Are We Like the Prodigal Son's Father or His Brother?

In his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium Pope Francis wrote the following:

“A Church that ‘goes forth’ is a Church whose doors are open. Going out to others in order to reach the fringes of humanity does not mean rushing out aimlessly into the world. Often it is better simply to slow down, to put aside our eagerness in order to see and listen to others, to stop rushing from one thing to another and to remain with someone who has faltered along the way. At times we have to be like the father of the prodigal son, who always keeps his door open so that when the son returns, he can readily pass through it.”

In light of recent discussions about a place in the Church for those in “irregular situations” (homosexuals, cohabiting couples, those in civil marriages, the divorced and remarried) we need to ask: are we more like the father or the older brother in this parable?

The younger son’s sin was egregious; he essentially told his father to drop dead. His inheritance was more important than his father, and he didn’t want to wait for his father’s death to get it. “As far as I’m concerned, Dad, you’re already dead; I only want your money, not you.”

Yet the father keeps the door open for the rebellious son to come home; he embraces and kisses him before the boy confesses his guilt (a key detail in the story), welcoming him into the company of the family even before a formal reconciliation has taken place.

The older son offers no such welcome; he has closed the doors and locked them tight. From his perspective his father’s actions are a terrible injustice. He has been a faithful son, but he was never given a party. Yet his loser little brother demanded his inheritance while his father was still alive, wasted it on immoral living, and then has the nerve to come back home--and he gets a party? How is that even remotely fair? As far as the older son is concerned, when his younger brother left home it was good riddance--and don’t let the door smack you as I close it on your way out.

The father’s response to the older boy was essentially this: “Son, it’s true you have always been part of the family--but we really weren’t a family while your brother was gone. What you were a part of was incomplete. Now that your brother is home we’re a family again, we’re whole, and we have to celebrate that!”

Pope Francis wrote:

“The Church is called to be the house of the Father, with doors always wide open. One concrete sign of such openness is that our church doors should always be open, so that if someone, moved by the Spirit, comes there looking for God, he or she will not find a closed door.”

Are the doors of our communities open not only to those who fully see their need to change, but also to those who are still on the journey toward repentance? Can we find some place in our midst for them to feel the kind of welcome that can lead them to the light?

The younger son’s epiphany came in a pig sty; can we open our doors, find some place for people in irregular situations in the Church, so their epiphany can come in the arms of the Body of Christ?

Ministry Amid Civil Marriages and Cohabitation

One of the many eye-catching paragraphs of the mid-term report from the Extraordinary Synod on the Family reads as follows (under the heading “Positive Aspects of Civil Unions and Cohabitation”):

“A new sensitivity in today’s pastoral consists in grasping the positive reality of civil weddings and, having pointed out our differences, of cohabitation. It is necessary that in the ecclesial proposal, while clearly presenting the ideal, we also indicate the constructive elements in those situations that do not yet or no longer correspond to that ideal.”

This does not mean we should recognize civil marriages and/or cohabitation as licit expressions of life in the Body of Christ; it means we should identify good elements that exist in these and use them as a foundation to lead people to the fullness of what God wants for them. Recall the principle established by the Synod that we discussed in my previous post:

“Discerning and affirming values present in irregular situations means we find the good in a situation and build upon it, rather than condemning the situation outright. Instead of using an approach that says “You’re wrong, you’d better change your lifestyle or you’re going to hell” (which immediately builds walls of defensiveness and alienation and accomplishes nothing), we use an approach that begins with “You’ve got some good things going for you, I can see where God has been working in your life,” which builds the trust and openness that is the foundation for a respectful examination of other things that need to change.”

This requires the doors to the Church be open to people in irregular situations, offering a place of welcome where they will be lovingly encouraged to grow. An open door does not mean validation of irregular lifestyles, nor does it necessarily mean full participation in the sacraments; it means validation of the person as a child of God in need of a nurturing place to grow, and perhaps inclusion in the sacraments where appropriate.

This section of the report referenced Evangelii Gaudium, an apostolic exhortation given by Pope Francis in 2013. Paragraph 47 of that document states (emphasis added):

“Everyone can share in some way in the life of the Church; everyone can be part of the community, nor should the doors of the sacraments be closed for simply any reason.”

“Simply any reason” does not refer to the canonical requirements for admission to the sacraments, for they are soundly established. It refers to arbitrary impediments placed at the discretion of pastors which are counter-productive to ministry. Speaking of the Eucharist in particular, Pope Francis wrote that it “is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak…. Frequently we act as arbiters of grace rather than its facilitators. But the Church is not a tollhouse; it is the house of the Father, where there is a place for everyone, with all their problems.”

Guided by this principle, the report said of civil marriages and cohabitation:

“All these situations have to be dealt with in a constructive manner, seeking to transform them into opportunities to walk towards the fullness of marriage and the family in light of the Gospel. They need to be welcomed and accompanied with patience and delicacy, as subjects for the evangelization of the family.”

Principles of Ministry to People in Irregular Situations

We’ll soon turn our attention to another portion of the midterm report from the Extraordinary Synod on the Family that raised eyebrows: how it spoke of “positive aspects of civil unions and cohabitation.” But first we need to understand three foundational principles of ministry that were spelled out in this document:

1. We must keep our gaze on Jesus and imitate his gaze.

2. We must operate from the “law of gradualness,” not “gradualness of the law.”

3. We must discern and affirm the values present in wounded families and irregular situations, then work from there.

Let’s briefly visit each of these principles.

1. With regards to imitating Jesus, Pope Francis says we must practice the “’art of accompaniment,’ which teaches us to remove our sandals before the sacred ground of the other.” This means we recognize the dignity of every human being as a child of God made in his image and likeness and treat them accordingly, no matter their situation.

