One thought has remained with me from the first reading of Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia: this is an ADULT document.  It is written by a mature adult man who is comfortable in his own relationship with God and with other people, able to see things both as they are and as they could be.  Through the lens of his own life’s experience he recognizes his own weaknesses and failures and owns his own need for God’s forgiveness and the help of others to get through any given day.  This mature adult man has written a document that presumes his readership is similarly disposed.  He writes directly, explicitly, and knowledgeably about the human condition, the role of the Church, and the relationship of the two.  It is, in short, a text written by an adult for other adults.  As Archbishop Blase Cupich of Chicago observed in his press conference on the release of Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis is calling us all to “an adult spirituality.”

What does an “adult spirituality” look like?  I ask this in connection with these short reflections on the formation of conscience, because I think it lies at the heart of the matter.

First, I think an adult spirituality is balanced, reasonable and well-integrated.  An adult point of view, it seems to me, is found when a person has learned — usually through hard experience — to steer a course between extremes.  Consider one simple example.  Some people seem naturally disposed to see everything through a negative lens: nothing can ever be done right, some people can just never say anything that is not immediately criticized, and no one can really be trusted.  I suppose if one crept along this point of view to its extreme, one would arrive at the home of cynicism.  On the other hand, some people are just as disposed to see everything in a positive light: they see the good in what others do and say, giving them the benefit of the doubt.  Following this point of view to its extreme, one would arrive at the land of rose-colored glasses.  However, the wisdom of maturity would generally find, along  with Aristotle, the “golden mean”or, as the ancient Latin has it, “In medio stat virtus“: virtue stands in the middle.  Applying this to Pope Francis and Amoris Laetitia: consider some of the online responses one finds everywhere: some people were determined to condemn it even before it was promulgated while others were similarly inclined to “canonize” it, also without reading it.  A balanced, reasonable, and well-integrated adult would, of course, read the document and form conclusions both positive and negative.  Amoris Laetitia is not Holy Writ; neither is it from Satan.

Second, an adult spirituality is honest with one’s self and with others, especially about one’s own limitations.  When confronting challenges, an adult comes to know that there are limits to his or her abilities: intellectual, affective, and physical.  They come to accept that we all need assistance in a variety of ways.  In recognizing their own limitations, the mature adult tends to be more understanding of the limitations of others.  This is a key theme of Amoris Laetitia.  All are weak in various ways and we acknowledge and work within that weakness; we do not demand that a person first become strong before we work with them.  God’s grace and mercy is necessary for all and, as the Holy Father stresses, “true charity is always unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous.” (AL 296)  A person does not have to “prove” or “earn” our mercy any more than we have deserved God’s mercy in our own lives.  Mature adults understand that.

Third, an adult spirituality acknowledges the contingencies of life.  In the sections of Amoris Laetitia which address the specifics of marriage and family life, the Holy Father shows a remarkable understanding of  how hard most people struggle with the uncertainties of life: holding a job that can support one’s family, dealing with fatigue and failure, the pressures of being a single parent and on and on.  Most people come to understand that the vast majority of folks are simply trying to do the absolute best they can despite whatever challenges they face.  Others may come to different decisions than we might, but there is a presumption based on experience that most people are trying to do their best.  However, here we find some tension again between those who have a more positive perspective on human nature and those who are more negative, and would never presume that other people would do their best!  Pope Francis recognizes this difference of perspective when he writes,

I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion.  But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, “always does what good she can, even if in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud of the street.”

Christ at Dachau

Fourth, an adult spirituality finds God’s presence in all aspects of life.  Experience teaches a person of faith that God is active and present even when a person feels alone, abandoned, or powerless.  There is a sense of tranquility that comes to a person, even in the midst of suffering, which communicates God’s “accompaniment” (to use one of Pope Francis’ favorite expressions) on that journey.  Just as God never abandons us, we are not to abandon others in their own need.  The Holy Father spends considerable time in AL reminding us that not only should those who are divorced or in irregular unions are not to feel themselves cut off completely from the church, nor are we to adopt practices and attitudes which convey or support such a feeling of isolation and excommunication.  Simply put, God never abandons us, and we cannot abandon others.

Fifth, an adult spirituality deals with the real, not the hypothetical.  Hypothetical situations abound, but we generally have to deal with one situation at a time, resolve it as best we can, and move on to the next.  While a certain amount of hypothesizing happens with all of us as we try to plan for the future, but in general, we take one very real circumstance on at a time.  I keep thinking of St. John XXIII’s famous passage in his opening address to the Second Vatican Council when he proclaims to the thousands of assembled bishops:

        In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse, and they behave as though they had learned nothing from history, which is, none the less, the teacher of life. They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty.

