Carl E. Olson's Blog, page 300

The Roman Catholic Crystal Cathedral? Really?

Apparently it could happen, according to Spero News:

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange (Calif.) has made an offer to purchase the iconic Crystal Cathedral, built by evangelical personality Rev. Robert H. Schuller.  The $50 million offer could pull the megachurch out of bankruptcy by the end of 2011.  ...

Calling it a "pragmatic alternative to construction of a new cathedral, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange has submitted a formal bid for the Crystal Cathedral, adjacent campus property, buildings and memorial grounds," said Catholic Bishop Tod D. Brown of Orange in a July 22 statement. After the Crystal Cathedral Ministries Board of Directors reviews the offer, the diocesan plan would be presented to the Committee of Creditors and the Bankruptcy Court, the statement said. The Crystal Cathedral filed for bankruptcy in October 2010.  Some members of the congregation are circulating a petition in hopes of 'saving' the church.

"The offer is straightforward and would provide creditors maximum relief in the shortest possible time," Bishop Brown declared.  "If the proposal is accepted, creditors could see resolution within the year and possibly sooner."

It's a bit surreal, if you ask me. My initial reaction—from afar, with no special insight into matters of money and such—is quite negative. But consider:

The Catholic diocese, which is looking for a less expensive alternative to building a new cathedral for its 1.2 million parishioners, said its proposal would allow the Crystal Cathedral to lease portions of the property for three years at below market rates. Under the departed Cardinal Archbishop Roger Mahony, the nearby Archdiocese of Los Angeles built a huge block-like structure, derided by conservatively-minded Catholics and architecture buffs.  The Crystal Cathedral, however, is widely regarded as one of the architectural marvels of the U.S.

Here's a side-by-side comparison of the two buildings. On the left, an architectural marvel; on the right, an, um, uhhh, boxlike structure. Hmmmm...

Favorite Album of the Month. Perhaps of the Year: "Burlap to Cashmere"

Last month I finally got to attend the concert I missed twelve years ago. And this month I finally got to hear the album I've been waiting twelve years to hear.

Back in 1999, Burlap to Cashmere released its first full-length album, Anybody Out There? I was captivated on the first listen by the band's distinctive mix of driving ethnic rhythms, virtuoso acoustic guitar, tight harmonies, beautiful melodies, and rich lyrics that alternated between being overtly confessional ("Basic Intructions") and mysteriously mystical ("Skin is Burning"). Here is a live version of the first song, performed in the late '90s:

The group was promoted as the latest and greatest CCM (Contemporary Christian Music) group, but despite their often obvious Christian lyrics, there was something more at work. I soon discovered that the group's lead singer and main songwriter, Steven Delopoulos, is a practicing Greek Orthodox whose lyrics are born from a deep and serious faith. In this 2009 interview on The Ladder, Delopoulos said that if he hadn't become a musician, he likely would have pursued the priesthood. He also said:

How did you feel about the Orthodox Church as a teen, and how do you feel about it now?

There was mystery back then, the Orthodox Church made God mysterious, made me want to know God. There's so much mystery and beauty and even as an adult, no matter where my mind is, I can still walk into the Greek Orthodox Church for service and be caught up in that mystery. Who is God, why am I here? Imagine just being infused with that notion of mystery. We'd be changed forever; we'd go to places we've never imagined. I still feel same way. There's a mystery, a connection, a social connection, it's where I've experienced weddings, baptisms and funerals, it's the center for my art, my life and hopefully my future and who I am as an older person. ...

I gather that you love story telling- what's your favorite story from the Bible?

Obviously the death and resurrection, there's just so many layers to that, it's overwhelming. As an artist there's so many layers, every moment we die and resurrect. Christ died and rose from the dead and became alive again. So Christ's death and resurrection is an ongoing story. Losing family members, a baby being born, getting a job, calling an old friend, all of those moments of change are a death and resurrection. Whether it's in the form or a molecule or the form of a huge, huge impactful event. To me, the resurrection travels in every entity of God's creation-it's a very powerful visual in my mind. Of course you have the historical and then the spiritual aspects. The Bible says when we get baptized, we die with Christ, when we come out of the water we're alive in Christ. The process of salvation, of dying and being reborn, every time we take communion, every time we get on our knees, and even the layers of every moment, my mind travels to the death and resurrection.

The themes of redemption, death, resurrection, discipleship, and divine life permeate Delopoulos' writing. His two solo albums, Me Died Blue (2003) and Straightjacket (2007) bear the musical influences of his musical heroes—Bob Dylan, Harry Chapin, Paul Simon, Cat Stevens, Van Morrison—but the lyrics are distinctively—here's the word again—mystical, sacramental, incarnational. Rather than protest social ills, Delopoulos more often grapples with spiritual ills and glimpses of divine glory, using poetry that draws often (if not always obviously) from Scripture, the ascetic heritage of the Faith, and the sacamental life of the Church. In the song, "Jungle Trail", he writes of the divine life in this way:

There's a fire burning inside me
Makes the lame walk and the blind to see
Here I am wandering on what I should be
The old earth, the moon, the sun
Some wings to rise the dawn

In the (mostly) accapella-rendered, gospel-flavored song, "May I Always Keep My Feet Upon the Ground", Delopoulos captures the simple but essential struggle faced by every disciple of Christ:

