Carl E. Olson's Blog, page 310

Brilliant Jew-bashing, Christian-lashing Comment of the Day!

This was just left on my post, "One bad of a hell argument":

Old Testament written by illiterate Cowherds of Middle East which does not suit European way of life. Hence Roman Emperor Constantino & his associates created New Testament, also copying some Eastern Religion. If educated present generation follow this thrash is ignorance at helm.

At least he capitalized "Cowherds." It's good to see that sort of respect in the com box. Cowherds do get treated so poorly these days. After all, shouldn't people who are "illiterate" and still manage to write the entire Old Testament get some sort of credit?

Several more new audio books from Ignatius Press

Now available for download! Here are links, along with audio samples:

• From The World's First Love: Mary, Mother of God (2nd edition), by Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen; read by Bernard M. Collins:

• From What We Can't Not Know: A Guide, by J. Budziszewski; read by Bernard M. Collins:

• From Into Your Hands, Father: Abandoning Ourselves to the God Who Loves Us, by Fr. Wilfrid Stinissen; read by Rev. Milton Walsh:

• From Happiness, God and Man, by Christoph Cardinal Shoenborn; read by Bernard M. Collins:

• From Plague Journal: A Novel, by Michael O'Brien; read by Kevin O'Brien:

• From What Catholics Really Believe, by Karl Keating; read by Bernard M. Collins:

• From A Month Of Sundays With Monsignor Knox, by Monsignor Ronald Knox; read by Rev. Milton Walsh:

• Listen to clips from four new audio books (all novels) from Ignatius Press (May 2, 2011)

The wrong sort of CCD: Catholic Cognitive Dissonance

Here is part of a report on a recent Public Religion Research Institute survey about beliefs regarding abortion:

Another apparent contradiction comes from the high percentage of people across all age groups who say both the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" describe them somewhat or very well. Among all of the 3,000 adults sampled for the survey, 70 percent said the term "pro-choice" describes them well or somewhat, and 66 percent identify with the word "pro-life." Seventy-five percent of millennials identify at least somewhat as "pro-choice," and 65 percent said the word "pro-life" describes them.

Among Catholics, 77 percent said "pro-life" describes them well or very well, and 70 percent said "pro-choice" describes them.

At a June 9 forum hosted by the Brookings Institution where the survey was released, Robert Jones, CEO and founder of the Public Religion Research Institute, explained that in focus groups, people reiterated that they consider themselves fitting under both labels.

What we have, in other words, are a large number of Catholics saying, "Personally, I'm pro-life. But I won't force my beliefs on anyone else." Many will also add: "And I really can't judge someone's decision to have an abortion." It is essentially the same argument (in)famously presented (albeit in more sophisticated form) by then-Gov. Mario Cuomo back on September 13, 1984, to the University of Notre Dame's Department of Theology. But to be fair to Cuomo, Cardinal Cushing of Boston said the same thing in the early 1960s; in a 1963 radio interview he reportedly stated, "I have no right to impose my thinking, which is rooted in religious thought, on those who do not think as I do", in regards to efforts to life the ban then in place on contraceptives (the legislation to lift the ban, by the way, was introduced by a certain Michael Dukakis). 

This faulty and badly misleading approach had become so commonplace in the West by the 1990s that it was addressed at length by Blessed John Paul II in his 1995 encyclical, Evangelium Vitae. He wrote that "in the democratic culture of our time it is commonly held that the legal system of any society should limit itself to taking account of and accepting the convictions of the majority. It should therefore be based solely upon what the majority itself considers moral and actually practises." He then stated:

Furthermore, if it is believed that an objective truth shared by all is de facto unattainable, then respect for the freedom of the citizens—who in a democratic system are considered the true rulers—would require that on the legislative level the autonomy of individual consciences be acknowledged. Consequently, when establishing those norms which are absolutely necessary for social coexistence, the only determining factor should be the will of the majority, whatever this may be. Hence every politician, in his or her activity, should clearly separate the realm of private conscience from that of public conduct.