We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand.  In the present order of things, Divine Providence is leading us to a new order of human relations which, by men’s own efforts and even beyond their very expectations, are directed toward the fulfillment of God’s superior and inscrutable designs. And everything, even human differences, leads to the greater good of the Church.

In much of the criticism of Pope Francis and this Exhortation, one detects the same voice of the “prophets of gloom” which St. John XXIII mentions.  I think Pope Francis would agree wholeheartedly with his sainted predecessor that it is still God who is in charge and still “leading us to a new order of human relations” which goes far beyond our poor human attempt to understand fully.  Like those earlier critics of the Council, much hand wringing is taking place about “what ifs”: “What if” a pastor just looks for a loophole to let divorced and remarried people back to Communion?  “What if” a person doesn’t form their conscience as rigorously as they should?  “What if” people abuse this teaching and simply ignore the longstanding teaching of the church?  “What if,” indeed.  Realistically, will such things happen?  Of course they will, and no mature adult would deny that possibility.  On the other hand, shouldn’t we adopt a position that we will deal with those situations as they occur, if they occur, and when they occur?  In the meantime, as John did with the Council, let’s move forward. “Siempre Adelante!” as Pope Francis challenged us during his homily in Washington, DC.

So, in forming our consciences, we do so as mature adults, striving as best we can and with the help of the Holy Spirit, to discern God’s will for our lives.

(AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia)

Pope Francis never ceases to challenge us across a spectrum of issues.  How we treat the poor, the disenfranchised, the immigrant, even nature itself are all matters of grave moral concern.  He reminds us that we best confront these issues through our encounters with one person at a time, by being the hands of God’s own mercy.

Pope Francis bases his post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (AL) on several fundamental principles, which I hope to examine in future blog posts.  Here, however, we consider briefly perhaps the most fundamental: the matter of the individual moral conscience. The expectation of the Church, well expressed by the Holy Father, is that we confront life’s challenges in a morally responsible and mature way.  More about that in a moment, but first, what do we teach about the conscience?

The core of the Church’s teaching on conscience is found in Vatican II’s Gaudium et spes (GS), 16:

In the depths of conscience, a person detects a law which he does not give to himself, but which he must obey. Always summoning the person to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to the heart: do this, shun that. For the person has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. The conscience is a person’s most secret core and sanctuary, in which the person is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths.

One thing many observers forget, however, is that we are bound to follow our conscience, even if that means we are responsible for errors we make!  GS 16 continues:

The more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.

So, in summary: we must make every attempt to properly form our consciences, but we are bound to follow our conscience even if later that judgment is found to be in error.  Saying that something is “in accordance with my conscience” does not mean that it is necessarily accurate or correct or infallible.  It means that we take adult responsibility both for the formation of conscience and our actions taken in response to it.

With this as context (read more about the moral conscience  in the Catechism of the Catholic Church), we return to Amoris Laetitia.  In AL 37, the pope writes:

We have long thought that simply by stressing doctrinal, bioethical and moral issues, without encouraging openness to grace, we were providing sufficient support to families, strengthening the marriage bond and giving meaning to marital life. . . .  We also find it hard to make room for the consciences of the faithful, who very often respond as best they can to the Gospel amid their limitations, and are capable of carrying out their own discernment in complex situations. We have been called to form consciences, not to replace them.

So we arrive at the first point I want to make about the conscience.  The conscience is subjective: it belongs to each, individual, human subject.  While other persons: family, friends, pastors, bishops, deacons, religious, catechists, scientists and teachers may assist me in the formation of my conscience, ultimately, as Vatican II teaches, I am alone with God in my conscience.  Someone else’s conscience cannot serve as — or replace — my own conscience.

Therefore, my first reflection on the formation of conscience is simple: “Mind your (my) own business”!  Consider the following scenario:

SCENARIO:

At Mass, the Fourth Sunday of Easter.  John and Jane Doe, longtime parishioners of Holy Trinity Parish, Anytown, USA, join the communion procession, approach Deacon James Jones and receive Communion.

REACTION #1:

Mrs. Smith approaches Deacon Jones after Mass.  “I’m scandalized, Deacon, that you gave Communion to those two!  You know as well as I do that they’re divorced and re-married outside the Church!  How dare you violate the Church’s law?”

REACTION #2:

After Mrs. Smith storms off, Dr. Baker heads over to the deacon. “What the hell is going on, Deacon?  Those two people haven’t received Communion in years.  Yes, I know they’re very active here, but they used to respect our church’s laws.  Now, this?  You know they’re divorced and all, Deacon, and you gave them Communion anyway!  The bishop’s going to hear about this.”

