The gathering technique of the father in the story mirrors that of the heavenly Father, which in turn is iconically represented in that of Jesus. In the course of this narrative, we will see who the Father/God/Jesus is and how he brings to himself an Israel that had, in a double sense, wandered into exile.

A man, Jesus tells us, had two sons, and “the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the property that will belong to me” (Luke 15:11-24). As many have commented, this demand is presumptuous and highly insulting, for normally a son would not receive his inheritance until after his father has died. Thus, in claiming his money now, the younger son is none too subtly suggesting that he wishes his father would hurry up and die. Especially in Jesus’ time and culture, a more stinging remark could scarce be imagined. The parable opens, then, with the declaration of a clear break in the communion and coinherence that one would expect to hold between a father and his son. And if we attend closely to the language of the parable, we will sense further dimensions of this rupture. The boy doesn’t ask his father, he tells him: “Give me the share of the property that will come to me.” By definition, a gift cannot be demanded; it can only be received graciously and as a sort of surprise. In making his demand, therefore, the younger son is precluding the possibility of a gifted relationship between himself and his father; he is cutting off the flow of grace.

Second, in asking for property that is coming to him, he emphatically confirms the gracelessness of the exchange. Property is what is “proper” to a person, what is uniquely his, what he can claim in at least a quasi-legal sense. In common usage, the word indicates what is to be held on to and defended against counter-claimants: we might hear someone say, “Get off my property,” or set up a sign that defiantly declares “Private property.” Jean-Luc Marion has helpfully drawn attention to the Greek term that undergirds “property” in this story, ousia.  This is the only time in the New Testament that this famously controversial and theologically charged term is employed. In this context it obviously doesn’t have the fully developed metaphysical sense that it has, for instance, in Aristotle, but it does have at least an overtone of the philosophical usage.

The more ordinary meaning of ousia (displayed here) is money, property, or what is “presently disposable,” ready to hand for use. Thus there is a link to the metaphysical “substance,” which could be construed as that which a thing possesses as its own, that which it has ready to hand –as opposed to its more fleetingly possessed accidents. In demanding this ousia, then, the younger son is asking emphatically for something to have and hold as his own, free of any merely accidental link to either the source or the possible destination of his possession. He expects the gift (in a substantive sense) apart from giving, and this is precisely what he receives when his father “divided his property between them” (Luke 15:12).

Here is a portrait in miniature of God in relation to sin. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve sought to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, taking God’s place and seizing his prerogatives. At the prompting of the tempter, they wanted to take for themselves a life that could only be received as a gift. Prior to the fall, God and Adam had walked together in the cool of the evening as friends, giving and receiving in a circle of grace, and the original sin is nothing but the rupture of this friendship through the desire to possess ousia. The true God can be “had” only when one disposes oneself to receive the divine life as a grace and to give that life away in turn as a gift. Grace is “possessed” only in the measure that it is received and offered and never held on to.

A key implication of this analysis is that God is himself not an ousia, not a substance, not a supreme being in solemn possession of an infinite range of perfections. Rather, God is a supreme letting-be, a being-for-another, his perfections fluid and generously given. Consequently, in the measure that a human person endeavors to be a supreme being, he falls out of right relation with this God.

As the story unfolds, we hear what happens to “substance,” so possessed. We are told that after a few days, the young man “gathered all he had and traveled to a distant country” (Luke 15:13). We notice the frenzy of possessiveness implied in that “gathering” to himself all that was uniquely his, and we remark the thoroughness of the relational rupture with his father in his journey to a far country. The Greek here is instructive: the young man sets out to a choran makra, literally a great open space, a place without borders or points of reference. In Plato, the chora is the space in between the forms and physical objects, the realm of nonbeing and nonvisibility. The implication of the parable seems to be that this ontological emptiness is the consequence of the younger son’s severing of relation to his father. This is made explicit in the next phrase, “and there he squandered his property on dissolute living” (15:13).