March through the desert
Pray for the rain
Crucify, no more pain
May I always keep my feet upon the ground

Crucify
May I always keep my feet upon the ground

And in "As If Love Was a Sword", he deftly mixes obviously biblical imagery and more contemporary motifs:

All the wandering sheep will be found
And the mountains will tumble away
The dreamers that fly, they'll return to the ground
As the sorrow returns the colors will stray
And the sheep that were found
They go sailing away

She opened her eyes to the One
He shined her with all of his glory
And the music above was a children's choir
As the old man was snoring
The orchestra roared
And they bowed to the throne as if love was a sword

But I digress, yet only because I think Delopoulos is a criminally-underrated song writer and lyricist who deserves far, far more listeners. Check out some of his solo work here and here and here. While I had (and have) a very high opinon of his solo work, I wondered, "What about Burlap to Cashmere?" Turns out they had been waylaid by at least two significant problems: one rather ordinary (at least for bands), and one horrifying and nearly deadly. First, the ordinary, as reported in this June 22, 2011, SoundSpike.com article:

"It was very typical band story," drummer Teddy Pagano told SoundSpike. "When we broke up we were probably mid-20s. We'd been at it for a good seven years, six or seven years. We just toured and toured and toured and ran ourselves into the ground, and started to fight. We just had enough at some point, you know? We decided to call it quits. ... "But when we broke up, we all did different things. Johnny did some session work. I moved to England and did interior design and worked for Apple and National Geographic and IKEA and all these different companies to completely get away from music for a bit."

Then, in 2005, just as Delopoulos and his cousin, John Philippidis, the band's brilliant guitarist, were working on reforming the band, the not-so-ordinary happened. Philippidis was driving home in Brooklyn one evening when he was hit by a car that ran a red light. When he climbed out of his car, the two men and a woman in the other car attacked him and almost beat him to death. He was in a coma for nearly a month, and he had to have major facial reconstruction surgery; he will soon have more surgery, as the Kansas City Star newspaper reports:

These days, Philippidis looks like a chiseled rock star, shredding guitar onstage in his skinny jeans, fitted shirt and dark sunglasses. The glasses hide a slightly closed eye, which can be fixed with one last surgery, and there is a C-shaped scar on his buzzed head from a tube doctors inserted to alleviate pressure on the brain.

Philippidis has 13 titanium implants in his face. Doctors replaced the orbital bones in his face, his forehead and jawline. They also had to reconstruct his nose and sinuses.

His two male attackers are in prison, and the woman who was with them fled the country. Despite the unprovoked brutality of the situation that almost cost Philippidis his life, he and the rest of the band refer to it as the "accident."

"I view it as an accident, personally. I think we all do, because you can't really hold on to anything. I'm not really angry. I get to sit here with my cousin and somebody that I grew up with since I'm 11 years old and play music," Philippidis said. "That anybody claps for our music is the biggest reward you can receive. We're just happy to be here."

Here's a short video of the band talking about the past few years of trials and challenges:

A month ago, on June 22nd, my wife and I were among those who clapped for the music, live and in person, at the Mississippi Studios in Portland, Oregon, at the band's first stop on a short tour of the West Coast. The new album—simply titled Burlap to Cashmere—had not yet been released (it came out last Tuesday), but the three new songs playing on the band's site sounded great. I didn't have to think twice about driving up I-5 for the show. After all, I had missed my chance to see the group in concert back in 1999, and then got to hear how wonderful they were from a friend who had first heard of Burlap to Cashmere from me (that always hurts! A quick side note: my ultimate, "Why didn't I go to that concert?!" was a chance to see Jeff Buckley in Portland in 1995. I'll always regret missing that one.) The band played for a little over an hour—but what an hour it was, as they performed the new album in its entirety with the perfect marriage of precision and passion that you only hear live every so often. Once again, the songs captured me at once with their gorgeous melodies and harmonies and kept my attention with their haunting, opaque lyrics. For example, here is some of "Love Reclaims the Atmosphere" (and here is the entire song on YouTube):

Oh the dizziness of traffic as her garden starts to wither
She opens up her violin so the darkness can forgive her
And today we'll crucify the fear
As love reclaims the atmosphere

Be honest in transition when preparing for the feast
Send blessings to your critics and careful with the least of these
Release the prisoners free

I've now listened to the new album a couple of dozen times, and it's difficult to point to a favorite song; it really must be listened to as a whole. Again, the influences are there ("The Other Country", for example, is clearly in homage, musically, to Van Morrison), but they are appropriated fully and respectfully for ends that are uniquely "Burlap to Cashmere". The new album (okay, okay: "CD") does not have the high (frenetic!) energy that dominated Anybody Out There?, but there is a sparsness, subtlety, and maturity to the playing that only comes with time and real artistry, and there is a depth to the writing that comes through real trials and true faith. It's a true joy to hear this outstanding band—both live and on the stereo—after all these years.