As a result we have what appear to be two diametrically opposed tendencies. On the one hand, individuals claim for themselves in the moral sphere the most complete freedom of choice and demand that the State should not adopt or impose any ethical position but limit itself to guaranteeing maximum space for the freedom of each individual, with the sole limitation of not infringing on the freedom and rights of any other citizen. On the other hand, it is held that, in the exercise of public and professional duties, respect for other people's freedom of choice requires that each one should set aside his or her own convictions in order to satisfy every demand of the citizens which is recognized and guaranteed by law; in carrying out one's duties the only moral criterion should be what is laid down by the law itself. Individual responsibility is thus turned over to the civil law, with a renouncing of personal conscience, at least in the public sphere. (par. 69)

You'll not find a better explanation of the roots of the reason why many Catholics, with nary a raising of the brow or a twitching of the eye can describe themselves as both "pro-choice" and "pro-life". The late Holy Father, however, went even deeper, noting that a pervasive and rotten relativism is the source of this cognitive and moral dissonance:

At the basis of all these tendencies lies the ethical relativism which characterizes much of present-day culture. There are those who consider such relativism an essential condition of democracy, inasmuch as it alone is held to guarantee tolerance, mutual respect between people and acceptance of the decisions of the majority, whereas moral norms considered to be objective and binding are held to lead to authoritarianism and intolerance.

But it is precisely the issue of respect for life which shows what misunderstandings and contradictions, accompanied by terrible practical consequences, are concealed in this position. (pars. 69-70).

And then, drawing upon his experience with the horrors of Communism and Naziism, John Paul II asked these challenging questions:

It is true that history has known cases where crimes have been committed in the name of "truth". But equally grave crimes and radical denials of freedom have also been committed and are still being committed in the name of "ethical relativism". When a parliamentary or social majority decrees that it is legal, at least under certain conditions, to kill unborn human life, is it not really making a "tyrannical" decision with regard to the weakest and most defenceless of human beings? Everyone's conscience rightly rejects those crimes against humanity of which our century has had such sad experience. But would these crimes cease to be crimes if, instead of being committed by unscrupulous tyrants, they were legitimated by popular consensus? (par. 70).

The past four or five decades have shown, in case after case, that when people and institutions doff the mantle of being "privately opposed" to abortion, "but...", their public witness disappears or is severely distorted, and any semblance of coherent moral vision turns to dust. Confusion abounds, to the point that this country's most famous Catholic university praised itself in 2009 for handing the most pro-abortion President in history an honorary doctor of laws degree and then, in recent weeks, appointing a financial supporter of a well-known abortion lobby to its board of trustees. In the wake of the appointee's resignation and the school's awkward handling of the situation, George Weigel noted, "Those watching from a distance could only conclude that Ms. Martino, Mr. Notebaert, and perhaps Father Jenkins simply did not understand what the fuss was about, and yielded only under unbearable pressure."

Likewise, it seems to me that many (though certainly not all) Catholics who say they are "pro-choice", in fact, don't know what the fuss is about. They have been told repeatedly that individual beliefs and "right of privacy" and "choice" trump truth, reality, and life, and they don't see the contradiction in their position and so, tragically, fail to see how it is, as John Paul II explained, always "accompanied by terrible practical consequences".

Related Ignatius Insight Articles, Excerpts, & Interviews:

• Abortion and Ideology | Raymond Dennehy
• The Illusion of Freedom Separated from Moral Virtue | Raymond Dennehy
• Privacy, the Courts, and the Culture of Death | An Interview with Dr. Janet E. Smith
• What Is "Legal"? On Abortion, Democracy, and Catholic Politicians | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• Deadly Architects | An Interview with Donald De Marco and Benjamin Wiker
• Human Sexuality and the Catholic Church | Donald P. Asci
• The Truth About Conscience | John F. Kippley
• The Case Against Abortion | An Interview with Dr. Francis Beckwith
• What Is Catholic Social Teaching? | Mark Brumley
• Introduction to Three Approaches to Abortion | Peter Kreeft
• Some Atrocities are Worse than Others | Mary Beth Bonacci
• Personally Opposed--To What? | Dr. James Hitchcock

20% off CDs and audio books from Ignatius Press

20% Off Inspiring Summer Listening!