2. The “law of gradualness” recognizes that nobody goes from their current state of imperfection to the fullness of the divine image in one leap. Everyone grows in stages--some grow more quickly than others, some may be able to skip some steps while others move one at a time, some fall back a step after taking two forward, etc. The law of gradualness calls for patience, and trust in the varied ways God works in people’s lives.

This is not to be confused with “gradualness of the law,” the fallacy that the law does not apply to people who have not yet reach the stage where they can follow it, that the law should be adapted according to each individual’s ability to follow it.

3. Discerning and affirming values present in irregular situations means we find the good in a situation and build upon it, rather than condemning the situation outright. Instead of using an approach that says “You’re wrong, you’d better change your lifestyle or you’re going to hell” (which immediately builds walls of defensiveness and alienation and accomplishes nothing), we use an approach that begins with “You’ve got some good things going for you, I can see where God has been working in your life,” which builds the trust and openness that is the foundation for a respectful examination of other things that need to change.

Such an approach is reminiscent of the words of St. John XXIII in his opening address at the Second Vatican Council:

“The Church has always opposed these errors, and often condemned them with the utmost severity. Today, however, Christ’s Bride prefers the balm of mercy to the arm of severity. She believes that present needs are best served by explaining more fully the purport of her doctrines, rather than by publishing condemnations.”

With those principles established, we’ll examine some of the “irregular situations” the Synod discussed in my next post.

The Barilla Case: Are We Losing Our Noodles?

I’d like to comment on a disturbing story that appeared in the Washington Post on November 19.

The story involves Barilla, the world’s largest pasta manufacturer, and, as journalist Sandhya Somashekhar wrote, “how toxic it has become for a company to be viewed as unfriendly toward gays.”

Key words: “viewed as.”

In September 2013 Barilla’s chairman, Guido Barilla, told an Italian radio host, “I would never do [a commercial] with a homosexual couple, not for lack of respect, but because we don’t agree with them.” He continued: “If [gays] don’t like it, they can go eat another brand.”

That they did. Mr. Barilla’s comments prompted boycotts of his company around the globe, including the United States, which comprises 30% of Barilla’s market.  Harvard University removed their products from its cafeterias, gay rights groups promoted other brands of pasta, and Barilla’s competitors “seized on the opportunity to present themselves as more forward-thinking.”

Then came this disheartening line: “Guido Barilla issued multiple video apologies in the wake of the scandal.”

What did he say that would require an apology, and where was the scandal?

Re-read Mr. Barilla’s comment, with emphasis added: “I would not do [a commercial] with a homosexual couple, not for lack of respect, but because we don’t agree with them.”

Since when in civilized society does one need to apologize for respectfully disagreeing with someone else? How in civilized society does respectful disagreement come to be viewed as a scandal?

Theology of the Body in Bite-Size Pieces, Part Twelve

We’ve established that male and female were created in God’s image, that as such they were created to yearn for each other and to be joined as one body in covenantal union, an icon of the inner life of the Holy Trinity, open to procreation of new life. Sacramental marriage reflects Jesus’ marriage with his bride, the Church, to whom he gives his body in love.

In his book Theology of the Body for Beginners Christopher West writes the following:

“Christ’s love seems distinguishable by four particular qualities. First, Christ gives his body freely (“No one takes my life from me, I lay it down of my own accord,” Jn 10:18). Second, he gives his body totally--without reservation, condition, or selfish calculation (“He loved them to the last,” Jn 13:1). Third, he gives his body faithfully (“I am with you always,” Mt 28:20). And fourth, he gives his body fruitfully (“I came that they may have life,” Jn 10:10). If men and women are to avoid the pitfalls of counterfeit love, and live their vocation to its full, their union must express the same free, total, faithful, fruitful love that Christ expresses.

“Ultimately all questions of sexual morality come down to one very simple question: Does this act truly image God’s free, total, faithful, fruitful love or does it not?”

Contraception does not image God’s free, total, faithful, fruitful love. It robs the sacred union of husband and wife of its inherent divine image.

There is nothing immoral about purposely avoiding pregnancy for legitimate reasons. (“We don’t want to be bothered with children” is not a legitimate reason. Serious financial difficulties, the emotional demands of other children, health concerns, these are legitimate reasons.) But using contraception is never morally licit. God built into the body his plan for married couples to conceive children as well as to avoid conception; faithfulness to the nuptial meaning of the body images and glorifies God, contraception, which is not faithful to this meaning, does not.

Many people ask “What’s the difference, really, between contraception and natural family planning? They both achieve the same end. The Church teaches that every sexual union of husband and wife must be open to procreation--but when a couple uses natural family planning they are also trying to avoid pregnancy, they’re having sex while not being open to procreation either! Isn’t this a hypocritical stance?”

There is a fundamental difference between contraception and natural family planning, and this difference is what we’ll explore next in this series.

Jesus and "Irregular Situations"

The Church has to [minister to people in irregular family situations] with the tenderness of a mother and the clarity of a teacher (cf. Eph 4,15), in fidelity to the merciful kenosi of Christ. The truth is incarnated in human fragility not to condemn it, but to cure it.

This passage from the midterm report of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family didn’t receive much press, but it deserves our careful attention. In my last post I quoted Pope Francis’ reprimands to the extremes of both sides: those who have the clarity of a teacher but not the tenderness of a mother (what he deemed “so-called ‘traditionalists’”), and those with the tenderness of a mother but not the clarity of a teacher (what he deemed “so-called ‘progressives and liberals’”). Jesus displayed both qualities in abundance; two examples from the Gospel of John highlight Jesus’ approach to those in “irregular family situations.”