Pope Benedict's Patristic Perspective

Pope Benedict's Patristic Perspective | Fr. David Vincent Meconi, S.J. | Catholic World Report

Student of the past, prophet of the future

In his (now famed) Christmas Address to the Roman Curia (December 22, 2005) Pope Benedict contrasted the two ways of understanding the Second Vatican Council. While some have insisted on seeing the Council as a clear break from what went before, others maintain that although some aspects of the Church were given new expression, the essence of the faith and those truths upon which human salvation hinges did not change. Pope Benedict named the first position the "hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture" and the second the "hermeneutic of reform." Aware that the Church must continuously develop and reform, the Holy Father's address makes it quite clear that such growth is always organic, an unfolding of the fundamental truths Christ first taught his Apostles.

Such an insight is surely rooted in Benedict's own love of the Church and in his study and command of Catholic doctrine, but also, more particularly, in his love of the early Church Fathers. For what is of note in this Christmas Address is how the entire message is rooted in the thought of St. Augustine, the opening line of the address coming from one of the Bishop of Hippo's own Christmas sermons "Expergiscere, homo: quia pro te Deus factus est homo—Wake up, O man! For your sake God became man" (Sermon 185). As a student, Joseph Ratzinger wrote one of his doctoral dissertations on St. Augustine's ecclesiology; as Pope Benedict he included St. Augustine's famed seashell on his papal coat of arms, thereby pointing the world to both the power of the sacraments as well as the inexhaustibility of Christian doctrine. (The story goes that one day Augustine took a break from writing his treatise on the Trinity and while strolling along the shore, came across a young boy using a seashell to displace the waters of the Mediterranean into a hole he had dug. Augustine naturally told the boy that this was an impossible task, to which the Christ-child responded: "And you will never penetrate the mysteries of God.")

Read the entire essay on www.CatholicWorldReport.com...

Parables of Treasure, Parables to Treasure

A Scriptural Reflection on the Readings for Sunday, July 24, 2011 | Carl E. Olson

Readings:
• 1 Kgs 3:5, 7-12
• Psa 119:57, 72, 76-77, 127-128, 129-130
• Rom 8:28-30
• Mt 13:44-52 or 13:44-46

How good are you and I at recognizing something that is valuable, even priceless?

That question captures some of what the final three parables in Matthew 13 are meant to impress upon readers. These parables are all quite short, but along with the previous four parables they show how important it was to Jesus to repeatedly explain the mystery of the Kingdom from different but complimentary perspectives.

The parable of the treasure buried in the field and the parable of the pearl use a common but powerful experience: the joy of discovering what was previously hidden. Man, by nature, is a creature of curiosity, a seeker who believes there is something worth seeking. And while his curiosity can be caught up for a time in natural wonders and pleasures, he always longs for more. He wants to discover who he is and why he exists. The answers to those essential questions can be given only by God.

Some of the early Christian Fathers saw in the parable of the treasure a metaphor for the Incarnation and how the truth about God is finally found hidden in a man—not any man, but the Son of God, Jesus Christ. "If any one, therefore, reads the Scriptures with attention," wrote Saint Irenaeus, "he will find in them an account of Christ, and a foreshadowing of the new calling. For Christ is the treasure which was hid in the field, that is, in this world . . . but the treasure hid in the Scriptures is Christ, since He was pointed out by means of types and parables" (Against Heresies, 4.26.1).

The treasures of Christ and Scripture are intimately linked to one another, for Christ fulfills Scripture even as, of course, Scripture proclaims Christ. Both can be explored by the seeker of Truth. As Jesus stated earlier in Matthew's Gospel: "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you" (Mt 7:7). 

But why does the man who finds the treasure bury it again? Because by law the treasure belongs to the owner of the field, which means the man must purchase, or redeem, the entire field. His decision is a radical one: he "sells all that he has and buys that field." In doing so, perhaps he makes a new start, renouncing his old, self-centered way of life for the pursuit of what is good, perfect, and holy—the person of Jesus Christ. "Indeed, the preaching of the Gospels has no strings attached," remarked Saint Hilary about this parable, "but the power to use and own this treasure with the field comes at a price, for heavenly riches are not possessed without a worldly loss."

Buying the entire field in order to have the treasure reflects, in a way, how God has redeemed the entire world so that he might save those who accept the invitation to become his children, freed from their bondage to sin and the evil one. As children of God by grace, Christians emulate the perfect example of the One who was a Son by nature, giving up everything in order to have the treasure, to hold the pearl of great price.

At first glance the final parable might appear to be a sudden, harsh departure from the joyful images preceding it. What does the final judgment and the fiery torments of hell have to do with the Kingdom? It is this: we must choose, and we must act accordingly. There is no compromise, nor is there time to waste. We may die at any moment; we assuredly will meet our mortal end. We are the ones who will write the endings to the parables by the choices we make.

The question asked by Jesus of the disciples is also asked of us today: "Do you understand all these things?" If our answer is "Yes," then we know what is valuable, even priceless. Which means one thing: it's time to start digging!

(This "Opening the Word" column originally appeared in the July 27, 2008, issue of Our Sunday Visitor newspaper.)

Mary Magdalene: Saint, Sinner, or Goddess?

