Catholicism offers path to dispel apocalyptic fear

Catholicism offers path to dispel apocalyptic fear (NCR)

Fear is the root of many current problems facing the Catholic Church.

Last September, Pope Francis called attention to articles published in La Civiltà Cattolica. The articles, written by Jesuit Fr. Antonio Spadaro and Marcelo Figueroa, address a culture of fear and intolerance within the Catholic Church that is harmful to believers. Pope Francis called the articles "important" and recommended them for reading and study.

"Reading them you will see that there are sects that cannot really be defined as Christian. They preach Christ, yes, but their message is not Christian," Pope Francis said.

I have personally witnessed this as a Catholic relative morphed into a hardcore fundamentalist not unlike a radical evangelical Protestant — a transformation I believe owed to fear. Furthermore, I believe the exploitation of fear by sexually abusive priests has perpetuated cultures of abuse within the Catholic Church.

In La Civiltà Cattolica, authors Spadaro and Figueroa refer to a "cult of the apocalypse" and some who identify as Catholic but "express themselves in ways that until recently were unknown in their tradition and using tones much closer to Evangelicals."

"Theirs is a prophetic formula: fight the threats to American Christian values and prepare for the imminent justice of an Armageddon, a final showdown between Good and Evil. … Every process (be it of peace, dialogue, etc.) collapses before the needs of the end, the final battle against the enemy. And the community of believers (faith) becomes a community of combatants (fight)," the authors observe.

The article continues that such approaches can "anesthetize consciences" or support "atrocious and dramatic portrayals" of the world.

Unfortunately, this analysis corresponds to the outlook of a Catholic relative of mine. Over several years, I saw my relative transform from a mildly religious person into someone obsessed with the Apocalypse while absorbing the influence of traditional Catholic media. In my opinion, fear was a key factor.

My relative listened to Christian radio and preferred to watch televised Mass rather than go to church... My relative's religious views became fearful and intolerant... While my relative viewed herself as Catholic, she essentially made up her own fundamentalist religion on par with radical Evangelicalism or an extreme "Middle Ages" version of Christianity...

I think we see echoes of this in the US Catholic culture wars, in the so-called "traditionalist/conservative v progressive/liberal" tensions within the Church, and even in some of the posts by Catholics on LT: a 'fundamentalist religion on par with radical Evangelicalism or an extreme "Middle Ages" version of Christianity'.

And I can't help feeling that this article is not unconnected:

Pope at Mass: Christians without joy are prisoners of formalities (Vatican News)

The Pope thus urged for the joy of receiving the Word of God, the joy of being Christians, the joy of going ahead, the ability to celebrate without being ashamed and not being... formal Christians, prisoners of formalities.

It often feels as if the type of Catholics described in >1 John5918: are joyless "prisoners of formalities".

>1 John5918: The Pope is formally a product of Vatican II and Liberation Theology.

All will be corrected in time.

>3 LesMiserables:

True, of course. As the Church has evolved, developed and reformed itself over the past two millennia, it has frequently had to correct itself, and will continue to do so. Thank God we have a pope who is open to the process of reform.

>4 John5918:
I'm more looking forward to his heretical views being expunged from the Church. This cavalcade of VII hippies are getting desperate in the face of a holy renewal of tradition in the youth of the Church, and will try and push through any heresy before they fade away.

>5 LesMiserables:

What are "VII" hippies? Are they similar to Vatican I hippies and indeed Council of Trent hippies? You're apparently rather disimissive of the Tradition of the Church which includes Vatican II.

Only the former has left the path of tradition passed down to us.

>6 John5918:

Well, that's your personal opinion and that of a small but vocal minority, but thankfully it is not the position of the Catholic Church, with which you are apparently at odds.

Well that is your personal opinion John. Pope Francis metaphorically is the wayward husband to his Bride, Holy Mother Church.

>9 LesMiserables:

No, it is the position of the Roman Catholic Church, its cardinals and bishops, and the vast majority of its laity. You're moving in the direction of our Sedevacantist LT friend Joansknight if you begin to define the Church according to your opinion as opposed to how the extant Church defines itself.