In John 8:4 an angry mob brings a woman to Jesus and says: “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery.”(It’s interesting that the question “Who caught her in the very act? Who was watching?” is not asked!) They are eager to stone her, and ask Jesus for his opinion, hoping to trap him. We know Jesus’ famous response: “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8:7) After the crowd leaves we read this exchange between Jesus and the woman:

“Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

She replied, “No one, sir.”

Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on do not sin any more.”

(John 8:10-11)

What is often overlooked by those with the tenderness of a mother but not the clarity of a teacher is that twice in this story Jesus agrees with the mob that this woman has sinned. (“Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her” implies that she has indeed sinned. Jesus is saying “Yes, you’re right, she has sinned--but so have all of you!”) When Jesus says to the woman “Go, and from now on do not sin anymore” it is clear he does not condone her irregular situation, for he considers it sin. Rather, he orders her to stop living the way she has been. This order is not one of condemnation; it expresses love for this woman who has fallen short of how God intends for her to live, and Jesus’ desire that she leave her sinful lifestyle behind.

Another example is Jesus’ meeting with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4. She comes to the well at noon, the hottest hour of the day and the most uncomfortable time to perform that task, because she expects no one to be there. She is an outcast in her town, and she does not want to face her tormentors.

But it is there, in the midst of her shame and alienation, that she encounters Jesus. He seeks her out in her place of loneliness, where she never expected to meet anyone.

Like the adulterous woman in John 8, this woman is in an “irregular situation,” having had five husbands and now living with a man who is not her husband. Jesus does not condone this, he does not tell her it is okay to be living like this. Rather, he points out the irregularity in her lifestyle with such love and compassion that it touches her in a way no preaching ever could.

Read that story carefully. Prior to Jesus’ showing that he knows all about her situation, the woman’s end of the conversation remains on a superficial, earthly plane. Once Jesus touches the depths of her heart, revealing not what is good and holy but exposing what is weak, she is suddenly able to break through and can now discuss spiritual things.

This is what happens to all of us when we can acknowledge our weakness to Jesus—walls come down, true healing can take place, and the relationship can now be deepened. This is how we must conduct ourselves as members of the Body of Christ with people in such delicate situations.

The preparatory document for the Synod, based on responses to a survey of the world’s episcopal conferences, made this profound point:

Some episcopal conferences argue that the reason for much resistance to the Church’s teaching on moral issues related to the family is a want of an authentic Christian experience, namely, an encounter with Christ on a personal and communal level, for which no doctrinal presentation, no matter how accurate, can substitute. In this regard, some responses point to the insufficiency of pastoral activity which is concerned only with dispensing the sacraments without a truly engaging Christian experience.

In other words, we can preach doctrine until we’re blue in the face, but unless someone’s heart has been touched by a true encounter with Christ, even the best doctrinal presentation won’t take root. Touching hearts is a key first step of evangelization, without which none of the other steps can follow.

In subsequent posts we’ll continue to explore the important points made by the Extraordinary Synod on the Family.

Theology of the Body in Bite-Size Pieces, Part Eleven

To the woman he said: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children, yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.” (Genesis 3:14-16)

We reflected on the pangs of childbearing in Part Ten. Let’s now focus on the rest of this passage: “…yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.”

The marriage of husband and wife is an image of God’s covenant with his people, as illustrated in many Scripture passages. Specifically, God made flesh--Jesus Christ--is the bridegroom, the Church is his bride. (See Ephesians 5:31-32, Revelation 19:7).

The bride’s urge to be one flesh with her husband images the Church’s urge to be one flesh with Jesus Christ. This union takes place in Holy Communion, when the bridegroom’s flesh and blood mixes with the bride’s and they become one--that’s where the marriage is consummated. We begin to participate in the nuptial union of the Lamb and his bride spoken of in Revelation 19:7 every time we receive Holy Communion.

But what about the husband being the “master” of the wife? Remember that the New Testament completes the Old Testament, they are a unity. Reading the quote from Ephesians we mentioned in its broader context will shed some light on this verse from Genesis. Speaking to married couples, St. Paul writes this in Ephesians 5:21-32:

Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church.

What does it mean for a wife to be subordinate to her husband as the Church is subordinate to Christ? Reflect on the relationship between Christ and his Church. Jesus said he came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Matthew 20:28) Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice for his bride, so that she may have life. In other words the master does not lord his authority (Matthew 20:25-26), but serves. (“Whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant.” Matthew 20:26. “You call me teacher and master, and rightly so, for indeed I am. If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet.” John 13:13-14)

This is the kind of “master” Adam is to be for Eve, the kind that Jesus will be for his bride. This is what all married couples are called to be: Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Theology of the Body in Bite-Size Pieces, Part Ten

Then the Lord God said to the serpent: “Because you have done this, you shall be banned from all the animals and from all the wild creatures; on your belly shall you crawl, and dirt shall you eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.”

To the woman he said: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children, yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.” (Genesis 3:14-16)

There is a fascinating connection between the consequences God announced to the serpent and those he proclaimed to the woman. We will spend two parts of this series reflecting upon them.

To the serpent God declares that from this point on there will be enmity between the serpent and the woman, and more significantly, between their offspring. There are certain consequences mere creatures are powerless to reverse, and incurring debt to God for spoiling his creation is one. This is a debt that will be inherited by future generations, for creatures simply cannot repay it.

So yes, there will always be trouble between the two--but there is more.