The weekend after AL was presented to the world, a friend presented me just that scenario.  “What would happen if a divorced and remarried couple, who had refrained from receiving communion for many years, began receiving communion again?  That would be a terrible scandal, and the pope says we are to avoid scandal!”  What if John and Jane Doe’s story included the fact that they had gone to the pastor and, under his guidance, pastoral judgment and advice, in consideration of many factors known only to the two individuals involved, both John and Jane decide in conscience that each should return to the reception of Holy Communion?  This process of conscience formation, which as the pope reminds us, is not done with a view to sidestepping the law.  However, it is done with due consideration of unique aspects of their own past experiences and current responsibilities for their children and so on.  And, they each reach a decision point in conscience.  And, “according to it [each of them] will be judged. The conscience is a person’s most secret core and sanctuary, in which the person is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths.”

BOTTOM LINE: If a person winds up receiving Holy Communion unworthily, the responsibility for doing so rests with that individual, and no one else.  We do not force our own conscience on someone else.  “We are called to form consciences, not to replace them.”

So, consider a third possible reaction:

REACTION #3:

Mr. and Mrs. Williams approach the Deacon after Mass, beaming with joy.  “It was so wonderful to see Jane and John receiving Communion this morning!”

FOR REFLECTION

1. How do we assist others in the formation of conscience?  Do we get to a point where we “let go” and let them arrive at their own decision in conscience?
2. When we see someone acting in a particular way, do we presume that they are acting in good faith, or bad faith?  Notice in the first two reactions above: the presumption was being made that John and Jane were acting “in bad faith” and flaunting their “irregular” situation.  In reaction #3, however, the presumption was that they were acting “in good faith.”
3. At what point do I have simply have to mind my own business concerning others?

Consider St. Paul’s advice to the Romans (14:1-14)(emphasis added):

1 Welcome those who are weak in faith, but not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions. ² Some believe in eating anything, while the weak eat only vegetables. ³ Those who eat must not despise those who abstain, and those who abstain must not pass judgment on those who eat; for God has welcomed them. ⁴ Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

⁵ Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. ⁶ Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honor of the Lord, since they give thanks to God; while those who abstain, abstain in honor of the Lord and give thanks to God.

⁷ We do not live to ourselves, and we do not die to ourselves. ⁸ If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. ⁹ For to this end Christ died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.

¹⁰ Why do you pass judgment on your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. ¹¹ For it is written,

¹² So then, each of us will be accountable to God.

¹³ Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another. ¹⁴ I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.

First and foremost, read the pope’s document for yourself.  Yes, it’s 264 pages long.  Yes, it’s not always the easiest thing to read.  Yes, it will take time.  But it is worth it.  Do yourself a favor.

My initial reactions may be read over on Aleteia.  http://aleteia.org/2016/04/08/amoris-laetitia-overview-we-advance-together-strong-helping-the-weak/ 

Got your attention?  Now let me explain.

The headlines surrounding a recently-released study scream:  “Increasing number of Americans consider Christianity ‘to be extremist'” followed by the quote: “The perception that the Christian faith is extreme,” says Barna Group, “is now firmly entrenched among the nation’s non-Christians.”  [Read the full article here.]  I am in the process of examining the study, so I will have more to say about it once I’ve finished.  However, there is one thing that I believe must be said at the outset: there is no “Christianity”.

Here’s what I mean.  Tragically, there is no singular, undivided, undifferentiated body of disciples known as Christianity.  There are almost as many forms of “Christianity” as there are Christians, so to speak of “Christianity” as a single corporate entity is simply inadequate.  Consider only a few examples.

We have long had distinctions between expressions of Christianity, East and West.  Such variety existed long before the formal break in 1054 AD.  On the positive side, Christianity has consistently acknowledged and accepted the simple fact that unity in faith does not necessarily equate to uniformity in practice.  The “one faith” can be expressed in a wide variety of ways!  Even today, the Catholic Church exists as a communion of some 27 ritual churches, of which the Latin (or Roman) Church is but one.  So, within Catholic Christianity can be found these diverse communities of faith all in communion with each other, even though they have different sacramental theologies and even different canon law.  So far, so good then: it is possible that “Christianity” lived in such a diverse way can be seen as a united faith.

On the negative side, however, since 1054, some of these Eastern churches (not all of them) broke with Rome and became what is referred to now as the Orthodox Churches.  While theology formed a part of the rationale between the split (consider the filioque debate, for example), the larger issues revolved around the authority of the See of Rome.  Only over the last 100 years or so have we seen some real progress in restoring full communion.  Then, of course, in the 16th Century we find Latin Christianity fracturing even more through the theological and ecclesial reforms demanded by Martin Luther, John Calvin and others.  Within the framework of evolving philosophical, theological, political and social trends, these disagreements quickly moved out of the university setting and into the streets, creating the chasms between Christians we still experience today, despite Christ’s prayer at the Last Supper, “that they all may be one, Father, as you and I are one.”