He had made bold to seize ousia from his father and claim it as his own, and now he sees what inevitably occurs when a gift becomes a possession. It is a basic biblical intuition that as long as one is receiving being as a grace and resolving to pass it on as a grace, one paradoxically keeps it. But if one endeavors to interrupt the flow and seize what is received, then that possession quickly withers away, dissipates. When the young man had spent everything, “a severe famine took place throughout that country, and he began to be in need” (Luke 15:14). Read symbolically, this famine is not merely an unhappy accident that happens to intensify the young man’s suffering; rather, it is the natural condition of the chora makra. Cut off from relationship and the giving and receiving of gifts, one necessarily experiences famine, a starvation of the soul.

So great became the young man’s need that “he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed the pigs” (Luke 15:15). In these few laconic phrases, Jesus describes the spiritual dynamics of the “far country.” The only relationship that a citizen of the chora makra could envision is a professional one involving hiring and the paying of salaries. There it cannot be a question of giving and gratefully receiving, but only of the paying out and possessing of ousia. Second, the feeding of pigs (animals particularly repugnant to pious Jews) indicates the dehumanization that characterizes the far country: grubbing for what is one’s own reduces one to the level of competitive and self-absorbed beasts. So pathetic is the younger son’s situation that he “would gladly have filled himself with the pods that the pigs were eating,” but — and here we come to the heart of it — no one gave him anything” (Luke 15:16). This is the mark of the far country: it is the place where there is no giving. It is the country whose citizens only hire, pay, and receive what is strictly agreed to, and thus it is the polar opposite of the land where the young man’s father is lord.

The younger son wandering in a distant land is evocative of the human race — all the descendants of Adam and Eve who have lost contact with the flow of the divine life. Living in the land of hiring, taking, paying, and possessing, they starve spiritually. They are like the sad guests at the wedding feast of Cana who have run out of wine; they are like Israel in the land of exile, pining for Zion; or they are like the psalmist’s deer yearning for flowing streams. How appropriate, by the way, is that last image. The divine life flows because it is a process of giving and receiving; sin is substantive and fixed, “hard” currency.

The only solution is a return to a graced mode of being. And this is precisely what the prodigal realizes in a moment of clarity: “But when he came to himself he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired hands have bread enough and to spare, but here I am dying of hunger!” (Luke 15:17). Even those whom his father has hired — even those only professionally related to him — have enough and more than enough, with superabundance indicating that they are in the circle of grace. Were they merely possessing what their employer paid them, they would be psychologically and spiritually in the far country and would soon enough run out. And this is why the younger son resolves, in the carefully rehearsed speech that we overhear, to ask his father to treat him as one of his hired hands: even the least in the country of grace have more than enough. Then, full of contrition, he sets out to return to his father.

While he is still a long way off (still to some degree in the land of exile), his father catches sight of him (he had obviously been looking for him) and is “filled with compassion; he ran and put his arms around him and kissed him” (Luke 15:20). The word used in the Greek here for the feeling of compassion is esplagnisthe, meaning literally that the father’s guts are moved, the visceral connection to his child stirred up. This same term is applied in the New Testament to the feelings of Jesus himself: “When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (Matthew 9:36). This powerful feeling leads to an extraordinary gesture.

As many have pointed out, in ancient Jewish society, it was considered terribly unseemly for an elderly man to run to meet someone; rather, he was the one to whom others would come in a spirit of respect and obeisance. So the Father’s running, throwing caution and respectability to the wind, is an act of almost shocking condescension and other orientation.

When they meet, the father embraces his son and kisses him; then the boy speaks: “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son” (Luke 15:21). The embrace of the father is one of the most powerful biblical symbols of the Gathering: exiled Israel has returned, and the Father-God takes him to himself; drawing him back into the circle of light. How evocatively Rembrandt van Rijn depicted this inclusion-enlightenment in his late-career painting of the return of the prodigal: the penitent son is embraced by his father and participates thereby in a light that does not so much come from without as radiate from within the father himself.

The saint, remarked G. K. Chesterton, is someone who knows he is a sinner. Whenever characters in the Bible come close to the divine grace, they experience a heightened sense of their own unworthiness: Isaiah in temple, Jeremiah at the moment of his call, Peter at the miraculous draught of fishes. This is the dynamic at work in the case of the prodigal son. Precisely in the measure that he is reconnected to the graciousness of God and the flow of his mercy, he knows unambiguously his sorry spiritual state. His cruel leave-taking and subsequent sojourn in the choran makra had perverted his relationship to his father, and it is in the embrace of his father that he truly senses this.