Summer is almost here and there is no better way to enjoy it than to sit back, relax and listen to some inspiring music or audio books! Available now is one of 2011's most heavily anticipated new releases, Dream with Me by Jackie Evancho. Produced by David Foster, who says her understanding of the musical process left him speechless, you won't want to pass this album up! We are also offering 20% off several other great music CDs, as well as a selection of audio books. Order your copy of the best-selling titles: Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week or Light of the World today!

Offer ends Tuesday, June 21st, 2011 at 12:00 midnight EST.
These prices are available online only through Ignatius.com

Why do dissenters remain in the Catholic Church?

It's a very common question. After all, if a Catholic really thinks the Catholic Church is outdated, backwards, misogynist, homophobic, reactionary, and even evil, why insist on being "Catholic"? Dr. James Hitchcock, longtime professor of history at Saint Louis University, offers some helpful insights in the second part of his essay, "The Failure of Liberal Catholicism"; if you've not yet read it, here is an excerpt:

Why discontented liberals remain in a Church that continuously frustrates them is not easy to understand; it is not because of a belief in the Church's divine character. They sometimes cite the Eucharist as their reason for staying, but logically their principles require them to believe that Protestant eucharists are equally valid.

Being a Catholic is reduced to the lowest common denominator, as by an NCR reader who explains it thus—"Relationships that I simply could not continue in a practical way with the hundreds of people over all of these years," an explanation that could apply equally to professional organizations, alumni clubs, or groups of hobbyists. Another reader attends a "progressive" parish, "not because I need Catholicism to grow spiritually, but because this inclusive community nourishes me in ways I have not found elsewhere."

A feminist declares that "women don't need the Vatican. We don't need the bishops. That is the real threat." But in fact they do, because their identity is forged in obsessive rebellion against Church authority.

The repeated charge that those within the hierarchy are power-hungry is to a great extent an expression of the liberals' own obsession with power, which is a major reason why they remain in the Church. A woman recounted in the NCR that she had not attended church for a long time, until another feminist "helped me see the power in greeting people before Mass."

Most feminists could not offer a coherent theology of the priesthood, but they nevertheless demand to be ordained. One female "bishop" says that while "the Catholic Church is toxic to women…it is vitally important to my credibility that I be recognized as Roman Catholic. I ordain women to the priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, I am excommunicated, but I remain specifically and intentionally in the church."

An "expert" on the laity, the former Jesuit Paul Lakeland, charges that the Church "infantilizes" people ("it's a rub-your-nose-in-term and that's why I used it"), by which he seems to mean not that their religious and moral lives are childish but that they have failed to "take ownership of the universal church." Power alone matters, and Lakeland feels justified in demeaning those who do not grasp that fact.

In an open letter, the Australian priest Eric Hodgens complains that outstanding men like himself were kept from the offices they deserved, while promotion went to those who "sold their souls for advancement."

Liberal Catholicism is replaying the history of the Reformation of the 16th century, beginning with calls for legitimate reform and ending in innumerable divisions. But whereas Luther and Calvin repudiated those who moved too far too fast, the concepts of heresy and schism are meaningless in the incoherent liberal Catholic ecclesiology, where each person's judgment is held to be sacred, where people are Catholics simply because they claim to be.

Read the entire piece and also Part One of the essay, both on www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

"Who Do You Say I Am?" | Peter Kreeft on the Divinity of Christ

"Who Do You Say I Am?" | Peter Kreeft on the Divinity of Christ | From Fundamentals of the Faith: Essays in Christian Apologetics

The doctrine of Christ's divinity is the central Christian doctrine, for it is like a skeleton key that opens all the others. Christians have not independently reasoned out and tested each of the teachings of Christ, received via Bible and Church, but believe them all on his authority. For if Christ is divine, he can be trusted to be infallible In everything he said, even hard things like exalting suffering and poverty, forbidding divorce, giving his Church the authority to teach and forgive sins in his name, warning about hell (very often and very seriously), instituting the scandalous sacrament of eating his flesh-we often forget how many "hard sayings" he taught!