So, today, what IS “Christianity”?  Before one can make a claim about Christianity (such as the claim in the article that “Christianity is extremist”) it seems to me you must clearly define some terms, beginning with the question, “Which Christianity are you talking about?”  While all Christians can agree (possibly) on the nature and role of Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah of God,  and that all Christians see themselves as followers of this Christ, after that things get murky quickly.

Consider a basic world view.  How do Christians view the world?  Some groups of Christians have a very positive view of God’s creation, frequently citing the words of Genesis in which God proclaims creation to be “good.”  Creation is, therefore, in this view, good by nature — with evil entering into the picture only later through the deliberate, free will choices of human beings.  Other groups of Christians have an opposite view of the world, seeing creation as inherently flawed.  Martin Luther, for example, frequently wrote things such as, “our righteousness is dung in the sight of God. Now if God chooses to adorn dung, he can do so.”

Consider how inclusivist (“catholic”) or exclusivist various Christian groups can be.  One of my own saddest experiences in this regard occurred some years ago when I was still on active duty in the Navy.  A good friend was part of the Protestant chapel community on our base.  He was participating in the annual Holy Thursday reenactment of the Last Supper, put on by the Protestant chaplains.  I went over to help get the apostles into their beards and costumes and stuck around to watch it.  Shortly before leaving to go to the Catholic chapel for the Mass of the Lord’s Supper, I watched the beginning of the communion service following the reenactment.  The senior Protestant chaplain stood and give directions to the assembly on how to come forward for communion.  Ministers of particular denominations would be on other side, and adherents of those denominations were to go to “their own” minister; a “general communion” was being offered down the main central aisle of the chapel, and those who were not in the other two churches could receive in the “general” line.  Naturally, of course, it struck me that I was about to head over to our own Mass, during which only Catholics could receive Communion.  It left me quite saddened to see — at the moment when you would think Christians could be MOST united — we were the most divided.

So, today, we have Orthodox Christians, Catholic Christians, Evangelical Christians, Pentecostal Christians, Non-Denominational Christians, along with other forms of Baptists, Lutherans, Reformed, and on and on and on.  Because of many reasons, such as the “world view” distinctions mentioned above, some of these Christians look for everything to be black and white, clearly distinguished.  Sin, for example, is sin.  Something is either sinful or it is not.  There is no gradation in sinfulness: telling a lie (regardless of situation or intent) is as grave as murder.  In this view, you are either with me totally and completely or you are against me totally and completely.  Other Christians seem to say that anything goes if it’s what you want.  You determine everything yourself about what you will choose to believe and so on.  Then there are Christians in the middle, who marry philosophy and theology, reason and faith.  Given this diversity then, we come to the question raised by the article: Are Christians extremists?

That raises the need to define the other term of the argument: How do we define “extremist”?  In the list of statements included in the study, I found myself agreeing that some of them certainly reflected “extremism” as I understand it, while others do not.  However, ALL them made me think and to reflect, and that is always a good thing.

For example, statements such as “using religion to justify violence against others” and “refusing standard medical care for their children” or “refusing to serve someone because the other person’s lifestyle conflicts with their beliefs” certainly bespeak extremism in a negative sense.  Others, however, such as “demonstrating outside an organization they consider immoral” [would this include the civil rights marches of the 1960’s as well, I wonder?] or “attempting to convert others to their faith” [depending of course on the methods used!] do not.  Read the full study and see what YOU think.

So, is “Christianity” extremist?  What a terribly loaded question!  Depending on what a person thinks is “extremist”, coupled with the tragic differences among Christians ourselves, the only reasonable answer, it seems to me, lies in the middle:

“Some are, some aren’t.”

LENTEN REFLECTION: As a Lenten reflection, we can all ponder what forms extremism, especially religious extremism, can take.  Perhaps it is, like Benjamin Franklin used to say about treason, more easily discerned in others than in ourselves!  I offer this post not to start an argument over this particular study, or to offer some kind of societal critique.  I offer it simply as a point of departure for a Lenten reflection on how we live out in concrete terms the implications of our faith.

From Vespers, 21 December, the Winter Solstice:

O Morning Star,

splendor of eternal light and sun of justice:

Come, and enlighten those who dwell in darkness and the shadow of death.