The offspring of the serpent will strike at the heel of the woman’s offspring, which can cause problems but no permanent damage. An offspring of the woman, however, will strike at the head of the serpent, killing it. In this beautiful verse, in response to humanity’s sin, God promises a savior who will ultimately conquer evil and pay the debt humanity cannot pay. Yes, there are consequences to sin, and grave consequences for those who will not repent. But God loves humanity, the ones he created in his image, too much to leave us completely to our own devices.

In other words, while humans would now experience sexuality--created to be an icon of the inner life of the Holy Trinity--with a clouded vision not always able to see its true meaning (signified by the covering of their nakedness), sexuality would be redeemed by the promised savior, who would restore it to its rightful beauty.

The serpent striking at the heel is an image suggestive of the crucifixion. (There is evidence to suggest that in crucifixion nails were driven through the heel bones rather than the center of the feet.) The pains of childbirth are a powerful image of the same. Think about it: when a woman gives birth she suffers often excruciating pain so that another may have life. Life-sustaining fluids issue forth from her body, as did from Jesus’ body on the cross. The placenta--what nourished the child while in the womb--is discarded, a sign that the child is emerging from one kind of life to a totally different one, a life that calls for a different kind of food. (See Part Eight of this series for a reflection on the connection between earthly food and the Eucharist.)

And it all comes about through a woman suffering not so she may gain anything for herself, but in complete sacrifice for another.

So why does her husband become her master? We’ll reflect upon that in Part Eleven.

Celibacy and the Nuptial Meaning of the Body

At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage. (Matthew 22:30)

Why not?

For the wedding day of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. (Revelation 19:7)

Oh, that’s why!

Yes, marriage takes on a completely new form in Heaven; those who live celibate lives on earth are anticipating that marriage in a unique way.

Love is forever, but marriage is not--at least not the earthly variety. Like all sacraments, marriage is a visible (earthly) sign of an invisible (heavenly) reality. Like all signs, marriage points to something beyond itself, and we must ultimately leave the sign behind and go in the direction it points. What it points to is the Heavenly marriage of the Lamb (Jesus) with his Bride (all of us, the Church; see Ephesians 5:32).

Earthly, sacramental marriage is a living image of God’s covenant with his people, which will be consummated fully in the Heavenly Kingdom. There earthly, sacramental marriage will cease to exist, and the marriage of the Lamb with his Bride will take its place.

That is why at the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, for then we are all, as one body, married to the Lamb of God. That’s also why the marriage vows include the words “until death do we part.” Death is the end of earthly marriage so the Heavenly one can begin.

Yet marriage is not the only earthly experience that images the Heavenly marriage of the Lamb with his Bride. “Celibacy for the Kingdom of God” does the same in a different way. Just as Jesus did not take an earthly wife because the Church is his Bride, those who do not take an earthly spouse, when they join themselves in celibacy to Jesus Christ, have already begun on earth their betrothal to the one they will join in Heavenly marriage. As St. John Paul II stated: “Already in the conditions of the present temporal life [celibacy] seems to anticipate what man will share in, in the future resurrection.”

Thus celibacy is also a means to live the nuptial meaning of the body. Intimate union with another in an earthly body is sacrificed in anticipation of the greater good of eternal marriage in our glorified bodies with the Lamb of God.

So where do people with a homosexual orientation fit into this picture? They are clearly called to the celibate life, which means, in this context, they are actually invited to anticipate their eternal marriage with the Lamb while still on earth, as are some heterosexual people who are also called to celibacy.

Yes, there are trials in the life of a celibate person, as there are in the lives of married couples. Jesus also endured trials for his bride; this is a calling we all share.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it this way:

[Homosexual] persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. (2358-59)

"Gay" or "Straight": Are We All In the Same Boat?

In my November 10 post we explored the real question raised by the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops about welcoming homosexuals in the Church. Today we’ll further reflect on this pastoral challenge in light of a fundamental question:

Given that the whole of human sexuality was wounded by original sin, how do the struggles of homosexuality compare with those of heterosexuality? Are there any similarities amid the obvious differences, and if so can we draw upon these similarities to minister to people with a predominantly same-sex attraction and help lead them to fulfillment through their sexual orientation?

Let’s begin by revisiting the theological foundation of human sexuality expressed by the first man’s reaction upon seeing the first woman (both of them naked) in the second creation story in Genesis: “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” (Genesis 2:23)

He was fascinated with her body, but for different reasons than man today is fascinated with a woman’s body. At this point the man and the woman did not yet know sin; their vision was perfectly clear, not clouded by impure thoughts and selfish desires. They saw in each other’s naked bodies only the beauty and glory of the God who just created them, and the privilege to love each other with their bodies as God loves. The first man and woman saw in each other’s bodies the call to become one in loving and life-giving communion, to become the very image of the Holy Trinity. That is what fascinated and excited them about each other’s bodies.

The man in this original state of innocence could not be excited by another man’s body, for he would not see any way to join himself to another man in a fruitful union imaging the Holy Trinity. The woman could not be excited by the body of another woman. Man and woman were created with an innate yearning to join with each other in fruitful union, and their bodies were designed to accommodate that yearning.

After the fall into sin (where humanity no longer knew only goodness, but now evil as well) human sexuality lost its purely God-centered focus. The self-centered allure of pleasure now tempted the man and the woman, competing with the true meaning of their sexuality--and it often won. The excitement of genital activity shifted from the God-centered participation in divine love to the self-centered lust for pleasure; once that shift was made humanity fell into its ultimate trap, which is spelled out simply as follows:

When we seek only God we are satisfied, for only God can fulfill our needs. When we seek things other than God we are never satisfied, so we search for fulfillment in novel ways that temporarily please us but never really satisfy.