An excerpt from Chapter 2, "The Magdalene: Saint, Sinner, or Goddess", of The Da Vinci Hoax, about Saint Mary Magdalene, whose memorial is celebrated today:

Any supposed attempts to rid the Church of Mary Magdalene or ban her name from being mentioned did not succeed, simply because they didn't exist. In fact, many of the early Church Fathers remark about the Magdalene, and she is described by Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 236) as "the apostle to the apostles" in his commentary on the Song of Songs. Even feminist theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether, hardly a supporter of the Catholic hierarchy, scoffs at the notion of a conspiracy against Mary Magdalene, pointing to the positive treatment she received from the early Church Fathers:

"This high regard for Mary Magdalene continues in the fourth- and fifth-century Latin fathers of the church. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, associated Mary Magdalene with the New Eve who clings to Christ as the new Tree of Life, thereby reversing the unfaithfulness of the first Eve. Augustine maintains this view, pairing Mary Magdalene with Christ as symbol of the New Eve and the church in relation to Christ as the New Adam. Her faithfulness reversed the sin of the first Eve."

By the eighth century the Western Church was celebrating a feast day for Mary Magdalene, the twenty-second day of July. By the ninth century there were specific prayers for her feast day, and by the eleventh century there was "a complete mass dedicated to the saint (with introit, gradual, offertory, communion, and lessons)". It was also in the eleventh century that devotion to the Magdalene began to noticeably increase. The cult of Mary Magdalene was established at Vézelay, the Romanesque church in Burgandy that had been founded in the ninth century and was originally dedicated to the Virgin Mary. During the abbacy of Geoffrey (1037-1052) Mary was recognized as the patron of that church in a papal bull dated April 27, 1050, by Pope Leo IX. At the same time, relics of the Magdalene were being sought and gathered in earnest, and soon Vézelay became a major destination for pilgrimages.

Numerous stories, almost all of them fanciful and legendary in nature, were created to explain how Mary's remains had arrived at Vézelay. A leading tradition in the West held that Mary Magdalene, Martha, and Lazarus were expelled from Palestine following the crucifixion of Christ. Floating in an oarless boat, they eventually arrived at the southern coast of France. In the East, a tradition stated that Mary had been the companion of the Apostle John and Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and that they had all settled in Ephesus. According to The Golden Legend, the Magdalene and John were betrothed. Some legends depict Mary living her final days in a cave in France, a hermit covered only by her long hair; these stories probably date back no farther than the ninth century.

During the late medieval era it was common to hear sermons about Mary Magdalene and how she fulfilled the apostolic life. She was also a model for Christians seeking to leave behind a life of sensuality and luxury, an encouragement to monks and nuns, as well as an exhortation to prostitutes. "But most of all a Magdalene sermon was the vehicle by which preachers called people to penance and offered them the hope of salvation. . . . We must not forget that it is our own age that officially memorializes Saint Mary Magdalene as a disciple; it was the 'Dark Ages' that honored her as a preacher and apostle of the apostles."

Also see "Meeting The Real Mary Magdalene," a 2006 Ignatius Insight interview with Amy Welborn.

The Heretical Roots of Fundamentalism

This article originally appeared in the October 1999 issue of This Rock magazine. I had forgotten about it until recently, when I came across a copy of it in my files. Slightly dated in a couple of places, but perhaps of interest.

The Heretical Roots of Fundamentalism | Carl E. Olson

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "Belief in the true Incarnation of the Son of God is the distinctive sign of Christian faith: 'By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God'" (CCC 463, citing 1 John 4:2). Along with the Trinity—which the Incarnation revealed to humanity—the entrance of the Word into time and space is the core fact of Christianity. It is also the stumbling block that has often separated the orthodox from the heterodox, as the Christological battles of the early councils so clearly attest.

Although our separated brethren defend the Incarnation and affirm that Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man, my personal experience debating Fundamentalists indicates that what is apparently held is not always firmly grasped. This becomes clear when examining some of the Fundamentalist attacks made on various Catholic doctrines by looking into the heretical genealogy of the assumptions behind those assaults.

IMAGES

Recently I visited an anti-Catholic site (www.jesus-is-lord.com) whose home page proclaimed in bold letters: "God HATES images. ANY kind of image. . . . It is idolatry to venerate images. We are not even supposed to make them." This sums up the common Fundamentalist attitude towards the use of images to aid the believer in worshiping God. It is linked with a demand for stark simplicity in their meeting places. Fundamentalist services are noteworthy for lengthy sermons and impromptu prayers, led mostly by the pastor, while the congregation sits in an unadorned meeting place. The goal is freedom from distractions in order to focus on the sermon. There is a strong fear of idolatry, similar to the fear behind the Iconoclasm of the eighth and ninth centuries and the stripping of Catholic churches by the Reformers seven hundred years later.

The Catholic position is simple: If Jesus really is true God and true man, and if he has existed physically in this world, then he can be represented in visual arts. The Old Testament decrees against images were made when mankind was just beginning to understand who Yahweh was and how he related to humanity. The "fullness of time" had not yet been realized—humanity had much to learn before God would come as man and dwell among us. But with the Incarnation came big changes. The Catechism explains this beautifully:

"The sacred image, the liturgical icon, principally represents Christ. It cannot represent the invisible and incomprehensible God, but the Incarnation of the Son of God has ushered in a new 'economy' of images: Previously God, who has neither a body nor a face, absolutely could not be represented by an image. But now that he has made himself visible in the flesh and has lived with men, I can make an image of what I have seen of God . . . and contemplate the glory of the Lord, his face unveiled. . . . The veneration of sacred images is based on the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word of God. It is not contrary to the first commandment" (CCC 1159, 2141; see 1160).