>10 John5918:

Sedevacantism? Not at all, though it may well be something future scholars will study, that being the manner of Pope Francis' election, and whether pacts were formed and collusion conducted: both of which are enough to nullify any election of a Pope. But I will leave your ad hominem straw man there and go back to the issue.

Pope Francis has demonstrably left the Church's doctrine and immutable laws by formulating, propagating and blessing heretical positions, none so more shocking than the blessing of adultery.

All the Orwellian doublespeak of mercy and accompaniment won't wash it when judgement day beckons.

I pray to God he repents and retracts in time.

>11 LesMiserables:

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but it does not represent the position of the Church. You are the outlier here, my friend.

And fortunately it is not up to you or me to lead the Church nor to articulate doctrine!

Doctrine is renewed with roots firmly planted in magisterium, pope says (Crux)

Christian doctrine is not modified to keep up with passing times nor is it rigidly closed in on itself, Pope Francis told members and advisers of the doctrinal congregation.

“It is a dynamic reality that, staying faithful to its foundation, is renewed from generation to generation and is summed up in one face, one body and one name - the risen Jesus Christ,” he said.

“Christian doctrine is not a system that is rigid and closed in on itself, but neither is it an ideology that transforms with the changing of seasons”...

The pope told them that is was thanks to the Risen Christ that the Christian faith throws its doors wide open to every person and his or her needs.

That is why handing on the faith “demands taking into account the person receiving it,” and that this person be known and loved, he said...

John my friend, you are what one might describe as a well meaning but sadly disoriented victim of papolatry.

Perhaps you might help yourself by reading some Church history especially about Arianism and all those 'heretics' who were branded as evil like St Athanasius.

>14 LesMiserables: you might help yourself by reading some Church history

As you are probably aware, I have studied Church history, like yourself, although it appears we have inferred different lessons from it.

papolatry

Interesting that this term was never applied to me during the papacies of John Paul II or Benedict XVI. As you know, I disagreed with them on a number of issues in a spirit of loyal dissent, for which I was castigated by some Catholics of your ilk (I honestly can't remember whether you personally engaged in that sport or not). But I never questioned the legitimacy of their elections, nor accused them of being antipopes, antichrists, heretics, apostates, etc, nor of leaving "the Church's doctrine and immutable laws". They were probably the popes which the Church needed in that period, John Paul II with his opening of the papacy to the world and Benedict XVI with his theological and doctrinal background, and as a loyal Catholic I accepted that, even if it was not necessarily what I would have chosen. Now of course I am happy that we have Francis as pope, and the vast majority of Catholics that I know are also happy with him. He brings his pastoral experience, as well as the voice of the Global South, which already represents the majority of Catholics if I am not mistaken. It's quite ironic (and rather sad) watching a small minority of Catholics who stressed blind obedience to the pope during the last two papacies now trying to justify disregarding the pope.

>15 John5918:

John the Catholic future you seem to be after, is waiting for you at a convenient choice of Protestant churches near you. But what you seem to want is categorically not Catholicism.

I really think you should consider where your line of thinking is taking you, and come back to the faith before you move further away from Holy Mother Church.

I see pride and humility wrestling. Praying that the virtue wins.

Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy.

>16 LesMiserables:

Well, again you echo Sedevacantist Joansknight in declaring that your opinion of Catholicism is the Catholic Church, and that the actual Catholic Church (which includes the pope, the cardinals, the bishops, the priests, the religious brothers and sisters, the laity, theologians, academics, pastoral workers, catechists, etc - and oh yes, the Holy Spirit) is not the Catholic Church. Look, I have no problem with you disagreeing with me or the pope, but to declare that the Catholic Church as it exists now (and has done for two millennia and will hopefully continue for many more millennia, forever and ever, world without end, amen) is not the Catholic Church is really quite nonsensical (and/or arrogant).

what you seem to want is categorically not Catholicism.

What? Loyalty to the Church that I have been a member of all my life (since before Vatican II, incidentally) is not Catholicism?