That’s what happened when humanity lost the true focus of sexuality. Having lost sight of its divine purpose men and women began to experiment, employing other parts of each other’s bodies in search of sexual fulfillment, parts that were not designed to be employed in this manner. Men also began to experiment with men, and women with women. They even began experimenting with their own bodies, finding ways to stimulate themselves without a partner, becoming totally self-absorbed in their own pleasure and eliminating the unitive and procreative purpose.

None of this ultimately satisfies, because none of it is of God. And yet fallen man continues to explore these futile avenues, no matter how many times they result in a dead-end.

In the context of the question at hand, when it comes to all of these un-Godly sexual feelings and practices we need to ask: are homosexuals at least in the same boat as heterosexuals in falling short of the plan for sexuality?

Think about it: a heterosexual person who has entertained fantasies about or engaged in genital activity involving non-sexual body parts, or who has given themselves sexual pleasure in solitude, or who has engaged in natural genital union outside the marriage covenant, or in the marriage covenant while sterilizing its procreative function, or when driven by the primary motive of self-seeking pleasure rather than the self-donation of Godly love, really doesn’t have a stone to throw at anyone. All of these sexual thoughts and behaviors--whether one is predominantly heterosexual or homosexual in orientation--have the same root cause. We all came from the same place.

Does that not place us in the same boat? (The image of a boat is used here not coincidentally, by the way, since it is a prime image of the Church.)

Some would argue no. There is a fundamental difference that seems to be the crux of the matter, that makes many people mistakenly view the law of the body as discriminatory to those with a same-sex attraction: heterosexuals have the opportunity to express the true nuptial meaning of the body (the image of God’s self-donating, fruitful and covenantal love with another) but homosexuals do not. Doesn’t justice dictate they also be allowed to have a dedicated partner to love?

But the question is based on the fallacy that homosexuals do not have the opportunity to express the true nuptial meaning of the body, the expression that God intends for every human body. But the fact is they do, and they can express the true nuptial meaning of the body in a powerful way that many heterosexuals do.

St. John Paul II taught that emphatically in his Theology of the Body. We’ll explore that topic in my next post.

Welcoming Homosexuals in the Church: The Real Question

For centuries the Church has gone forth to all nations seeking the lost. But what about the lost we don’t need to go forth to seek--those who show up at our door?

This is the question regarding homosexual persons raised at the recent Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family:

“Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community; are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?”

This paragraph from the mid-term report raised a lot of eyebrows. One of the flash fires it ignited was seemingly extinguished when it was noted that “valuing their sexual orientation” was a mistranslation; the Italian word rendered in English as “valuing” actually means “evaluating.”

But the question it raised--yes, raised, not yet answered--is one the Church needs to address:

“Are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities….without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?”

First we need to listen to what the question is asking. When examined in the broader context of the Synod’s other documents, its true meaning emerges: do we open our doors not only to repentant sinners, but to those not aware of the sinfulness of their ways?

The preparatory document issued in June of 2014, based on responses to a survey of the word’s episcopal conferences, made this prescient point:

“Some episcopal conferences argue that the reason for much resistance to the Church’s teaching on moral issues related to the family is a want of an authentic Christian experience, namely, an encounter with Christ on a personal and communal level, for which no doctrinal presentation, no matter how accurate, can substitute. In this regard, some responses point to the insufficiency of pastoral activity which is concerned only with dispensing the sacraments, without a truly engaging Christian experience.”

In other words, we can teach doctrine until we’re blue in the face; but if someone has not truly experienced Jesus Christ--at both a personal level and within the community of believers--as well as the change of heart that comes with an authentic experience of Christ, then even the clearest doctrinal teaching won’t accomplish anything.

How does this apply to the question at hand? Consider the following.

Every human person needs Jesus Christ, for all have fallen short of the glory of God. Homosexual persons, especially those in sexually active relationships, need Jesus Christ--and here’s a key point--whether they realize it or not.

(St. Augustine once said, quite admirably: “I shall seek the lost. Whether they wish it or not, I shall do it.” Once again, if the Church seeks the lost in far-away lands whether they wish it or not, what are we to do with the lost who show up at our door, whether they wish to be considered lost or not?)

How will such persons get to know Jesus Christ, or even come to the realization that they need him, if the Christian community, the very body of Christ, shuns them by barring them from their company?

We hold as infallible truth that genuine repentance is necessary for forgiveness of sin. Yes, the unrepentant sinner is not forgiven. But here’s the pastoral challenge: we often speak of keeping the doors of the Church open for repentant sinners, but do we hold the doors open for the unrepentant as well, in the hope they will discover within these doors their need to repent?

The question raised at the Synod is not should the Church give her blessing to homosexual relationships, for the answer is clearly no. The question is not should persons in homosexual relationships be admitted to the Eucharist, for the answer is clearly no. The question is not should a homosexual lifestyle be valued as a good in our communities, for the answer is clearly no.

The question is: “Are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities….without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?”

How can someone repent of sin if they don’t know the truth? As Paul asked the Church in Rome: How can they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard? (Romans 10:14) Believing in Jesus means more than being the subject of catechesis--it means having one’s heart touched and changed by him. How can anyone’s heart be touched and changed by Jesus unless his Body is willing to welcome them in their company?

What is being asked is this: is there a place in our communities for those who aren’t aware of the serious implications of their lifestyle, to offer them the possibility of “an authentic Christian experience, namely, an encounter with Christ on a personal and communal level, for which no doctrinal presentation, no matter how accurate, can substitute”?

The question has been asked. Now for the work of finding an answer.