However, his worthiness to be called son has nothing to do with his own moral achievement or lack thereof. His father ignores his carefully rehearsed speech, and with an eagerness bordering on impatience, he instructs his servants: “Quickly, bring out a robe — the best one — and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. And get the fatted calf and kill it., and let us eat and celebrate” (Luke 15:22-23). Our participation in the flow of the divine life is, necessarily, a gift, not so much because God arbitrarily chooses those who should receive it but because it is itself nothing but the giving and receiving of gifts. It cannot, in principle, be earned or merited, but only accepted. We can only be embraced by it.

The father’s comment on the reason for the celebration-.-.-”For this son of mine was dead and is alive again” (Luke 15:24) — is theologically accurate. When the divine life hardens into a possession, it is, as we’ve seen, effectively lost; when one wanders away from the living stream of God, one necessarily dries up, and one’s “life” is merely biological. Like the Gerasene demoniac — living among the tombs –the prodigal son had been one of the living dead. Authentic spiritual life is had only when one enters into the flow of grace, when one can accept robe, ring, and fatted calf.

With that the narrative of the parable turns to the elder brother, a man superficially quite unlike the prodigal son, but practically identical to him at the spiritual level. The strategy that the father employs to gather him in should be the focus of our attention. While the father was attentively waiting for the return of the younger son, the older brother was “in the field,” a somewhat more subtle version of the choran makra, obviously indifferent to his brother’s fate. Hearing the sounds of celebration, he approaches the house, and when he discovers the reason for the festivities, he is filled with indignation: “Then he became angry and refused to go in” (Luke 15:28). In accord with his relentlessly inclusive character, the father comes out to this second exile and pleads with him to join the circle of celebration.

Then we hear the words that reveal the spiritual state of the older son: “Listen! For all these years, I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command; yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends” (Luke 15:29). Though he has remained physically close to his father, his exile is just as dramatic as his younger brother’s, for he too has allowed his relationship to his father to harden into possessiveness. The harshly economic vocabulary gives away the game: working like a slave, obeying commands, getting something of his own, his friends. Just like his brother, this man wants to claim the father’s love as his own possession and use it as he sees fit. Whereas the younger brother demanded it in a presumptuous way (“Give me the share of the property that will belong to me”), the elder brother “slaves” for it, working in a calculating way in order to earn it.

The problem is that, as we have already seen, the divine love — which is a flow of grace — cannot be received in this manner. The economic exchange model just cannot work, so slaving is every bit as ineffectual as hoarding. Rebellion against God and resentful obedience to his “commands” are equally hopeless strategies, since both attempt to transform the flow of grace into ousia that can be made one’s own.

The gatherer-father then speaks to his older son: “Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours” (Luke 15:31). From the father’s perspective, his son is connected to him, with him in such an intimate way that the life of the father flows to the son. The economic language of the son is therefore metaphysically and spiritually inappropriate, the result of a basic misperception. The Creator God relates to creation in just this ontologically (ontology studies the nature of existence or being) intimate fashion, giving being every moment to whatever exists in the realm of finitude. Though a creature could imagine itself as existing in an extrinsic relation to God, this would be an incorrect, a distortion. The Redeemer God wants nothing more than to give his own inner life away to the human race – “All that is mine is yours.” The problem is that the sinner persists in misperceiving along competitive lines – “I have slaved for you” — and thus fails to receive the gift.

The prophetic motif of the return of the exile applies, according to N. T. Wright, not only to those who are physically distant from Judea and Jerusalem but also to those who are in a kind of internal exile, spiritually alienated from what Zion symbolizes. The prodigal son and his brother are perfect evocations of both types: while the younger son goes literally into a far country the older son retreats into an interior choran makra. They are co-equally far from the flow of grace. In Rembrandt’s picture, the older brother resembles the father physically, and like him, he wears a sumptuous red cape, but he stands outside the circle of light that envelops his father and brother. The resemblance hints at the superficial similarity to the father that comes from physical proximity and mimicking the father’s behavior (obeying his commands), but the darkness points to the spiritual exile that the older son endures.