>17 2wonderY:

Sorry, I can't seem to help myself getting sucked into these pointless discussions. I should probably just let Les Miserables' words stand as they are and let others judge whether they make sense or not.

>19 John5918:
What? Loyalty to the Church that I have been a member of all my life (since before Vatican II, incidentally) is not Catholicism?

Blindly following a wayward Pope is not Catholicism.
If you are not prepared to condemn the sanctioning of adultery in amoris laetitia then you are more or less taking a Lutheran position on such matters: it's all about grace.

>15 John5918:
Interesting that this term was never applied to me during the papacies of John Paul II or Benedict XVI. As you know, I disagreed with them on a number of issues in a spirit of loyal dissent, for which I was castigated by some Catholics of your ilk (I honestly can't remember whether you personally engaged in that sport or not). But I never questioned the legitimacy of their elections, nor accused them of being antipopes, antichrists, heretics, apostates, etc, nor of leaving "the Church's doctrine and immutable laws"

Nor did I question Pope Francis', only mentioning that there is certainly genuine concerns in the Church about that election.

That withstanding, what exactly did you disapprove of in John Paul and Benedict's reigns?

>21 LesMiserables: Blindly following a wayward Pope is not Catholicism

And who decides whether a pope is wayward? You?

Nor did I question Pope Francis', only mentioning that there is certainly genuine concerns in the Church about that election.

I have never heard any concerns expressed about Francis' election in any mainstream media. Are you referring to some right wing social media or something?

what exactly did you disapprove of in John Paul and Benedict's reigns?

I'd really have to check on some of my past posts and other resources to remember now. The Church has moved on, and I don't dwell on these two past popes. I really appreciated John Paul II's opening up of the papacy to the world, moving it beyond Rome and Italy, visiting other countries (including Sudan), energising the youth, and his writings (and past record) on social justice. He contributed to the body of teachings known as Catholic Social Thought. His public forgiveness of and reconciliation with the chap who tried to murder him was very inspiring. Benedict XVI was less flamboyant, and perhaps the greatest contribution he made was his resignation, once again opening the way for popes to retire after a gap of several hundred years. This was a truly radical and inspired gesture. I suspect Francis will also retire at some point, and let's hope future popes will take the hint. On the negative side, I think both John Paul II and Benedict XVI had tendencies towards authoritarianism and over-centralisation in the Church. Neither seemed to be fully comfortable with the spirit of aggiornamento, and there was a tendency to slow down the reforms which had begun in the Church. They were too "conservative" for me, but I don't accuse them of "formulating, propagating and blessing heretical positions" (your words) because I recognise they were being cautious rather than heretical, just as Francis is being pastoral and/or taking risks rather than heretical. Both previous popes were too slow to recognise the seriousness of the child sexual abuse scandal (but they were not alone in that), and Benedict XVI made at least one major blunder in terms of relations with Islam (but that was a result of his being too academic and not in touch enough with reality). Both popes seemed to over-emphasise sexual morality as opposed to various other forms of sin and evil (the current pope is beginning to redress that imbalance with his comments on social sin). But as I say, I'd have to dredge my memory and other resources to come up with more detail at this stage.

But again, I think the point is that while I (and many others) did not agree with these two popes' take on various aspects of Church doctrine (just as you and a few others do not agree with the current pope's take on certain aspects of Church doctrine) we do not accuse them of "formulating, propagating and blessing heretical positions". It's all part of the ebb and flow of the evolution of the Church.

John, basically you're saying that JPII and Benedict strayed less away from v the immutable truths.

I again repeat that your Idea of the Church is what is known as modernism, condemned by a plethora of Popes and masonically inspired.

>23 LesMiserables:

And I again say that this is your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but it is not the position of the Roman Catholic Church. Not much more to say really, is there?

You betray your papolatry again. It is the teaching of the Church. Current scandals and heresies are issues that the Church will deal with in good time.

>25 LesMiserables:

Part of the ebb and flow of the evolution of the Church, as I said in >22 John5918:.

No.The teachings are immutable.
Heresies come and go. Some form heretical denominations outside Holy Mother Church.