It is no coincidence that today’s Antiphon occurs on the shortest day of the year, the Winter Solstice.  The “darkest” and shortest day, with the least sunlight of the entire year.  On this day, then, the Church remembers that Christ, the Morning Star extolled in the great Exultet on the Vigil of Easter, brings light back into the world.  The Latin root of the word “oriens” is “East”, the direction from which the sun “rises.”  This explains the various English translations attempting to capture that sense: “morning sun”, “dayspring”, “morning star,” “dawn” and so on.  The point is simple and based on Isaiah: “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who lived in a land of deep darkness— on them light has shined” (Is 9:2).

Pope Francis spends considerable time in Evangelii Gaudium speaking of the dangers facing “pastoral workers”: those clergy and laity who together attempt to serve the needs of others.  Among those challenges, he writes that “the biggest threat of all gradually takes shape: ‘the gray pragmatism of the daily life of the Church, in which all appears to proceed normally, while in reality faith is wearing down and degenerating into small mindedness.'” He is quoting then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger from a speech given at a gathering the Presidents of the Latin American Episcopal Commissions for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1996.  Pope Francis continues:

Disillusioned with reality, with the Church and with themselves, they experience a constant temptation to cling to a faint melancholy, lacking in hope, which seizes the heart like “the most precisous of the devil’s potions.”  Called to radiate light and communicate life, in the end they are caught up in things that generate only darkness and inner weariness, and slowly consume all zeal for the apostolate.  For all this, I repeat: Let us not allow ourselves to be robbed of the joy of evangelization. . . . One of the more serious temptations which stifles boldness and zeal is a defeatism which turns us into querulous and disillusioned pessimists, “sourpusses” (#83, 85).

Although these words are focused on pastoral workers, they certainly apply to all people.  In today’s world, it is easy to become overwhelmed and discouraged.  As the pope reminds us, though, as followers of Christ and proclaimers of the Gospel, we are “called to radiate light” and only in our relationship with Christ and the relationships which flow from that primal relationship, can we truly carry that light into the world.  Pope St. John Paul II told deacons and wives in an audience in 2000 that, when they were discouraged they should “throw yourselves into the arms of Christ, and he will refresh you.”  In these final days of Advent, no better advice can be given!

ADVENT REFLECTION

Are we ourselves discouraged and overwhelmed at this time of year?  As Christ the Morning Star enters the world, may we too be illumined and strengthened to bear that light to others.  No sourpusses allowed!  “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light. . . .”: Are we, disciples of Christ and heralds of the Gospel, perpetuating the darkness, or sharing the Light?

O Radix Jesse:  O Root of Jesse, who stands as a sign for the people, and before whom rulers are silent while the nations pray: come to save us and do not delay!

The “O Antiphon” for 19 December begins “O Radix Jesse.”  While some translations use the word, “flower” for the Latin “radix,” I prefer the more literal “root” because it signals clearly the Mystery being invoked in this prayer.  The point of this ancient antiphon is to identify the coming Messiah as the very root and foundation of creation and covenant.  Our connection to Christ and to the world is not a superficial grafting onto a minor branch of the family tree, but to the very root itself.  We are grounded, connected and vitally linked to Christ.

As ministers of the Church’s charity, justice and mercy, we deacons (this is, after all, a blog focused on the diaconate!) must lead in our concern for those who find themselves cut off from society and church and perhaps even cut off from that very Root of Jesse.  Pope Francis, in Evangelium Gaudium condemns anything which contributes to such isolation of human beings.  Even concerning economies, for example, he condemns any “economy of exclusion and inequality. How can it be that it is not a news item when as elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock mart loses two points?  This is a case of exclusion.  Can we continue to stand by when food is thrwon away while people are starving?  This is a case of inequality” (#53).  We are to be a people of INCLUSION AND EQUALITY, not exclusion and inequality.

Inclusivity and encounter continue to be themes of the papacy of Pope Francis.  In his homily opening the Holy Door for the Extraordinary Year of Mercy on 8 December, he reminded us that he selected the date deliberately to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the closing of the Second Vatican Council.  Read this remarkable conclusion to his homily:

Today, here in Rome and in all the dioceses of the world, as we pass through the Holy Door, we also want to remember another door, which fifty years ago the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council opened to the world.  This anniversary cannot be remembered only for the legacy of the Council’s documents, which testify to a great advance in faith.  Before all else, the Council was an encounter.  A genuine encounter between the Church and the men and women of our time.  An encounter marked by the power of the Spirit, who impelled the Church to emerge from the shoals which for years had kept her self-enclosed so as to set out once again, with enthusiasm, on her missionary journey.  It was the resumption of a journey of encountering people where they live: in their cities and homes, in their workplaces.  Wherever there are people, the Church is called to reach out to them and to bring the joy of the Gospel, and the mercy and forgiveness of God.  After these decades, we again take up this missionary drive with the same power and enthusiasm.  The Jubilee challenges us to this openness, and demands that we not neglect the spirit which emerged from Vatican II, the spirit of the Samaritan, as Blessed Paul VI expressed it at the conclusion of the Council.  May our passing through the Holy Door today commit us to making our own the mercy of the Good Samaritan.