When the first Christian apologists began to give a reason for the faith that was in them to unbelievers, this doctrine of Christ's divinity naturally came under attack, for it was almost as incredible to Gentiles as it was scandalous to Jews. That a man who was born out of a woman's womb and died on a cross, a man who got tired and hungry and angry and agitated and wept at his friend's tomb, that this man who got dirt under his fingernails should be God was, quite simply, the most astonishing, incredible, crazy-sounding idea that had ever entered the mind of man in all human history.

The argument the early apologists used to defend this apparently indefensible doctrine has become a classic one. C. S. Lewis used it often, e.g., in Mere Christianity, the book that convinced Chuck Colson (and thousands of others). I once spent half a book (Between Heaven and Hell) on this one argument alone. It is the most important argument in Christian apologetics, for once .in unbeliever accepts the conclusion of this argument (that Christ is divine), everything else in the Faith follows, not only intellectually (Christ's teachings must all then be true) but also personally (if Christ is God, he is also your total Lord and Savior).

The argument, like all effective arguments, is extremely simple: Christ was either God or a bad man.

Unbelievers almost always say he was a good man, not a bad man; that he was a great moral teacher, a sage, a philosopher, a moralist, and a prophet, not a criminal, not a man who deserved to be crucified. But a good man is the one thing he could not possibly have been according to simple common sense and logic. For he claimed to be God. He said, "Before Abraham was, I Am", thus speaking the word no Jew dares to speak because it is God's own private name, spoken by God himself to Moses at the burning bush. Jesus wanted everyone to believe that he was God. He wanted people to worship him. He claimed to forgive everyone's sins against everyone. (Who can do that but God, the One offended in every sin?)

Now what would we think of a person who went around making these claims today? Certainly not that he was a good man or a sage. There are only two possibilities: he either speaks the truth or not, If he speaks the truth, he is God and the case is closed. We must believe him and worship him. If he does not speak the truth, then he is not God but a mere man. But a mere man who wants you to worship him as God is not a good man. He is a very bad man indeed, either morally or intellectually. If he knows that he is not God, then he is morally bad, a liar trying deliberately to deceive you into blasphemy. If he does not know that he is not God, if he sincerely thinks he is God, then he is intellectually bad-in fact, insane.

A measure of your insanity is the size of the gap between what you think you are and what you really are. If I think I am the greatest philosopher in America, I am only an arrogant fool; if I think I am Napoleon, I am probably over the edge; if I think I am a butterfly, I am fully embarked from the sunny shores of sanity. But if I think I am God, I am even more insane because the gap between anything finite and the infinite God is even greater than the gap between any two finite things, even a man and a butterfly.

josh McDowell summarized the argument simply and memorably in the trilemma " Lord, liar, or lunatic?" Those are the only options. Well, then, why not liar or lunatic? But almost no one who has read the Gospels can honestly and seriously consider that option. The savviness, the canniness, the human wisdom, the attractiveness of Jesus emerge from the Gospels with unavoidable force to any but the most hardened and prejudiced reader. Compare Jesus with liars like the Reverend Sun Myung Moon or lunatics like the dying Nietzsche. Jesus has in abundance precisely those three qualities that liars and lunatics most conspicuously lack: (1) his practical wisdom, his ability to read human hearts, to understand people and the real, unspoken question behind their words, his ability to heal people's spirits as well as their bodies; (2) his deep and winning love, his passionate compassion, his ability to attract people and make them feel at home and forgiven, his authority, "not as the scribes"; and above all (3) his ability to astonish, his unpredictability, his creativity. Liars and lunatics are all so dull and predictable! No one who knows both the Gospels and human beings can seriously entertain the possibility that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic, a bad man.

No, the unbeliever almost always believes that Jesus was a good man, a prophet, a sage. Well then , if he was a sage, you can trust him and believe the essential things he says. And the essential thing he says is that he is the divine Savior of the world and that you must come to him for salvation. If he is a sage, you must accept his essential teaching as true. If his teaching is false, then he is not a sage.

The strength of this argument is that it is not merely a logical argument about concepts; it is about Jesus. it invites people to read the Gospels and get to know this man. The premise of the argument is the character of Jesus, the human nature of Jesus. The argument has its feet on the earth. But it takes you to heaven, like Jacob's ladder (which Jesus said meant him: Gen 28:12; Jn 1:51). Each rung follows and holds together. The argument is logically airtight; there is simply no way out.