The father, with equal vehemence and devotion, reaches out to both wanderers and seeks to bring them into the celebration. Here we can see how this parable is an icon of the Icon of God. In his work of gathering the scattered tribes of Israel — in both external and internal exile — Jesus is the living icon of the Father, whose whole purpose is to gather his alienated creation back to himself. The embrace of the father and his words ‘All that is mine is yours” are representations of Jesus’ ministry of gathering Israel into his circle of influence, which in turn is the Icon of the Father’s noncompetitive and life-enhancing proximity to his creation.

The fundamental problem for both sons is their deep conviction that their relationship to their father is competitive and Promethean (Prometheus in a Greek myth stole fire from Olympus and gave it to humankind in defiance of Zeus). In order for them to be fully alive, they must wrest what is “their own” from him. So it goes when one stands in relation to a god who is only other, and not otherly other.

Human beings will always resent a supreme being, because they will be locked, necessarily, in a terrible zero-sum game with him. And their rapport with such a god will devolve, accordingly, into the mercenary and the calculating, as we see clearly in Jesus’ story. The spiritual strategy of the father is to convince his sons that they are not in competition with him, that in fact their own being and life will increase inasmuch as they accept the gift of his life.This is the “spirituality” of the two-natures doctrine: a divine and a human nature remain utterly themselves, in the moment of deepest connection and mutual participation. What obtains between the creaturely and the Creator is the polar opposite of a zero-sum game, precisely because it is a matter of grace and not ousia.”

h1

Letting The Life OUT

July 28, 2009

This man is an absolute treasure of our Church and one of the main motivations of this blog:

h1

An Alabaster Jar Broken Open; A Songburst On The Eve Of Execution; A Humiliated Man Now Become An Angel: The Quirkiness of The Passion According To Mark

July 15, 2009
A page, found in the sands of Egypt, from a Coptic version of the gospel of Mark, in the Perkins School of Theology collection.

A page, found in the sands of Egypt, from a Coptic version of the gospel of Mark, in the Perkins School of Theology collection.

THERE IS NO STORY better known to Western people than the narrative of Christ’s passion and death. Whether we believe it or not, whether or not it plays a role in shaping our religious lives, this story is in our blood and our bones. Ernest Hemingway once related a story about a cabin boy on one of his boats who was reading a book with rapt attention. Hemingway asked the young man what he was studying so carefully, and he responded, “the Gospel of Mark.” “Well, why,” he continued, “are you so wrapped up in it?” And the boy said, “I’m dying to see how it ends!”

The anecdote is funny, of course, because it’s so anomalous: who, in the Western world, doesn’t know how that most familiar of stories ends? But this very familiarity can block our appreciation of the dynamics of the passion narrative. Once this best known of all stories gets under way, it can swim effortlessly through our minds, unfolding without really being noticed, What I wish to do therefore is to defamiliarize the account a bit by drawing your attention to three odd details in Mark’s version of the passion, each one of which, precisely in its quirkiness, sheds light on the meaning of the text.

ON MARK’S TELLING, THE PASSION NARRATIVE COMMENCES with the account of a woman who performs an extravagant act: “While he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at the table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment of nard, and she broke open the jar and poured the ointment on his head.” This gesture wasting something as expensive as an entire jar of perfume — is sniffed at by the bystanders, who complain that, at the very least, the nard could have been sold and the money given to the poor. But Jesus is having none of it: “Let her alone; why do you trouble her? She has performed a good service for me.” Why does Mark use this tale to preface his telling of the passion? Why does he allow the odor of this woman’s perfume to waft, as it were, over the whole of the story?

It is because, I believe, this extravagant gesture shows the meaning of what Jesus is about to do: the absolutely radical giving away of self. There is nothing calculating, careful, or conservative about the woman’s action; she offers everything, breaking open the jar as a symbol of the breaking open of her heart in love. Giving voice to the austere rationalism of the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant spoke of “religion within the limits of reason alone”; but as Paul Tillich commented, authentic religion, ultimate concern, can never be hemmed in by reason alone. Flowing from the deepest place in the heart, religion resists the strictures set for it by a fussily moralizing reason (on full display in those who complain about the woman’s extravagance). At the climax of his life, Jesus will give himself away totally, lavishly, unreasonably — and this is why the woman’s beautiful gesture is a sort of overture to the opera that will follow.