For Fundamentalists, a visual aid is something placed between man and God, removing us further from a "personal relationship" with the Creator. Ironically, while God became man so we might know how to relate to him in a truly personal way, the Fundamentalist misses this by insisting on knowledge gained only through "spiritual" means, as though the humanity of the God-man has no effect on the entire person. "By avoiding the dangers of magic and idolatry on the one hand," writes Thomas Howard, a former Evangelical, "Evangelicalism runs itself very near the shoals of Manichaeanism on the other—the view, that is, that pits the spiritual against the physical. . . . But by denying to the whole realm of Christian life and practice the principle that it allows in all the other realms of life, namely, the principle of symbolism and ceremony and imagery, it has, despite its loyalty to orthodox doctrine, managed to give a semi-Manichaean hue to the faith" (Evangelical Is Not Enough, 5).

MOTHER OF GOD

The Blessed Virgin is always a prime target for Fundamentalist attacks, especially her title of Theotokos ("Mother of God"). James McCarthy, a former Catholic who now operates a ministry meant to "save" Catholics, writes in The Gospel According to Rome that "the Bible . . . never calls Mary the 'Mother of God' for a very simple reason: God has no mother. As someone has rightly said, just as Christ's human nature had no father, so his divine nature had no mother. This Bible, therefore, rightly calls Mary the 'mother of Jesus' (John 2:1; Acts 1:14) but never the 'Mother of God'" (190–191).

McCarthy's statement illustrates the Fundamentalist practice of making damaging dichotomies where unity and balance should be maintained. The first problem is that mothers do not give birth to natures—they give birth to persons. A nature tells us "what" someone is (for example, human); a person is "who" that someone is (for example, Jesus). It is true that Jesus' humanity comes from Mary and his divinity from the Father (CCC 503). But he is not partially divine and partially human, as McCarthy's statement implies. To consider divinity and humanity as separate elements of Christ's personhood implies inadequacy, since one part is required to fulfill the other. Such cannot be the case, for the God-man was completely perfect and whole in all ways (CCC 464, 483). It is this perfect wholeness, brought about by the hypostatic union (CCC 467–469), that the Fundamentalist either ignores or does not appreciate.

Secondly, it is true that God, being eternal, has no mother. However, "Emmanuel"—"God with us"—came to humanity in time and space, and his conduit into history was the womb of the Virgin Mary. God also never wore clothing, ate food, or went fishing—at least, not until he became man in the person of Jesus Christ.

Finally, the Bible does indeed call Mary the Mother of God. When the expecting Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth, also pregnant, Elizabeth's baby, John the Baptist, leapt in her womb (Luke 1:41). Elizabeth exclaimed that Mary was "blessed" and that she was the "mother of my Lord" (Luke 1:43; also see Luke 1:35 where Mary's child "will be called holy, the Son of God").

The Fundamentalist error is similar to that of Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople in the 420s, who insisted on the Marian title Christotokos ("Mother of Christ") instead of Theotokos. Nestorius's teachings suggested that the two natures of Jesus are bound by a moral union only, not a hypostatic union. This implied the existence of two persons in Christ: Jesus the man and Jesus the divine Word. But Christ is only one person: the Incarnate Word (CCC 466). Unfortunately, in attempting to defend the person of Christ, Fundamentalists echo a heresy that undermines the unity of his person.

THE EUCHARIST

An anti-Catholic pastor recently wrote to me declaring: "There is no room for ceremonial sacramental religion in the Word of God." This highlights a key fact: Most Protestants believe a physical sign or act cannot achieve an inward effect or change. This is problematic because the promise of God—regeneration and spiritual empowerment—was realized and actualized in the outward, physical manifestation of grace that was Jesus Christ. "The saving work of [Christ's] holy and sanctifying humanity is the sacrament of salvation, which is revealed and active in the Church's sacraments" (CCC 774). Dislike of the sacraments can result from a failure to appreciate the consequences for the material realm of God becoming man. As tangible signs that God uses to effect the grace they signify, sacraments bring God's grace to us in forms we can comprehend with our senses.

The Eucharist brings the Fundamentalist's neo-Gnostic and Rationalistic tendencies to the surface. James McCarthy claims Fundamentalists judge the Catholic belief in the Real Presence false because "there is not even the slightest indication that either the bread or the wine changed at the Last Supper. The same is true at the Mass today. The bread and wine before and after the consecration look exactly alike. Furthermore, they smell, taste, and feel the same. In fact, all empirical evidence supports the interpretation that they do not change at all" (The Gospel According To Rome, 133).

This reliance on "empirical evidence" raises difficult questions for McCarthy's own position. Since when does Christianity rest on scientific evidence? Where is the empirical evidence for the Virgin Birth? Angels? The Holy Spirit? Heaven? And where is the empirical proof that Jesus was completely God, completely man? If Jesus had given a tissue sample on the shores of Galilee, would the DNA have shown him to be God? Didn't the people say, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" (John. 6:42).