What, then, do people say when confronted with this argument? Often, they simply confess their prejudices: "Oh, I just can't believe that!" (But if it has been proved to be true, you must believe it if you really seek the truth!)

Sometimes, they go away, like many of Jesus' contemporaries, wondering and shaking their heads and thinking. That is perhaps the very best result you can hope for. The ground has been softened up and plowed. The seed has been sown. God will give the increase.

But if they know some modern theology, they have one of two escapes, Theology has an escape; common sense does not. Common sense is easily convertible. It is the theologians, now as then, who are the hardest to convert.

The first escape is the attack of the Scripture "scholars" on the historical reliability of the Gospels. Perhaps Jesus never claimed to be divine. Perhaps all the embarrassing passages were inventions of the early Church (say "Christian community"–it sounds nicer)

In that case, who invented traditional Christianity if not Christ? A lie, like a truth, must originate somewhere. Peter? The twelve? The next generation? What was the motive of whoever first invented the myth (euphemism for lie)? What did they get out of this elaborate, blasphemous hoax? For it must have been a deliberate lie, not a sincere confusion. No Jew confuses Creator with creature, God with man. And no man confuses a dead body with a resurrected, living one.

Here is what they got out of their hoax. Their friends and families scorned them. Their social standing, possessions, and political privileges were stolen from them by both Jews and Romans. They were persecuted, imprisoned, whipped, tortured, exiled, crucified, eaten by lions, and cut to pieces by gladiators. So some silly Jews invented the whole elaborate, incredible lie of Christianity for absolutely no reason, and millions of Gentiles believed it, devoted their lives to it, and died for it-for no reason. It was only a fantastic practical joke, a hoax. Yes, there is a hoax indeed, but the perpetrators of it are the twentieth-century theologians, not the Gospel writers.

The second escape (notice how eager we are to squirm out of the arms of God like a greased pig) is to Orientalize Jesus, to interpret him not as the unique God-man but as one of many mystics or "adepts" who realized his own inner divinity just as a typical Hindu mystic does. This theory take's the teeth out of his claim to divinity, for he only realized that everyone is divine. The problem with that theory is simply that Jesus was not a Hindu but a Jew! When he said "God", neither he nor his hearers meant Brahman, the impersonal, pantheistic, immanent all; he meant Yahweh, the personal, theistic, transcendent Creator. It is utterly unhistorical to see Jesus as a mystic, a Jewish guru. He taught prayer, not meditation. His God is a person, not a pudding. He said he was God but not that everyone was. He taught sin and forgiveness, as no guru does. He said nothing about the "Illusion" of individuality, as the mystics do.

Attack each of these evasions–Jesus as the good man. Jesus as the lunatic, Jesus as the liar, Jesus as the man who never claimed divinity, Jesus as the mystic–take away these flight squares, and there is only one square left for the unbeliever's king to move to. And on that square waits checkmate. And a joyous mating it is. The whole argument is really a wedding invitation.

Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy at Boston College. He is an alumnus of Calvin College (AB 1959) and Fordham University (MA 1961, Ph.D., 1965). He taught at Villanova University from 1962-1965, and has been at Boston College since 1965. He is the author of numerous books (over forty and counting) including: C.S. Lewis for the Third Millennium, Fundamentals of the Faith, Catholic Christianity, Back to Virtue, and Three Approaches to Abortion. See below for full listing if his Ignatius Press titles. Kreeft's most recent Ignatius Press books include Socrates Meets Sartre, You Can Understand the Bible, The God Who Loves You, and The Philosophy of Tolkien.

• All Ignatius Press books by Peter Kreeft
• Excerpts from books by Peter Kreeft

Table of Contents for the June/July 2011 issue...

... of Homiletic & Pastoral Review:

Apostleship of Prayer

Letters from our readers

A passion for Christ: Foundations for developing intelligence of heart
By Fr. Todd J. Lajiness
Conversion of heart must be the starting point for seminary formation.

The Church and the Eucharist: A relationship of mutual causation
By Mary G. Sullivan
The Eucharist is the source and summit of the life of the Church, and the two realities are inseparable.