The pope’s message is quite clear and, when considered as part of our Advent reflection on “O Root of Jesse”, particularly on point.  As Christians we thrive when we are grafted to the Messiah, the source of life.  Our mission of mercy is to serve to graft others to the Messiah as well.  Our faith is not merely expressed in a text — no matter how vital those texts are in themselves — but in the concrete encounter of one person with another.  The pope even dares to use an expression often mocked by certain Catholics, the “spirit which emerged from Vatican II” and equates that spirit with the spirit that drove the Samaritan, the Samaritan who is our model for the mercy of God.

ADVENT REFLECTION

In my own life and ministry, do I keep the fundamental truth of the “Root of Jesse” in mind?  Do I seek to find ways to include all persons equally in the life of the church?  What structures and attitudes exist which are exclusionary and unequal and need to be changed?  Do I live in “the spirit of the Samaritan?”

Pope Francis is on the move.  On the eve of his impending Apostolic Journey to these shores, he created some historic mainstream media history with his virtual audience last Friday on ABC’s 20/20.  See the video here, and selected commentary here and here.  He has extended universal faculties to all priests, not only to forgive the sin and guilt of abortion but to lift the associated sanction for it as it exists under current canon law.  Now, earlier today, comes the announcement that tomorrow two documents will be released conveying canonical changes affecting the marriage tribunal processes involving declarations of nullity.  UPDATE: Here is a link to the Latin text [a Vatican translation in English is not yet available] for the Latin Church; and here is a link to the Latin text for the Eastern Catholic Churches.   With the Ordinary Synod on the Family just around the corner in October, this is an interesting bit of timing, to say the least.  Finally, the apostolic journey itself contains so many diverse elements that it is easy to focus on one or two to the exclusion of the others!  In short, the Pope has tossed a 1000-piece jigsaw puzzle on the dining room table and, as with all puzzles, it is helpful to keep the original “big picture” in mind as we try to fit the pieces together.

The Big Picture: Evangelization

Proclaiming Christ to the contemporary world: that has been the mission of the Church since that windswept morning on the Mount of Olives when Christ ascended to the Father.  As has been said, “It is not that the Church has a mission, but that the mission has a Church”!

Pope Francis is — like St. John XXIII — a man with a sharp sense of history and continuity.  Everything he has done since his election has demonstrated this, as I hope this essay will in part illustrate.  What he is doing now is logical, historical, and consistent with the work of his predecessors.  Consider some initial examples.

St. John XXIII ushered in a renewed focus on evangelization when he announced the Second Vatican Council in January, 1959.  By the time the Council convened in October, 1962, evangelization had become the cornerstone of the project: how could the Church be a more effective witness of Christ in the contemporary world, especially following the violence, devastation and death inflicted on humanity during the first half of the Twentieth Century?  Blessed Paul VI, John’s successor, convened a Synod on Evangelization in 1974 and declared a Holy Year in 1975 to focus on as a way to celebrate the 10th Anniversary of the closing of the Council, referring to the Council itself as “the great Catechism of our time.”  In his landmark apostolic exhortation on evangelization, Evangelii Nuntiandi, Pope Paul wrote:

There is no doubt that the effort to proclaim the Gospel to the people of today, who are buoyed up by hope but at the same time often oppressed by fear and distress, is a service rendered to the Christian community and also to the whole of humanity.

For this reason the duty of confirming the brethren – a duty which with the office of being the Successor of Peter . . .  seems to us all the more noble and necessary when it is a matter of encouraging our brethren in their mission as evangelizers, in order that, in this time of uncertainty and confusion, they may accomplish this task with ever increasing love, zeal and joy.

Referring back to the Council, he wrote:

We wish to do so on this tenth anniversary of the closing of the Second Vatican Council, the objectives of which are definitively summed up in this single one: to make the Church of the twentieth century ever better fitted for proclaiming the Gospel to the people of the twentieth century.

Pope Paul mentioned that this theme was not a new one, and that even prior to the Synod on Evangelization, he had told the Cardinals:

“The conditions of the society in which we live oblige all of us therefore to revise methods, to seek by every means to study how we can bring the Christian message to modern man. . . .” in a way that is as understandable and persuasive as possible.

The pope then gave three “burning questions” with the 1974 Synod had dealt with:

In our day, what has happened to that hidden energy of the Good News, which is able to have a powerful effect on man’s conscience?

To what extent and in what way is that evangelical force capable of really transforming the people of this century?

What methods should be followed in order that the power of the Gospel may have its effect?