The Fundamentalist stance of mocking the Eucharist while defending the Incarnation is inconsistent. G. K. Chesterton eloquently lamented this lack of logic:

"Heaven has descended into the world of matter; the supreme spiritual power is now operating by the machinery of matter, dealing miraculously with the bodies and souls of men. It blesses all the five senses. . . . It works through water or oil or bread or wine. . . . I cannot for the life of me understand why [a Protestant] does not see that the Incarnation is as much a part of that idea as the Mass. A Puritan may think it blasphemous that God should become a wafer. A Moslem thinks it b.asphemous that God should become a workman of Galilee. . . . If it be profane that the miraculous should descend to the plan of matter, then certainly Catholicism is profane; and Protestantism is profane; and Christianity is profane. Of all human creeds and concepts, in that sense, Christianity is the most utterly profane. But why a man should accept a Creator who was a carpenter and then worry about holy water, . . . why he should accept the first and most stupendous part of the story of Heaven on Earth and then furiously deny a few small but obvious deductions from it—that is a thing I do not understand; I never could understand; I have come to the conclusion that I shall never understand" ("The Protestant Superstitions," Collected Works, 3: 258–259).

Historically, the Fundamentalist dislike for the Eucharist is related to a number of divergent movements: Docetism, the Reformation, and Enlightenment-era rationalism. While differing in other ways, each of these movements had the same symbolic understanding of the Eucharist. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the apostle John, condemned the Docetists for their refusal to accept the Real Presence, a stance based on their denial of Christ's humanity: "They hold aloof from the Eucharist and from services of prayer, because they refuse to admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6:2). Docetists believed that only the spiritual realm is real; the physical realm is illusory and temporary, possessing little or no value.

Evangelical scholar Mark Noll admits this description fits Fundamentalism today. At the heart of Fundamentalism, Noll writes, is "a tendency toward a docetism in outlook and a gnosticism in method" (The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, 123). The more radical Reformers, such as Zwingli, apparently spurred on by a hatred for the sacramental and sacerdotal order, insisted upon a symbolic meaning only.

Fundamentalism, historically and theologically, is also a stepchild of the Enlightenment. The desire during the nineteenth century to explain the Bible "scientifically" led to the use of methods of Scriptural interpretation that resulted in the rigid theology so evident in the writings of anti-Catholics today.

SALVATION

Because Fundamentalists either ignore or misjudge the importance of the physical realm in spiritual matters, they often strongly object to how Catholics express the doctrine of salvation. This is reflected in the classical Protestant emphasis on "faith alone" (sola fide). Most Fundamentalist groups emphasize salvation is a finished work. It is acquired, they claim, through a once-for-all-time "acceptance" of Jesus Christ as "personal Lord and Savior." Once again we see is a division between the spiritual and physical realms: You are saved by an act of purely mental assent (which is spiritual) and then perform good works (which are physical).

Since the Catholic Church has always insisted that good works, animated by grace, are necessary for one's growth into salvation (cf. Phil. 2:12), anti-Catholics are convinced this is evidence of Catholic "apostasy." Many point to Christ's words on the cross: "It is finished." "See!" they exclaim, "Christ's salvific work is finished! We cannot add to it!"

But would they teach that Christ could have remained in the grave and our salvation would have still been guaranteed? And if our salvation were finished so that there was nothing left for us to do, why do we still need to "believe" and "ask Jesus into our hearts," as the Fundamentalist's own strategies insist?

The deeper issue is a failure to recognize that Christ's salvific work, while culminating in his death and Resurrection, did not start at Golgotha. Rather, the entrance of the Word into time and space was the embodiment—literally—of salvation. The Word took on flesh because God desired to save the entire person: body and soul. This will be finally and fully realized in the resurrection of the body.

Yet it appears many Fundamentalists forget the person is more than just a soul and end up with the same neo-Gnostic perspective evident in their criticism of the Eucharist. And there is no doubt the two are related. If the body is secondary, even non-essential, the idea of eating Christ in what appears to be bread and wine becomes even more absurd. But if it is understood that the body expresses the interior reality of a person, then our physical existence takes on a sacred and substantial meaning.

Christ taught that good works are not only the result of being saved, but signify actual growth in charity, the virtue without which we cannot enter heaven. This is shown in the parable of the goats and the sheep (Matt. 25:32ff). The words of Christ show us how closely bound are acts of charity with our salvation: "Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matt. 25:45–46). Paul described the same reality, writing that it is "faith working through love" (Gal. 5:6) that will dictate where we spend eternity. The Incarnation shows us that salvation comes to where people are, in all their physical and spiritual despair, bringing them healing and hope that can be made evident to their senses through the sacraments and Church.

As someone who was raised in the Fundamentalist belief system, I would describe it as a worldview that gives lip service to major elements of the Christian faith but will not—or perhaps cannot—consider the awesome implications of those truths. As Thomas Howard indicates, there is such a fear of idolatry that true worship suffers; such a distrust of the human mind that theological examination is spurned; such a discomfort with the body that one's humanity is stifled; such a dislike of the mystical that mystery withers and dies.

At the heart of this perspective is an inability to contemplate many implications of the Incarnation: what is means that God would enter history, would grow as a man, would eat, drink and sleep, and would finally, in horrific fashion, die. The Fundamentalists' bias keeps them from seeing more fully what the Resurrection means for the Christian and how the promise of a glorified body points to the beauty and value of the body in the eyes of God. The Catechism teaches us that "Christ enables us to live in him all that he himself lived, and he lives it in us. 'By his Incarnation, he, the Son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man'" (CCC 521).