Theology of the Body in Bite-Size Pieces, Part Nine

Think of someone you love dearly—a parent, spouse, child, relative or close friend. Imagine having no physical contact whatsoever with that person—you never experienced a hug, a kiss, a handshake, a pat on the back, an arm around a shoulder, or holding a hand. Imagine if that relationship consisted of words and spiritual presence alone, with no physical touch.

Would you be satisfied with that, or would you need something more?

Even with a strong spiritual presence, a relationship without physical touch falls short of all that it can be. (In fact, studies of infants who do not experience touch reveal many adverse effects, underscoring the basic, uncompromising need for physical contact in human relationships.)

The reason touch is so important is because we are not just spiritual beings—we are physical as well, and the body and spirit work in tandem. The spirit lives in and through the body; the body lives because of the spirit. The Catechism of the Catholic Church goes so far as to say that “spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.” (#365) This is why we need to connect with our loved ones not only spiritually, but especially physically.

If human-to-human relationships require physical interaction, how much more so does a human relationship with God, the ultimate source and object of our love. We sometimes think of our relationship with God as strictly spiritual. But we cannot have a complete relationship with God on a purely spiritual level—because we are not purely spiritual. A relationship with God that exists only on the spiritual plane falls far short of all that it can and should be; we need to physically touch God in order to be whole.

God knows this, and in his infinite wisdom and love he provided ways for this physical interaction to happen.

In Jesus Christ, the eternal Word made flesh, God and humanity became physically and spiritually one. The Gospels are filled with stories of people longing to touch Jesus—and Jesus longing to touch people. (A few examples are Mark 3:10, Mark 8:22, Mark 10:13, Luke 6:19, Matthew 8:2-3,, Matthew 8:14-15, Matthew 9:28-30, Matthew 17:6-7, and Matthew 20:34.) As these passages indicate, we need Jesus—God in human flesh—not just for the sake of his touch in itself. We need the healing that only Jesus’ physical and spiritual touch can bring. What we ultimately need to be healed of is sin. Since sin infects both our bodies and our souls, we need to be touched by God both physically and spiritually to receive total healing and salvation.

This is why Jesus instructed the Apostles to not just verbally teach, but to physically heal (Matthew 10:8), to baptize (Matthew 28:19), to consume his Body and Blood (John 6:53-58) and to provide his Body and Blood for others to eat and drink under the appearance of bread and wine (1 Corinthians 11:23-25) so God’s people could be both physically and spiritually one with him, in answer to Jesus’ prayer the night before he died:

“Just as you sent me into the world, I, too, have sent them into the world…. I’m praying not only for them but also for those who believe in me through their word, so that all may be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I in you, so they, too, may be in us.” (John 17: 18, 20-21)

Jesus established the Church as sacrament, a visible sign of the invisible reality of God, through which he would dispense his grace through physical touch just as he had done throughout his public ministry. This touch would be given through the sacraments Jesus entrusted to the Church, through which the spirit would be touched as well.

Tertullian, a Christian writer from the late second and early third centuries, wrote about the spirit’s dependence upon the nourishment of the sacraments received through the body:

“No soul can ever obtain salvation unless while it is in the flesh it has become a believer. To such a degree is the flesh the pivot of salvation, that since by it the soul becomes linked with God, it is the flesh which makes possible the soul’s election by God. For example, the flesh is washed that the soul may be made spotless; the flesh is anointed that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed (with the cross) that the soul too may be protected; the flesh is overshadowed by the imposition of the hand that the soul may be illumined by the Spirit; the flesh feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ so that the soul also may be replete with God.”

Getting God in the Game

"Getting God in the Game: Living Faith Through Sports" is another blog of mine. You can check it out by clicking here.

Theology of the Body in Bite-Size Pieces, Part Eight

As a seque from what we’ve established so far and where we’re going next, I’d like to share this excerpt from my novel “Mowgli and the Missionary.” Death was introduced into the human condition through sin, in which we sever our connection to our source of life. Our life is restored through Jesus Christ, who took on human flesh so it could be sacrificed for our sins. This all has a very physical, bodily component, as this passage explains.

Here Brother Jude, the missionary, has just led Mowgli through a contemplative exercise in which he imagines his human parents whom he lost as a toddler holding him.

“That’s something like how I speak with Jesus,” said Jude.

“But they really weren’t here,” said Mowgli, continuing to wipe away tears. “I only talked to them in my imagination. You can imagine Jesus anywhere too. How can you say you miss him? At least my parents once held me; Jesus has never touched you.”

As his heart rose within him Jude’s hands reached once again for Mowgli’s shoulders, and his eyes stared deeply into his. “Yes he has. Jesus has touched me so many times, Mowgli, in ways I can’t find here, and I miss that very much.”

Mowgli’s smile was not so much of amusement, or mockery, or awkward unease, but of wondrous anticipation of whatever might be coming next.

“Go ahead,” he replied, shaking his head and smiling even more broadly. “Tell me how you’ve been touched by Jesus.”

Jude invited the boy to sit with him, then took a deep breath.

“Mowgli, you’ve seen newborn animals nursed by their mothers. Everyone begins life by feeding off the body of someone else, of the one who gave them life, right?”

“Of course.”

“What is their food in those early days of life? What do they draw from their mother’s body?”

“They drink milk,” said the boy, frustrated with Jude’s fixation on the obvious.

“And that not only feeds their body, but creates a strong bond between them.”

Mowgli hung his head, and Jude hung his as well, realizing too late he had struck a sensitive spot. Mowgli saw his remorse from the corner of his eye.

“It’s okay,” said the boy, gently nodding his head. “Keep going.”