>27 LesMiserables:

You're missing my point. Even allowing that heresies are a possibility, who decides? You? Or the teaching authorities of the Church, affirmed by the sensus fidelium?

Tradition decides. Sensus fidelium does not equate to majority decision.

>29 LesMiserables:

But who is the arbiter of tradition? You? Or the teaching authorities of the Church? You're not answering the question.

And while of course you're right that sensus fidelium does not equate to majority decision, do you seriously believe that the bulk of the Church opposes this papacy?

Tradition needs no arbitration. That's the trouble with modernists.you are forever in a perpetual state of revolution.

>31 LesMiserables:

Any tradition needs interpretation and study, and to be examined hermeneutically. The concept of exegesis which applies to the scriptures must also be applied to any ancient documents which were written in dfferent styles, languages, cultures and circumstances from today, and that includes doctrinal statements. Also the vast bulk of material requires teachings to be reconciled with each other, not that they are necessarily contradictory, but that they express different priorities at different times. Pope Benedict XVI affirms "proper hermeneutics" as "the correct key to... interpretation and application" of Church teaching*. And if you think that exegesis/hermeneutics is a modern concept, read Augustine's The Literal Meaning of Genesis. In many ways the people you refer to as "modernists" are actually more in line with tradition (the whole of tradition, not simply the part from the Council of Trent until the Second Vatican Council, roughly 20% of the lifespan of the Church) than the self-styled "traditionalists".

you are forever in a perpetual state of revolution

Not revolution but reform. Would you deny that reform has been a constant within the tradition of the Church? Benedict XVI affirms, "the 'hermeneutic of reform', of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God"*.

* ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE ROMAN CURIA OFFERING THEM HIS CHRISTMAS GREETINGS, Thursday, 22 December 2005.

An interesting reflection from Franciscan Fr Richard Rohr:

Alternative Orthodoxy: Simply Living the Gospel

The Rule and the life of the Friars Minor is to simply live the Gospel. —St. Francis of Assisi (1182–1226) {1}

One of the things I most appreciate about my Franciscan heritage is its alternative orthodoxy. The Franciscan tradition has applied this phrase to itself and its emphasis on “orthopraxy”; we believe that lifestyle and practice are much more important than mere verbal orthodoxy. While orthodoxy is about correct beliefs, orthopraxy is about right practice. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), the famous Dominican Doctor of the Church, may have been influenced by St. Francis when he wrote, “Prius vita quam doctrina.” {2} Or, “Life is more important than doctrine.” All too often Christianity has lost sight of that in spite of Jesus’ teaching and example.

Jesus’ first recorded word in at least two Gospels, metanoia, is unfortunately translated with the moralistic, churchy word repent. The word quite literally means change or even more precisely “Change your minds!” (Mark 1:15; Matthew 4:17). Given that, it is quite strange that the religion founded in Jesus’ name has been so resistant to change and has tended to love and protect the past and the status quo much more than the positive and hopeful futures that could be brought about by people agreeing to change. Maybe that is why our earth is so depleted and our politics are so pathetic. We have not taught a spirituality of actual change or growth, which an alternative orthodoxy always asks of us.

Francis loved God above all and wanted to imitate Jesus in very practical ways. Action and lifestyle mattered much more to him than mentally believing dogmatic or moral positions to be true or false. Francis directly said to the first friars, “You only know as much as you do!” {3} Franciscan alternative orthodoxy has never bothered fighting popes, bishops, Scriptures, or dogmas. It just quietly but firmly pays attention to different things—like simplicity, humility, non-violence, contemplation, solitude and silence, earth care, nature and other creatures, and the “least of the brothers and sisters.” These are our true teachers.

The Rule of Saint Francis—which Rome demanded Francis develop—was hardly a rule at all and was more thought of as “Tips for the Road.” Like Jesus, Francis taught his disciples while walking from place to place and finding ways to serve, to observe, and to love the world that was right in front of them. Observation with love is a good description of contemplation.

In Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home, Pope Francis writes, “In the heart of this world, the Lord of life, who loves us so much, is always present. God does not abandon us, God does not leave us alone, for God has united . . . definitively to our earth, and God’s love constantly impels us to find new ways forward. Praise be to God!” {4} I believe the Franciscan worldview with its alternative orthodoxy can help us “find new ways forward” and stop being so afraid of change.

1. Francis of Assisi, “The Later Rule” (1223), chapter 1. See Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, vol. 1 (New City Press: 1999), 100.

2. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5.

3. “The Legend of Perugia,” Saint Francis of Assisi: Omnibus of Sources (Franciscan Press: 1991), 74.

4. Pope Francis, Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_2.... Masculine pronouns replaced with the word “God.”

And an interesting article in Commonweal:

A Church within the Church

At the 1867 universal exposition in Paris, the Papal State chose to be represented by a catacomb. It was a time when the papacy, which had already lost the majority of the Papal State and would also lose Rome in 1870, was apocalyptic about the future of the church in the modern world. At the same time, the Catholic laity were entering a new age of mobilization and engagement with that same world, with the encouragement of the Catholic hierarchy, which knew it had lost much of its direct influence on modern society. Today, during Pope Francis’s pontificate, we see something like the opposite situation: a pope who preaches “the joy of the Gospel” and has little time for nostalgia, and a rising cohort of Catholic intellectuals (a minority in the church, but especially active in the United States) who are looking forward to the nineteenth century...

It is interesting how different the liberal Catholicism of the nineteenth century is from the liberal Catholicism of today, and how similar the Catholic intransigentism of the nineteenth century is to the intransigentism of today...

the theological thinking of Catholics who today call themselves integralists, traditionalists, and ultramontanists. For these Catholics, the past sixty years—and especially Vatican II—either do not matter at all or matter only if they can be interpreted as a confirmation of the church’s past teaching. This is, among other things, a misreading of what Pope Benedict XVI had to say about continuity; while he stressed the continuity of the church itself as a single subject extended throughout history, that does not necessarily mean that all doctrine remains constant...

Congar addressed the affinity of this kind of Catholicism for the political right, grounded in the dream of restoring a monarchical order, or at least an authoritarian one. “Integralism” and “right-wing mentality” converge in the tendency to condemn all that appeared after a certain date in history. Congar listed eight elements that are typical of the integralist mentality: pessimism about human nature; belief in the need of strong authority; distrust of doctrinal development; an inclination to make sure Catholicism does not become too easy; an emphasis on dogmatic formulas over the subjective reality of faith; a preference for deductive reasoning over inductive reasoning; ecclesial authoritarianism; and the idea that the ecclesiology of the church should be shaped not by the mystical dimension but by a rigid hierarchy. Integralism, continues Congar, is not a heresy because it chooses orthodoxy and hierarchy. But Congar observed: “An exaggerated emphasis on orthodoxy can also be a way of leaving Catholicism.” And he added the words of John Henry Newman about integralism: “They build a Church within the Church…while making of their views a dogma. I am not defending myself against them, but against what I would call their schismatic spirit.”

And another little nugget from Richard Rohr (link):

The Franciscans found a way to be both very traditional and very revolutionary at the same time. By emphasizing practice over theory, or orthopraxy over orthodoxy, the Franciscan tradition taught that love and action are more important than intellect or speculative truth. Love is the highest category for the Franciscan School, and we believe that authentic love is not possible without true inner freedom, nor will love be real or tested unless we somehow live close to the disadvantaged, who frankly teach us how little we know about love. Love is the goal; contemplative practice and solidarity with suffering are the path. Orthodoxy teaches us the theoretical importance of love; orthopraxy helps us learn how to love, which is much more difficult...