Basically, these inquiries make explicit the fundamental question that the Church is asking herself today and which may be expressed in the following terms: after the Council and thanks to the Council, which was a time given her by God, at this turning-point of history, does the Church or does she not find herself better equipped to proclaim the Gospel and to put it into people’s hearts with conviction, freedom of spirit and effectiveness?

Now consider the challenges posed by Pope Francis in his own first Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, in which he picks up these same themes and asks his to evaluate our own existing ecclesial structures and to change them, even eliminating those which are no longer effective in conveying the joy of the Gospel.  It is not insignificant that a preponderance of his references in that part of the document are drawn from St. John XXIII and Paul VI.

The bottom line here is simple, direct and graphic: the proclamation of Christ to the world is our mission, and we do that with joy, courage, hope and mercy.  In fact, mercy is not simply one of several attributes associated with evangelization, it is the heart of evangelization itself: God loves us and showers us all constantly with mercy, and there are no exceptions and no one is excluded from God’s mercy.  We who claim to be disciples can do no less in imitation of Christ.

With evangelization as the foundation, let’s turn to recent events, especially the upcoming Apostolic Journey.

The Apostolic Journey #1: It’s not all about the USA

The first thing to consider is how the Pope views his trip.  Is he coming to United States?  Of course, but that’s not where it begins.  The official title of his sojourn is, according to the Vatican website: “APOSTOLIC JOURNEY OF HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS TO CUBA, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND VISIT TO THE UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION HEADQUARTERS on the occasion of his participation at the Eighth World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia.”

Cuba? Cuba??  I can hear some eyes rolling: Aren’t there direct flights from Rome to Washington or New York?  Is this all part of President Obama’s new relationship with Havana?  Is the Pope taking sides in such political issues?  Is the Pope a Democrat??? [I know that we must be careful here; I hope readers realize that I’m trying to be somewhat humorous in those questions!]  Rather we must again look at history.

It’s 1962.  Following the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, the US and Cuba entered a new level of tension when the Soviet Union began installing nuclear-capable missiles on the island.  The week after the opening of the Second Vatican Council in October 1962, the crisis exploded, and we were all on the brink of disaster.  Behind the scenes, both President Kennedy and Premier Krushchev approached Pope John XXIII for whatever assistance he could offer in mediation.  Working both publicly and behind the scenes, John did just that.  In fact, you can listen to one of his public efforts from Vatican Radio here.  Once the crisis had passed, due in no small measure to the pope, he decided that he had to write what many now consider his most significant encyclical, Pacem in Terris (Peace on Earth).  This was a direct result of the missile crisis.  Since that time, popes have worked to continue to ease the tension between our two countries.  

The fact that Pope Francis is beginning his apostolic journey with a visit to Cuba is most significant.  I am convinced that we will hear more about Pope John XXIII and his efforts from Pope Francis and the longstanding desire of the papacy that peaceful solutions be found.  When he arrives in the United States, It think it is a safe bet that he will “report” on his visit to Cuba, especially perhaps, in his speech later at the United Nations.

Proclaiming Christ in the world today: Evangelization.

The Apostolic Journey #2: It’s not all about the big ticket events

Take a good look at the agenda for the apostolic journey here.  Notice the times throughout that Pope Francis will be visiting with young people, with the poor, with immigrants, with prisoners and the ill.  I hope that the media will not simply keep their cameras focused on the huge papal Masses and the public addresses to the Congress and the United Nations — as critical as those will be.  At the heart of the pope’s visit, however, will be those far more intimate and direct contacts he will have with people most in need of God’s healing and merciful touch.  Much as we saw in the recent 20/20 “virtual papal audience” this is where the pope feels most at home, and where he feels he — and we — need to be!

Proclaiming Christ in the world today: evangelization.

The Apostolic Journey #3: The Canonization of Junipero Serra

Living and working right now in California, in fact, in the Diocese in which Father Serra is buried, it has been fascinating to watch the reactions to this canonization.  I was born and raised in central Illinois, and all we learned were the basics: that Spanish Franciscans led by Fra Junipero Serra had established a series of missions along the California coast during the Spanish Colonial period in the late 18th Century.  That was pretty much it, or at least as much as I remember.  Now, of course, we have become much more attuned to the complexities of this matter, with many native peoples objecting vigorously against what they characterize as an oppressive and murderous regime.  Father Serra himself is sometimes even cited as a culprit or even as a “devil” in this regard.