A SECOND PECULIAR DETAIL in Mark’s account concerns the Last Supper and its immediate aftermath. Jesus has gathered with his intimate friends on the night before his death, He knows that the next day he shall be tortured and publicly executed. In the course of the supper, Jesus identifies himself so radically with the Passover bread and wine that they are now properly called his body and his blood, Like broken bread, the Lord says, his body will be given away in love; and like spilled wine, his blood will he poured out on behalf of many.

The sadness and portentousness in that room must have been unbearable, much like the mood in the prison cell where a condemned man sits with his family while he awaits his execution. How does this terrible gathering come to a close? They sing! “After singing songs of praise, they walked out to the Mount of Olives.” Can you imagine a condemned criminal blithely singing on the eve of his execution? Wouldn’t there he something odd, even macabre, about such a display? But Jesus knows and his church knows with him that this joyful outburst, precisely at that awful time, is altogether appropriate.

This is not to deny for a moment the terror of that night nor the seriousness of what will follow the next day; but it is to acknowledge that an act of total love is the passage to fullness of life. Therefore, as you give your life away, sing! Every Mass is a remembrance of that somber night: during the Eucharistic prayer, we explicitly recall what Jesus did “the night before he died.” But immediately after the consecration, as Christ in his sacrificial death becomes really present to us, we sing an acclamation of praise. The strange juxtaposition of terror and exuberant joy mimics the dynamics of the Last Supper.

A THIRD PECULIARITY OF MARK’S VERSION OF THE PASSION is the curious appearance of a naked man in the Garden of Gethsemane, In the confusion following the betrayal and arrest of Jesus, as the disciples flee their master, an unnamed youth finds himself in an awkward predicament:

“A certain young man was following him, wearing nothing hut a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, hut he left the linen cloth and ran off naked.” Scholars suggest that, like a Renaissance painter who places contemporary figures anachronistically into a depiction of a biblical scene, Mark is symbolically situating all of us in the Garden of Gethsemane in the figure of this man running off into the night.

The principal clue to his symbolic identity is in the simple description “follower of Jesus,” which makes him evocative of all disciples of the Lord from that day to the present. Another clue is his manner of dress. The Greek term here is sindona, which designates the kind of garment worn in the early church by the newly baptized.

The point is this: following Jesus, being a baptized member of his church, is a dangerous business. Participating in Jesus’ kingdom puts you, necessarily, in harm’s way, for Jesus’ way of ordering things is massively opposed to the world’s way of doing so. The shame of this young man — running away from the Lord at the moment of crisis — is the shame of all of us fearful disciples of Jesus who, more often than not, leave behind, in the hands of our enemies, our baptismal identity. The naked young man, escaping into the night, therefore poses a question:

What do we do at the moment of truth?

This mysterious figure makes a comeback before the Gospel of Mark closes, and in his return all of us sinners can find hope. On the morning of the resurrection, the Marys come to the tomb, carrying their spices and fretting about the massive stone covering the mouth of the grave. They find the stone rolled away and, upon entering the sepulcher, they see “a young man dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side.” The words used for “young man” and “white robe” are the same that Mark used to describe the disciple in the Gethsemane scene.

This confident figure announces the resurrection to the startled women. “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here.” Exegetes suggest that this angelic presence in the empty tomb of Jesus is evocative of all of us disciples of Jesus at our best. Wearing once more our white baptismal garments, which we had abandoned during times of persecution, we announce to the world the good news that the crucified one is alive, Having recovered our courage, our voice, and our identity, we function as angels (the word angelos simply means messenger) of the resurrection.

An alabaster jar broken open and the smell of perfume filling the house; a songburst on the eve of execution; a humiliated man now become an angel. Three peculiar Markan lenses for reading the greatest story ever told.