This beautiful truth of God's union with us by his becoming flesh is something that we Catholics need to be able to explain to anti-Catholics. We must seek to demonstrate that there is a wider and deeper meaning to the Incarnation: the calling of man by the God-man to "become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

Related Books from Ignatius Press:

 

"Why Catholics Are Right" by Michael Coren is now...

... available through Ignatius Press:

Why Catholics Are Right

by Michael Coren

Columnist, television host, author, and practicing Catholic Michael Coren examines four main aspects of Catholicism as they are encountered, understood, and more importantly, misunderstood, today. For some Catholicism is the only permanent, absolute body of truth, while for others it is the last permanent, absolute body that has to be opposed and stopped.

Why Catholics Are Right opens with a discussion of the abuse scandal and the reality of what happened. Coren then traces Catholic history, with a discussion of the Crusades, Inquisition, Holocaust, and Galileo. He looks at Catholics and theology, explaining what and why Catholics believe what they do - Papal infallibility, immaculate conception, the Church rather than Bible alone.

Finally, Coren outlines the pro-life position and why it is so important to Catholicism. In this challenging, provocative, and personal book, Michael Coren draws on history, politics, and theology to present the arguments for the truth of Roman Catholicism.

"Coren has written a case for the Catholic faith that is the rarest kind of book -- wonderfully readable, intellectually vigorous, and stylish in its force. His chapter on Church and history is worth the price alone; but the whole text is alive with fidelity, intelligence and the irony of our times, expressed with consummate skill. Highly recommended."
- Archbishop Charles J. Chaput

Short tales and some pics from the 2011 Catholic Answers Apologetics Cruise

At last, here are a few photos taken on the Catholic Answers Alaskan Apologetics Cruise 2011 (July 8-15). It was my first such cruise with Catholic Answers; my fourth overall, having gone on apologetics cruises to the Caribbean, Alaska, and Hawaii with Envoy magazine back in 2002-04. Of those three cruises, Alaska was my favorite in terms of scenery (and lack of humidity!), and this return trip further validated my preference. Based on the weather reports leading up to our departure, we expected cool and possibly rainy weather. But instead we enjoyed magnificent warm and sunny days and only moderately cool evenings.

Karl Keating, founder and president of Catholic Answers (and author of a few Ignatius Press books), was the "captain" of our group; he invited five other speakers: Tim Staples (Director of Apologetics at Catholic Answers), Patrick Madrid (well-known author and apologist who worked for Catholic Answers in the early 1990s), Jim Burnham (co-founder of San Juan Catholic Seminars), Fr. John Trigilio (president of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy and author of several books), and myself. The mixture of talks was fairly diverse, including topics such as basic apologetics, Jesus Christ, Scripture, the Eucharist, the Mass, the Papacy, and so forth. There were also two 90-minute-long Q&A sessions, which were very well received; many folks told me they enjoyed those the most as so much information was covered in a relatively short amount of time. The panel answered between 50 and 60 questions during each of those two sessions.

While I wasn't surprised at all by the knowledge of the speakers (having known some of them for many years), it was great fun to experience the humor and enjoy the comradery between the speakers, who all took turns poking fun at the other speakers and themselves. It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyhow) that I also poked some fun at the beliefs of a few people not present on the cruise, notably Dan Brown, Tim LaHaye, and Deepak Chopra. Here is a picture of me giving a talk and another picture taken at the first Q&A session:

There were around 185 folks on the cruise (the largest ever for Catholic Answers), and everyone was incredibly gracious and friendly. A number of people were from California, as might be expected, but there were also many attendees from the Southeast (Florida, Charlotte, Atlanta), the Midwest (several from Illinois, Iowa, as well as South Dakota), Texas (Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, etc.), and the Northwest (mostly from Washington). One couple came all the way from New Zealand. Each evening at dinner, the speakers sat with different attendees, which was a good way of getting to chat with as many folks as possible.

The ship made stops at Ketchikan (see my July 10th post from there), Juneau, Skagway, and, on the way back, Victoria, B.C. We also pulled into the beautiful Tracy Arm Fjord, which is about 45 miles south of Juneau, for a few hours. Here are some pictures taken there:

The highlight of our on-shore excursions was a two-hour tour of the inlet at Skagway on a Zodiac boat. The picture at the very top of this post was taken neare Skagway, as well as this one, on the boardwalk leading into town from the ship:

The culinary highlight of the trip was lunch at Annabelle's in Ketchikan Don't miss if you are ever there, and make sure to have a cup of the salmon chowder, which is the best chowder I've ever had. Of course, a nice glass of beer was also necessary, considering the incredibly hot temperatures (almost 80 degrees!).

Speaking of Ketchikan, here I am in front of my modest yaht.

At the end of the day, a few of us would gather and discuss deep issues: theology, canon law, liturgy, the best progressive rock band from Scandinavia, how to grill salmon without drying it out, and so forth. Here is a shot of the shadowly, mysterious group of powerful men who control western civilization, own Wall Street, operate the Trilateral Commission, train albino Opus Dei monks, select Jay Leno's wardrobe, and handpick the daily menu for every fast food restaurant on the globe:

And there you have it: a brief and relatively accurate overview of the cruise. My thanks again to Karl Keating for invitiing my wife and I on the cruise, and greetings to all of the many folks we met during our seven days at sea!