Other Native peoples, however, support the canonization.  In particular, there have been very fruitful conversations between church authorities and the leaders of the Peoples who are descendants of the groups who were actually involved in the situations described.  They are actively involved in promoting and in planning for the canonization itself.  A number of respected scholars of the period, the peoples, and the archaeology, continue to examine the evidence in a comprehensive and nuanced way.  For me at least, it has been this this renewed sense of dialogue and scientific and historical research that has made the event of the canonization of Junipero Serra fruitful.  Several of these scholars even admit that when they began their work on the missions that they were negative toward the mission system but, after their analysis, actually come to hold the opposite view: that, in fact, the missions served a positive role in the history of the region and its peoples.

But the bigger issue, perhaps, the “big picture,” needs to be remembered.  To declare someone a saint has never meant that the church considers that person to be perfect in every way.  Pope Francis understands that.  He has been highlighting people who have left their own homeland, left their previous “comfort zones”, and preached Christ.  Last January,the pope canonized Father Joseph Vaz, an Indian-born priest who came to Sri Lanka during the 17th century, at a time when Dutch colonists conducted a brutal persecution of Catholics. It was on the papal plane flight leaving Sri Lanka that embarked reporters asked the pope about the canonization.  He replied that he was seeking to hold out examples of courageous evangelization, and for that reason, he hoped to canonize Junipero Serra during his visit to the United States.  The ultimate message, then, is not to portray Junipera Serra as a perfect, sinless man.  The pope hopes that the known positive aspects of his life and ministry will inspire today’s Christians to leave our own comfort zones to offer Christ to the modern world.

Proclaiming Christ in the world today: evangelization.

The Apostolic Journey #4: The Speech to Congress

This will be a particularly fascinating and historic event!  Reports out of Washington suggest that some legislators are concerned that the pope’s address will result in unseemly behavior, as members of one political party rise to applaud certain items in the address while the other party remains seated.  It has been suggested the no one rise during the speech itself and then applaud only at the end of it.  In any case, we may be assured of one simple fact.  The pope will challenge each and every member of Congress, as well as all of us who will be following along.  He is neither Republican or Democrat, and he will undoubtedly be an equal opportunity prophet: preaching against abortion and for immigration reform; criticizing any economic systems (including capitalism) which harm the human person and challenging the lawmakers to find ways to help the poor and those caught in despair.  When considering the normal camera angles used for similar events (such as the President’s annual State of the Union address), it will be most interesting to see the pope at the podium, flanked by Vice President Biden on the left and Speaker Boehner on the right.  Both men, as Catholics, might well offer interesting visual responses to the challenges to the topics sure to be raised by the pope.

Proclaiming Christ in the world today: evangelization.

The Apostolic Journey #5: The Speech to the UN General Assembly

Here we have another interesting papal precedent.  It was fifty years ago, almost to the day, that Pope Paul VI addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations.  During that famous speech, which would have great influence on the Second Vatican Council, which was at the same time completing its own work on the section of Gaudium et Spes dealing with war and peace, Pope Paul passionately reminded the Assembly:

These are the words you are looking for us to say and the words we cannot utter without feeling aware of their seriousness and solemnity: never again one against the other, never, never again!

Was not this the very end for which the United Nations came into existence: to be against war and for peace? Listen to the clear words of a great man who is no longer with us, John Kennedy, who proclaimed four years ago: “Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.” There is no need for a long talk to proclaim the main purpose of your Institution. It is enough to recall that the blood of millions, countless unheard-of sufferings, useless massacres and frightening ruins have sanctioned the agreement that unites you with an oath that ought to change the future history of the world: never again war, never again war! It is peace, peace, that has to guide the destiny of the nations of all mankind!

And in a classic comment, he proclaimed, “If you want to be brothers, let the arms fall from your hands. A person cannot love with offensive weapons in his hands.”

It seems very safe to predict that Pope Francis will make direct references to Pope Paul’s address, and that he will build upon it.  His message will be, like Pope Paul’s, about the responsibilities that nations have to their people and indeed all people.

Proclaiming Christ in the world today: evangelization.

The Apostolic Journey #6: The World Meeting of Families

Finally we come to the event which initiated the pope’s visit to the United States in the first place. Naturally we will see and hear the pope offering inspiration and encouragement to the assembled families.  While he may not get into specifics, it would seem natural that he might aver to the upcoming Synod on the Family.  He will certainly speak of the multiple stressors on the family today and challenge all in attendance to strengthen the family and offering his own personal and prayerful support.  The family will also be presented as the domestic Church, echoing Vatican II, reflecting in itself the loving nature of God and God’s own relationship with God’s creation.

Proclaiming Christ to the modern world: evangelization.

And so, as we head into this remarkable journey with Pope Francis, may we all keep the completed puzzle in mind: It is all about how WE, today, carry the merciful Christ into the world today.  Our Holy Father is giving us a stunning demonstration of how that looks on a global scale: EVANGELIZATION!