Emphasis is mine, the writing is from Fr. Robert Barron in his excellent book of scriptural interpretations titled The Word on Fire. You can find it and more at Fr. Barron’s website wordonfire.org.

h1

Undergoing Training In The Divine School

July 9, 2009

  

St Etheldreda's Roman Catholic Church At Ely

St Etheldreda's Roman Catholic Church At Ely

And you have forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as children — “My child, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, or lose heart when you are punished by him; for the Lord disciplines those whom he loves, and chastises every child whom he accepts.” Endure trials for the sake of discipline. God is treating you as children; for what child is there whom a parent does not discipline? If you do not have that discipline in which all children share, then you are illegitimate and not his children. Moreover, we had human parents to discipline us, and we respected them. Should we not be even more willing to be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share his holiness. Now, discipline always seems painful rather than pleasant at the time, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
Hebrews 12:5-11

IN THE YEARS FOLLOWING the Second Vatican Council the time when I was coming of age in the church — teachers and preachers of the faith seemed to have an almost allergic reaction to any talk of divine punishment. If someone suggested that a suffering or a misfortune might have come as a punishment from God, he was deemed not only theologically misguided but ethically irresponsible. And there was, it seemed, good reason for this reticence. Didn’t talk of divine punishment reek of a primitive religious consciousness? Didn’t it place us within a more or less pagan framework, where the divine is understood as capricious and cruel? And hadn’t this idea been stupidly and meanly employed over the centuries to assign guilt to those who were, in fact, innocent victims?

Yet the theme of God’s punishment is one that can be found from beginning to end of the Bible — and not as a minor motif, but as a structuring element. Our very human condition, with its struggles, anxieties, and limitations, is understood by the book of Genesis as a chastisement for sin; the confusion of speaking different languages is, furthermore, construed as a punishment for man’s hubris in building the Tower of Babel; the flood at the time of Noah is seen as resulting from the universality of human malice; the enslavement of the children of Israel, as well as their long wandering in the desert, is the bitter fruit of Israel’s misbehavior.

When Israel loses in battle, its defeat is invariably read as divine punishment; Saul’s failure in his civil war against David is due to Saul’s unfaithfulness to God’s command; Eli’s death is the result of his own sins and those of his two wicked Sons; the death of David’s son is the consequence of David’s adulterous dalliance with Bathsheba; the division of Israel into a northern and southern kingdom is God’s punishment, following from Solomon’s infidelity to Yahweh; and the Babylonian captivity is, all the prophets agree, God’s answer to Israel’s disobedience.

Is this manner of theologizing an archaic peculiarity of the Old Testament? Let us consider just a few New Testament examples. Paul tells the Corinthians that many of them are becoming sick and some are dying, precisely because they have not refrained from sacrificing to idols. In the Acts of the Apostles, two people — Ananias and Saphira — are struck dead because they disobey the Apostles’ order and keep their money and property to themselves. And the book of Revelation — the last book of the entire Bible –culminates in a vision of God furiously chastising a sinful world. And these are just a few examples, chosen at random from literally hundreds of others throughout the biblical revelation. While all of these texts are complex and multifaceted, we see from the sheer multiplicity of these citations that it would be deeply unbiblical to marginalize uncritically the category of divine punishment.

A passage from the twelfth chapter of the letter to the Hebrews is so clarifying and lucid in regard to the question at hand that it can function as an interpretive key: “My sons, do not disdain the discipline of the Lord nor lose heart when he reproves you; for whom the Lord loves, he disciplines; he scourges every son he receives.” At the heart of this statement is the correlation of the divine punishment first to education and then to love.

What we find so objectionable in pagan accounts is that the gods seem cruel and capricious in their chastisements, as malicious and disproportionate as the worst of earthly tyrants. But the Hebrews passage shows that the biblical perspective is entirely different, God’s punishment is always a disciplining born of love, a type of formation for the recalcitrant soul.

And in the twelfth chapter, we find the perfect analogy for this divine behavior: “Endure your trials as the discipline of God who deals with you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline?” The governing metaphor for God throughout the Bible is that of parent a good father or a good mother. The prophet Isaiah gives voice to Israel’s deep conviction concerning the compassion of God in these lyrical words: “Would a mother forget her child? Yet even if she should forget, I will never forget you, my people. I have carved you in the palm of my hand.” And Jesus himself addresses God with the endearment “Abba,” a child’s name for his loving father.

Do you know any good parent who does not, from time to time, discipline her child? Wouldn’t it in fact be a sign of neglect or indifference if a parent never chastised, warned, or punished her daughter, never allowed her to feel the effects of her misbehavior, never warned him away from danger with a harsh word or glance? We all know about programs of “tough love,” designed to encourage the parents of those who are in serious trouble with alcohol or drugs or violent behavior to help their children by making them directly experience the consequences of their misdeeds.