Sorry to quote Richard Rohr again, but I find his reflections this week to be very pertinent to this conversation. Link

The best criticism of the bad is the practice of the better. Oppositional energy only creates more of the same. —One of the Center for Action & Contemplation’s Eight Core Principles {1}

Throughout history, the Franciscan School has typically been a minority position inside of the Roman Catholic and larger Christian tradition. While not everyone shares our way of thinking, it has never been condemned or considered heretical—in fact quite the opposite. It has been allowed and affirmed because we simply emphasize different teachings of Jesus, offer new perspectives and behaviors, and focus on the full and final implications of the incarnation of God in Christ. (I’m not sure why that puts us in the minority of Christians, but so be it!) For Franciscans, the incarnation is not just about Jesus but is manifested everywhere. Once we learn how to see spiritually, “The whole world is our cloister!” in the words of St. Francis himself. {2}

From the very beginning, Franciscanism was sort of a para-church on the edge of the inside of organized Christianity, similar to others who had occupied that same position: desert fathers and mothers, many early monastics before they become clericalized and domesticated, Celtic Christianity, and even some religious orders down to our own time. Most Catholics are accustomed to such groups living on the side and the edge of the parish church system, but this is also why Francis of Assisi has often been called “the first Protestant.”

But how did Francis do what he did, from the inside and without oppositional energy? Francis’ starting place was human suffering instead of human sinfulness and God’s identification with that suffering in Jesus. That did not put him in conflict with any Catholic dogmas or structures, merely to the side of them. His Christ was universal while also deeply personal, his cathedral was creation itself, he preferred the bottom of society to the top. Francis showed us that practical truth is more likely found at the bottom and the edges than at the top or the center of most groups, institutions, and cultures...

Since Jesus himself was humble and poor, then the pure and simple imitation of Jesus became Francis’ life agenda. He was a fundamentalist, not about doctrinal Scriptures, but about lifestyle Scriptures: take nothing for your journey; eat what is set before you; work for your wages; wear no shoes. This is still revolutionary thinking for most Christians, although it is the very “marrow of the Gospel,” to use Francis’ own phrase. {3} He knew intuitively what many educators have now proven—that humans tend to live themselves into new ways of thinking more than think themselves into new ways of living... The lecture method changes very few people at any deep or long-lasting level. It normally does not touch the unconscious, where all our hurts and motives lie hidden and disguised.


1. See “The Eight Core Principle of the Center for Action and Contemplation” under Mission and Vision, https://cac.org/about-cac/missionvision/.

2. “Sacred Exchange between St. Francis & Lady Poverty,” Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, vol. 1 (New City Press: 1999), 552.

3. Thomas of Celano, “The Remembrance of the Desire of a Soul,” chapter 158, Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, vol. 2 (New City Press: 2000), 380.

Adapted from Richard Rohr, Eager to Love: The Alternative Way of Francis of Assisi (Franciscan Media: 2014), 82-85.

And again! Link

At-one-ment, Not Atonement

The Franciscan view of atonement theory is a prime example of our alternative orthodoxy. The Franciscan School was dissatisfied with the popular theological idea that Jesus came to Earth as a necessary sacrifice to appease an angry God. As human consciousness advances, more and more people cannot believe that God would demand Jesus’ blood as payment for our sins. It seems to be inevitable that our old logic needs to break up before we can begin to grow up.

The most common reading of the Bible is that Jesus “died for our sins”—either to pay a debt to the devil (generally believed in the first millennium) or to pay a debt to God (proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century and holding sway for most of the second millennium). But even in the 13th century, Franciscan philosopher and theologian John Duns Scotus (1266–1308) agreed with neither of these understandings.

Duns Scotus was not guided by the Temple language of debt, atonement, and blood sacrifice, which was understandably used by the Gospel writers and by Paul. Instead, he was inspired by the cosmic hymns in the first chapters of Colossians and Ephesians and the Prologue to John’s Gospel (1:1-18). While the Church has never rejected the Franciscan position, it has remained a minority view.

The terrible and un-critiqued premise of many “substitutionary atonement theories” is that God demanded Jesus to be a blood sacrifice to “atone” for our sin-drenched humanity. As if God could need payment, and even a very violent transaction, to be able to love and accept God’s own children! These theories are based on retributive justice rather than the restorative justice that the prophets and Jesus taught.