Jude sighed before continuing.

“Can this milk sustain them as they get older?”

“Of course not,” answered Mowgli. “Animals must learn to walk and to run, to build shelter and to hunt. They need other food to help them become strong.”

“You’re right,” said Jude. “And so the flesh eaters kill for their meals, or their parents kill for them until they learn to do so. And the plant eaters take living, growing things into their mouths and annihilate them, killing them to give them their nourishment.”

“Everyone knows this,” said Mowgli. “Why do you speak of this?”

“Maybe you can figure out why. There’s a difference between the milk that nourishes creatures in the early days of life, and the flesh and plants and fruits that must sustain a body when life gets more demanding. The difference has to do with what happens to the source of the food once the meal is eaten. Can you think of that difference?”

Mowgli thought for just a moment, his eyes never leaving Jude’s.

“The one who gives milk lives after the feeding, but an animal or plant must die to feed others.”

“That’s right,” said Jude, nodding emphatically. “You and I are alive today because all through our lives something else gave its life so we can have ours. Whether an animal that was hunted or a fruit or plant that was once living and growing, something else has to die so we can live, their bodies mingling with ours to nourish us. When we eat we become one with what gives its life for us.”

Mowgli had never considered that he owed such a debt to so many, more than just the bull that bought him.

“We don’t usually feel the same bond with them as we do with our mothers, but we should, because a bond is certainly there.”

“You’re right,” said Mowgli. “I’ve never thought of that before. But what does this has to do with Jesus?”

Jude spotted a rotting mango lying on the ground and retrieved it.

“Can you see how this mango is now dead, and why?” asked Jude.

“Of course,” said Mowgli, “it’s rotting because it fell from the tree.”

“The tree gave birth to it and nourished it, and as long as it remained attached to the tree it lived.”

“Of course,” said Mowgli.

“Now it has died, because it’s separated from what gave it life and sustained it. Can it restore itself to life?”

“No, it can’t re-attach itself to the tree.”

“Of course not. And that’s how we are when we separate from God. Like a rotting mango no longer on the tree, apart from what sustains its life, so are we because we separated from God by turning to other things. The food of this earth now only keeps us alive for so long. So God became human in Jesus so he could also die, and through his death he would become the food that keeps us alive forever.”

“But Jesus is a man,” protested Mowgli. “Men don’t eat other men. That’s not right.”

“Jesus changes bread and wine into his body and blood, so he can feed us and become one with us by what still seems to be regular food. That’s how Jesus touches me and holds me, and this is what I miss so terribly.”

Read the first two chapters of "Mowgli and the Missionary" by clicking here.

Theology of the Body in Bite-Size Pieces, Part Seven

The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.” (Genesis 3:6-7)

As we noted in Part Four, the man and woman before the fall were naked without shame:

“At this point the man and woman do not know sin; their vision is perfectly clear, not clouded by sinful inclinations and selfish desires. They see in each other’s bodies nothing but the beauty and glory of God--and the incredible privilege they have been granted to love each other with their bodies as God loves.

“That’s the fascination, that’s the excitement. They see in their genitals the gift to be joined as one body in a life-giving union--an image of the Holy Trinity--and this fascinates and excites them.”

They knew only the goodness of their sexuality.

But now they have eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil!

They know evil for the first time, and it repulses them. They now see in their bodies something else--the ability to grasp at each other as a possession and not as a gift, to use each other for selfish purposes, to look upon each other as objects instead of subjects, to use their genitals in ways they were not made to be used--and they are frightened. They cover up in fear as well as shame, for they now feel threatened by the other’s ability to use them rather than love them.

As an analogy, imagine someone who does not do well with horror movies discovering one on television late at night. They know they shouldn’t look, but can’t resist the temptation. “I’ll just watch for a minute”--and then quickly they see things they would rather not have seen. Now instead of sleeping peacefully they’ll have nightmares because of what they saw.

This is similar to what happened to the man and the woman in Genesis 3:6-7. God had warned them about this tree, and about knowledge that belongs to him alone. He knew there were things the man and the woman would rather not see--that they shouldn’t see--things so far outside the bounds of purity and holiness that it would affect the way they think and act.

They also discovered there was some truth to the serpent’s statement, and consequences they did not take into consideration: “God knows well that the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad.” Yes, they will be “like gods,” and in becoming their own gods they will separate themselves from the true God, the source and sustainer of their life--and thus they will die. They are now doomed to struggle with evil and eventually succumb to death as a consequence of their disobedience.

As we noted in Part Three, God does not say “the moment you eat from it I will kill you.” God says “the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die.” Death is a natural consequence of separating yourself from your source of life. The man and woman have brought this upon themselves.

Now they see in their bodies things they were not originally made for--selfish, lustful thoughts and desires, and a slow process of corruption that will ultimately lead to death.

We’ll contemplate in a bit more depth these implications in Part Eight, before moving on to God’s plan to save them from this mess in Part Nine.

Theology of the Body in Bite-Size Pieces, Part Six

Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals that the Lord God had made. The serpent asked the woman, “Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the trees of the garden?” (Genesis 3:1a)

Yes, this serpent was cunning, and it is shown in many ways.

He approaches the woman and asks “Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?” (Genesis 3:1b) She gives the correct answer: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.’” (Genesis 3:2-3)

It is interesting to note that the woman can restate this order even though she was not present when God issued it--she had not yet been created when God gave this order to the man in Genesis 2:16-17. This divine instruction was presumably passed on to her from another, her husband, not directly from the mouth of God. (She even misnames the tree--the tree of life was the one in the middle of the garden--and adds a stipulation that was not part of the original order: “or even touch it.”)