Love is not a soft sentiment; it is, as Dostoevsky said, “harsh and dreadful,” precisely because it is the act of willing the good of the other as other. The mother who simply takes in a son mired in drug addiction, painlessly forgives him, and sets him back, without correction, on the path to self-destruction can hardly be described as a loving parent. And the father who allows his son to engage in reckless sexual behavior, never providing any parameters for the young man or imposing any restrictions on him, is caring much more for his own ego than for his son’s well-being. Thus God sometimes loves us in a harsh and dreadful way.

What is true of a single human family is true on a larger scale. The God who is the father of the universe has established, within creation, certain structures that reflect the integrity of his own being. Whenever we successfully move through a geometrical demonstration or conduct a scientific experiment or make a prudential moral decision, we are, at least implicitly, recognizing these structuring elements that God has set in place. If an inexperienced hang-glider willfully ignores the law of gravity, disaster results; and if an architect insufficiently appropriates the laws of geometry and physics, a building may collapse. More to it, the abuse of the body — through overexertion, injury, or stress — results in pain; and the misuse of the psyche leads to depression and anxiety. In none of these cases is the negative consequence the result of God acting arbitrarily; rather it is an indication of God’s lawfulness. Now sin is nothing other than someone consciously contravening this divinely established order at the ethical level and the divine punishment can be read, therefore, as God’s allowing the sinner to experience the natural results of his contradiction of the moral fabric. It can be construed as God’s tough love.

To be sure, those who are enduring God’s chastisement rarely appreciate the contexts we have been suggesting, and the author of the letter to the Hebrews knows it: “At the time it is administered, all discipline seems a cause for grief. …but later it brings forth the fruit of peace and justice to those who are trained in its school.” The great church father Origen of Alexandria spoke often of the schola animarum (the school of souls), whose lessons begin now and reach their fulfillment only in the life to come. Our time on earth is a period of learning, refining, and purifying — something like an extended course or an athletic training program.

Few really savor the day-today grind of education or the sweat and effort of football practice, but only a fool wouldn’t see that pain is the condition for the possibility of progress in either arena. We should not, however, draw the conclusion that any and all suffering can be interpreted as divine chastisement. It is just that sort of simple-minded thinking that has led many to reject the category of God’s punishment altogether. And a careful reading of the book of Job should immediately disabuse us of the idea that suffering is always the result of sin. If we are biblical people, however, we must appreciate that some types of suffering are indeed expressions of the tough love of God and are indeed indications that we are undergoing training in the divine school. 

Emphasis above is mine, the writing is from Fr. Robert Barron in his excellent book of scriptural interpretations titled The Word on Fire. You can find it and more at Fr. Barron’s website wordonfire.org.

I had the audacity the other day to place on forums portions of my recent posts on homosexuality. The outpouring of vitriolic bombast was astonishing but understandable. A large number of people have organized and made making this sinful lifestyle a normative imperative. NAMBLA (The North American Man Boy Love Association) is doing the same thing for pedophilia. The site youporn.com tries to make pornographic sex acts normative. Suggest that any of these things are not true opens one to charges of homophobia or worse with the attendant idea that your prejudices or hatred is what causes the violence. If the Church and others could stop pointing these things out, gays could be happy, pedophiles could be in love and poor young women could continue with their doctorate degrees without the stigma of being porn actresses.

Has not Congressman King with his comments on Michael Jackson been enduring the same trial here? It is so easy to offer up excuses to tell the sinner that what is perversion or sinfulness is perfectly respectable. The gay movement is rooted in this kind of deception and delusion. Michael Jackson is as much a figure of the Civil Rights movement  as sodomy and fist fucking are expressions of love (nice try Reverend Al).

The Church tells the truth. As someone who has received divine punishment and fought it every step of the way, I pray for us all to receive the gift of holiness. The punishment for sin is to become what the sin is. You lie you become a liar, commit the act of adultery you become an adulterer, fist fuck you become a fist fucker. The names are horrible and stain your immortal soul. The Church simply says, in the name of love, please stop.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 49 other followers