When bad advice in confession becomes a crime
By Dr. Edward N. Peters
The canonical crime of solicitation is likely more widespread than many may suppose.

Recovering simplex priests
By Fr. Brian Van Hove, S.J.
The reintroduction of simplex priests could ease some of the difficulties presented by priest shortages.

Homilies for Sunday liturgies and feasts
By Fr. Theodore Book and Fr. Thomas Carzon, O.M.V.

The grandeur of Peter
By Dr. Frederick W. Marks
We can all benefit from contemplating St. Peter's virtues and failings.

The development of the dogma of papal infallibility
By Danny Garland, Jr.
The dogma of papal infallibility fits Newman's criteria for authentic doctrinal development.

The Trinity in John's Apocalypse and Holy Orders
By Fr. Andreas Hoeck
Reflecting on the mystery of the Trinity gives insight into the three degrees of Holy Orders.

The hope of Mary in Spe Salvi
By Sigurd Lefsrud
Mary is the very personification of hope, as described in Pope Benedict's Spe Salvi.

The priest as theologian: Donum Veritatis and Pope Benedict's letter to seminarians
By Br. Gabriel Torretta, O.P.
For Pope Benedict, theology is the foundation of the priestly vocation.

Sounds hard, sings easy
By Elizabeth Altham
Casali's Mass in G is a good starting point for more reverent liturgical music.

Questions Answered

In Processu—On intellectual formation and the Program of Priestly Formation

Book reviews

Editorial—Scripture breathes the Holy Spirit

Abp. Dolan: Marriage given by God, not to be re-defined "by a state presuming omnipotence."

The stampede is on. Our elected senators who have stood courageous in their refusal to capitulate on the state's presumption to redefine marriage are reporting unrelenting pressure to cave-in.

The media, mainly sympathetic to this rush to tamper with a definition as old as human reason and ordered good, reports annoyance on the part of some senators that those in defense of traditional marriage just don't see the light, as we persist in opposing this enlightened, progressive, cause.

But, really, shouldn't we be more upset – and worried – about this perilous presumption of the state to re-invent the very definition of an undeniable truth – one man, one woman, united in lifelong love and fidelity, hoping for children – that has served as the very cornerstone of civilization and culture from the start?

Last time I consulted an atlas, it is clear we are living in New York, in the United States of America – not in China or North Korea.  In those countries, government presumes daily to "redefine" rights, relationships, values, and natural law.  There, communiqués from the government can dictate the size of families, who lives and who dies, and what the very definition of "family" and "marriage" means.

But, please, not here!  Our country's founding principles speak of rights given by God, not invented by government, and certain noble values – life, home, family, marriage, children, faith – that are protected, not re-defined, by a state presuming omnipotence.

Read Archbishop Timothy Dolan's entire column, "The True Meaning of Marriage", on the Archdiocese of New York website.

What is the yoke of the Son of God?

It has been an action-packed, deadline-filled day here at Camp Carl, located in an exclusive, swank, and secluded suburb in Eugene, Oregon, just minutes away from the inclusive, loud, and non-secluded Costco and other assorted stores. I had hoped to post twenty or thirty items so far (I say that in case my boss is reading), but time has flown by while researching for my next bestseller, A Biography of O. Who knew that writing the story of the fifteenth letter in the alphabet could be so demanding? At times I feel as though I am simply writing in circles.

Actually, this morning I wrote my "Opening the Word" column, published in Our Sunday Visitor newspaper, for the readings on Sunday, July 3, 2011. The Gospel (Matt 11:25-30) contains this well-known invitation and exhortation from Jesus:

"Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened,
and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you and learn from me,
for I am meek and humble of heart;
and you will find rest for yourselves.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden light."

Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis, in the second volume of Fire of Mercy, Heart of the World: Meditations on the Gospel According to St. Matthew (Ignatius, 1996; also available in e-book format), his outstanding commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, writes the following about the yoke of Jesus Christ:

"The divine nature was his from the first; ... but he made himself nothing, assuming the nature of a slave. Bearing the human likeness, revealed in human shape, he humbled himself, and in obedience accepted even death—death on a cross" (Phil 2:6-8). Assuming, bearing, humbling, accepting. ... The yoke of the Son is the Incarnation. Out of love for his Father and for us, he put on the yoke of our human nature and all that it entails in its present condition. He who was divine yoked himself to us through his humanity, and now he is inviting us to yoke ourselves to him and his divinity. When the Son's yoke becomes ours as well, his Incarnation becomes our divinization. To become yoked to the divinity and glory of the Son! What greater reason do we need to explain the sublime joy that flows from bearing such a burden? Not only does this yoke, far from imposing servitude, in fact crush our solitude, our tragic singleness and desolation; but it does so by linking us to the community of Divine Persons. Our isolation is not only temporarily assuaged; it is permanently abolished by the invasion into our souls of the very life of the immortal God! By the association with him that Jesus is here proposing, we become yoked forever to the destiny of the incarnate God. (pp. 722-23)

More from the Introduction to the same volume:

The Holy Father focuses on Prophet Elijah; says "main objective of prayer is conversion"

From Vatican Information Service:

VATICAN CITY, 15 JUN 2011 (VIS) - In his general audience, held this morning in St. Peter's Square, the Pope resumed his series of catecheses dedicated to the subject of prayer, focusing today on the Prophet Elijah "whom God sent to bring the people to conversion".

  The Holy Father explained how "upon Mount Carmel Elijah revealed himself in all his power as intercessor when, before the whole of Israel, he prayed to the Lord to show Himself and convert people's hearts. The episode is recounted in chapter 18 of the First Book of Kings".

  "The contest between Elijah and the followers of Baal (which was, in fact, a contest between the Lord of Israel, God of salvation and life, and a mute and ineffective idol which can do nothing for either good or evil) also marked the beginning of a confrontation between two completely different ways to address God and to pray". The oblations of the prophets of Baal "revealed only the illusory reality of the idol ... which closed people in the confines of a desperate search for self".

  On the other hand, Elijah "called on the people to come closer, involving them in his actions and his prayer. ... The prophet built an alter using 'twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob', ... to represent all Israel. ... Elijah then addressed the Lord calling Him Lord of the fathers, thus implicitly recalling the divine promises and the history of choice and alliance which had indissolubly united the Lord to His people".

  The prophet's request "was that the people might finally and fully come to know and understand Who their God is, and make the decisive decision to follow only Him. Only in this way could God be recognised as Absolute and Transcendent". Only in this way would it be clear that "no other gods could be placed at His side, as this would deny His absoluteness and relativize Him".

  Benedict XVI highlighted how "believers must respond to the absoluteness of God with absolute and total love, a love involving all their lives, their energies, their hearts. ... In his intercession, Elijah asked of God what God Himself wished to do: to show Himself in all His mercy, faithful to His nature as Lord of life Who forgives, converts and transforms".

  "The Lord responded unequivocally, not only burning the offering but even consuming all the water that had been poured around the altar. Israel could no longer doubt: divine mercy had responded to its weakness, to its doubts, to its lack of faith. Now Baal, the vain idol, was beaten and the people, who seemed lost, had rediscovered the way of truth, they had rediscovered themselves".

  The Holy Father concluded by asking himself what this story has to tell us today. "Firstly", he said, "is the priority of the first commandment of God's Law: having no god but God. When God disappears man falls into slavery, into idolatry, as has happened in our time under totalitarian regimes and with the various forms of nihilism which make man dependent on idols and idolatry, which enslave". Secondly, he continued, "the main objective of prayer is conversion: the fire of God which transforms our hearts and makes us capable of seeing God and living for Him and for others". Thirdly, "the Church Fathers tell us that this story is ... a foretaste of the future, which is Christ. It is a step on the journey towards Christ".

Related links:

• Benedict XVI reflects on Moses as intercessor and "a prefiguration of Christ" (June 1, 2011)
• Benedict XVI: Our entire lives are like Jacob's long night of struggle and prayer... (May 25, 2011)
• Pope reflects on the example of prayer given by Abraham, "father of all believers" (May 18, 2011)
• Pope reflects on prayer, "the expression of humanity's desire for God" (May 11, 2011)