In response to the serpent’s question the woman simply recites doctrine (more or less accurately) that has been passed on to her, which anyone can do. Reciting learned doctrine is not the real test.

The real test is this: does the woman really believe the doctrine she can so easily recite, or is there even a shade of doubt? And if she doubts, how will she respond when she faces temptation?

The cunning serpent deliberately plants doubt in her mind: “You certainly will not die! [i.e. God has lied to you.] No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad.” (Genesis 3:4-5)

The supreme irony here is that the serpent believes the doctrine more than the woman. The serpent knows the man and woman certainly will die by eating from that tree--that’s the desired result! The serpent wants to separate the man and the woman from the God whose doctrine it knows to be true.

Before we go any further, let’s review from Part Three the meaning of this order God gave about the tree.

The Lord God gave man this order: “You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die.” (Genesis 2:16-19)

We explored a false notion of freedom, one that suggests freedom is the ability to do anything we want to do. That’s an idea many children have (“It’s a free country!”) and one that too many carry into adulthood. Let’s repeat our childhood example to dissect this false notion of freedom.

I’m a child on the playground. Sally is using the swing I want to use. I am free to choose either to wait patiently for Sally to finish using the swing, or to bully her into getting off so I can use it now. I choose the latter. Someone says “That’s mean, you shouldn’t do that,” to which I reply: “It’s a free country!”

Here’s what’s wrong with that idea of freedom. First, by bullying Sally to get off the swing, I’ve deprived her of her “freedom” to do what she wants to do--she wants to use the swing. Second, I’m not free at that moment to be the kind, considerate person God made me to be, because I’ve allowed myself to become a slave to the ungodly allure of selfishness, which imprisons me as a sinner rather than frees me an a child and image of the loving God.

So freedom as an idea that everyone can do whatever they want--that everyone can decide for themselves what is right and wrong to do at any given moment--simply doesn’t work, because sooner or later somebody’s “freedom” is going to be denied by another’s decision.

Free will is the God-given ability to decide what I am going to do. Freedom is the God-willed destiny I achieve, for myself and for others, when I consistently use my free will to choose the good, which I learn by listening to God, who alone knows what is truly good and bad. I can’t decide for myself what’s good and bad, for that’s the first wrecking ball swung at true freedom. It’s Sally and the swing all over again.

God gave us free will because, as people created in his image, we are called to love. We cannot love unless it is a free choice. Nobody wants to be in a relationship with someone who really doesn’t want to be in the relationship, if they’re only there because they think they have to be, and don’t have a choice. That doesn’t mean anything.

Love only means something when a person also has the choice to not love, or even to hate. In that case the choice to love is meaningful, it’s real.

God cannot call man to love unless he is also free to hate. That’s why God gave us free will, not so we can go hog wild doing anything we please, but so we can choose to love in a way that is real. And we learn what is good and bad by allowing God to tell us, not grasping at the tree of that knowledge which is his alone to know in his divine omniscience.

The warning of death for disobeying this order is fairly simple. God is reminding man of his total dependence on God for everything, and ultimately his life. If man chooses to be his own god by deciding for himself what’s right and wrong he’ll separate himself from the true God, the author and source of his life. If he chooses to separate himself from the source of his life, the natural consequence is death. God does not say “the moment you eat from it I will kill you.” God says “the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die.”

"Mowgli and the Missionary" Chapters One and Two

Read the first two chapters of my new novel here.

Theology of the Body in Bite-Size Pieces, Part Five

Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals that the Lord God had made. (Genesis 3:1)

The serpent approaches the woman, deeply envious of the relationship she shares with her husband. It is the unique nature of human sexuality that arouses the serpent’s envy, making it the prime target of attack. Let’s contemplate the serpent’s envy to gain a better understanding and appreciation of human sexuality.

God created the animals (including serpents) before he created the woman. Animals were the man’s first companions. Animals were created male and female--they had sexual partners before the man. God gave the man the task of naming the animals as a sign that man shares in the work of creation, and has dominion over the animals, as stated earlier in the first Biblical creation story (Genesis 1:28).

“But none [of the animals, including the serpent] proved to be a suitable partner for the man.” (Genesis 2:20).

This alone was not enough to stoke the serpent’s envy, though it may seem so at first glance. Yes, the man has the breath of divine life and the serpent does not, giving man special status above the animals, making the serpent and his fellow animals unworthy companions for him. Yes, the man has dominion over the animals with the authority to name them.

But there is no cause here for the serpent to envy the man--in fact, quite the contrary. Man at this point is a solitary creature without an equal, while the serpent enjoys the company of many equals. Furthermore, the serpent has sexual partners while the man does not. (In fact, to take this literally, male serpents have two sex organs to the man’s one, and has multiple sex partners. According to worldly values, the man has every reason to envy male serpents!)

But there is no cause for the serpent’s envy until the woman arrives on the scene. Why?

In the woman the man has an equal partner--but the serpent has equals as well. The man now has a sexual partner, but so does the serpent.

The cause of envy is this: the man and the woman can do something no animal can--they can love with their spirit-infused bodies as God loves, joining their bodies in relational covenant as one, in a participation in the very life of the Holy Trinity. (Indeed, of all species on earth who reproduce sexually, humans are the only ones who face each other in the act of intercourse. Only their union is personal, a true relationship, a sharing in the life of God.)

This is the reason for the serpent’s envy. The serpent does not accept its own place in God’s creation, is not content to live according to the plan God has for it. No, it is envious of human sexuality and its unique participation in divine life, and thus makes it the prime target of attack. Human sexuality remains the primary target of the devil to this day.