Enjoyable Rant of the Day

I usually like to limit this blog to my own rants, whether they are enjoyable or not (hey, I always enjoy them!). But Kevin Myers' opinion piece, "There's never been a safer time for children" (Irish Independent, July 19, 2011) made the cut, in part because it is, well, enjoyable and because I'm probably not going to rant today (but don't hold me to it):

As the next step in the current calm and rational debate on child protection, what about this: why don't we kick a Catholic priest to death every day? To be sure, there aren't many of them around any more, and most are over 60: all the more reason to start kicking, before they're all gone! And then who will we kick? Oh who would be in a lynch mob when there's no one to lynch? Stupid question: mobs always find someone to lynch.

The Government is now effectively handing a legal charter to every hysteric, every troublemaker, every malcontent and every evil-doer, with its insane proposals effectively to make it a criminal offence for anyone not to disclose "information" that a child is being sexually or physically abused. What is information? What is abuse? How long is a piece of string? And where does this nonsense stop? When the last garda disappears on the latest paedophile wild goose chase, as the streets of our cities are surrendered to violent thugs and urinating drunks?

Let's be clear. There has never been a safer time or place for children than modern Ireland. A Catholic priest is as likely to sexually abuse a child today as he is to organise bullfights in a confessional. Introducing major legislation to prevent fresh child abuse is like revisiting the Repeal of the Corn Laws.

And no, I'm not going to declare my loathing of child-abuse, or of cannibalism, or slave galleys, or human sacrifice or suicide bombers. Few things are quite so witless as the loud-mouthed morality-contest between street-corner preachers denouncing the obvious. And who amongst that forlorn group that passes for the Dail opposition is ever going to dare oppose the Government's "child-protection" lunacies that will soon masquerade as law?

Children are already grotesquely overprotected. Childhood is not childhood anymore but a permanent padded cell, in which obese mothers in randomly-halted cars collect their obese offspring outside the colleges of corpulence that our schools have become. This is before a shrieking Frances Fitzgerald, "Minister for Children", enters the fray. Listen to her please: "Let me declare again that the days of voluntary compliance are over when it comes to child protection. The new legislation I am bringing forward will provide for a strong system of inspection and oversight and the need to provide demonstrable evidence that the guidance is being implemented correctly across all sectors."

"A strong system of inspection and oversight": in other words, a paradise for snoopers, snitches and, most of all, government bureaucrats. So which branch of the public service is to be the model for this "strong system of inspection"? The HSE, and its 35-hour week social workers? The banking inspectorate? FAS? The senior civil servants who exempted themselves from pay cuts? Go on, Frances: who?

Read the entire piece on the Independent site. For some helpful background to the situation on Ireland, read this Catholic World Report piece:

"Sometimes memories creep into my mind from my days inside Planned Parenthood. ..."

... When they do, I try to document them. I don't always share them…some of them I just won't ever be able to share with you. Some of them are things most of you wouldn't want to know. But some of them I can't wait to share…this is one of those memories.

Most of the time, there is no communication between an abortionist and a woman having an abortion. None. Usually, the doctor comes in without introducing himself, mask on his face, sits on a stool, performs the procedure, and walks out without saying a word to the woman on the table. We never had any complaints. I guess women don't expect the doctor who will take the life of their child to have wonderful bedside manner.

About 3 months before I left Planned Parenthood, we had a young woman in the clinic who I had counseled before her abortion. She was very noticeably upset about having an abortion. I questioned her and encouraged her to go home and think about her decision. She was insistent…this abortion must happen today. This is what she wanted. She was just emotional, she said. She asked if I would be in the room with her to hold her hand during the procedure. I was happy to do that for people I counseled…especially those that were nervous or upset. We got her in the room, I sat down beside her, got her blood pressure cuff on, and the sedation was given. But the sedation didn't make much difference. She cried even harder. So hard she was shaking and her body was moving off the table. The doctor entered the room in the usual manner. He was about to sit down on his stool and realized she was very upset. Then he did something that left me speechless. He walked over to her and stood next to my chair. He took her hand and began talking to her. "Why the tears?" he said. "I just feel really guilty about doing this," she responded. He asked her why she felt guilty. She said, "Because I just know this is a sin." He paused for a minute and looked at her…he was looking at her so carefully…so cautiously…I had never seen one of our doctors treat a patient like this before. He smiled gently at her and said, "No. It is not your sin. It is mine. I will take on your sin. I commit the sin. Not you." He patted her hand, walked back to his stool and sat down. Her crying stopped. It was bizarre. Did he really think he was committing a sin? How could he do it if he really thought that? Did he think he was taking on the sins of these women by helping them obtain abortions? What a heavy burden to bear. It was hard for me to process…it still is.

Read the rest of Abby Johnson's post, "My sin ... not yours", on her site, www.AbbyJohnson.org.

For more about Abby's book,  Unplanned: The Dramatic True Story of the Planned Parenthood Leader Who Crossed the Life Line to Fight for Women in Crisis, read the opening chapter or visit the book's website.