For Duns Scotus, the incarnation of God and the redemption of the world could never be a mere Plan B or mop-up exercise in response to human sinfulness; Jesus’ birth, life, and death had to be Plan A, the proactive work of God from the very beginning. We were “chosen in Christ before the world was made” (Ephesians 1:4). Our sin could not possibly be the motive for the incarnation! Only perfect love and divine self-revelation could inspire God to come in human form. God never merely reacts, but supremely and freely acts—out of love.

Jesus did not come to change the mind of God about humanity. It did not need changing. Jesus came to change the mind of humanity about God! God is not someone to be afraid of but is the Ground of Being and on our side.

The Franciscan minority position, our alternative orthodoxy, is basically saying that no atonement is necessary. Some call it “at-one-ment” instead of atonement. There is no bill to be paid; there is simply a union to be named. Jesus didn’t come to solve a problem; he came to reveal the true nature of God as Love.

>37 John5918: You gave me my morning's meditation, John.

Creation is built on justice. In the physical realm, it is expressed as the rules of physics. It's a good thing, and allows for predictability.

In the realm of behavior, it is sometimes couched as karma. Free will is messy, messy, messy. Parents love to talk about "natural consequences." In my daughter's case, when she participated in a crime, the young adults were charged, but she, as a minor, was dismissed at first. I had to push the prosecutor's office to follow through, and she eventually got the help she needed.

But you wouldn't not act to protect if your toddler dashed out into the street. If no other choice presented, you might even move to block whatever is rushing toward them.

In the moral/spiritual realm, we are told that the consequences of not following God's law is death. That's not punishment, it's just the way the universe is structured. I liken that accumulation of cosmic debt to an asteroid rushing towards us. I see Jesus as an envoy from the Father, wearing a Superman doublet under his regular clothes. They know where and when a single man can act as a fulcrum to deflect those consequences.

Frederick A. Larson does a fascinating study of astronomy and scripture that indicates that Jesus birth, death and resurrection were baked into the universe from it's inception.

>38 2wonderY:

Another morning meditation? Link

The Universal Christ

Grace had already been granted to us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, and now it has been revealed to us in the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus. —2 Timothy 1:9-10

It seems we only give attention to that which we are told to give attention. The Franciscan alternative orthodoxy has given me the intellectual and spiritual freedom to quietly but firmly pay attention to different things. For the most part, Christianity has ignored the fact that Christ existed from all eternity, but Franciscan teaching emphasizes the significance of the universal Christ.

The word Christ means “anointed one.” The divine anointing began with the first incarnation when God decided to show God’s self, almost 13.8 billion years ago. We now call it the Big Bang. Franciscan philosopher John Duns Scotus basically taught that the first idea in the mind of God was Christ. Christ was the Alpha point. Good biblical theology calls creation itself the birth of the Christ, the materialization of God. Whenever matter and spirit coinhere, coincide, you have the Christ Mystery, which is a phrase the Apostle Paul introduces. Paul has a deep intuition of this, which leads to his understanding of the Eucharistic Body of Christ. Paul intuits that this incarnation of Christ is spread throughout creation, human nature, and even the elements of bread and wine. It’s everywhere.

Francis himself was not a theologian, he was not an academic, he was not highly educated. He was just a sincere spiritual genius who intuited these things. When the next generation of Franciscans, including St. Bonaventure (1221–1274) and John Duns Scotus, came along, they created a philosophy and theology to substantiate Francis’ intuitive vision. They homed in on the first chapters of Colossians, Ephesians, John’s Gospel, Hebrews, and the Letter of 1 John which say the Christ existed from all eternity. The universal Christ is a totally biblical notion.

The universal Christ is one of the crown jewels of early Franciscan theology and part of our alternative orthodoxy. It was there from the beginning, but it’s only now becoming widely known, as the study of cosmology itself says that the very shape of the universe is dynamic and relational. It is all about relationship! The mystery of the universe reveals the mystery of a Trinitarian Creator God. So once cosmology becomes the framework for theology, we suddenly recognize the need to name what Christianity has always had—a cosmic notion of Jesus, which is the Christ.

If we don’t balance out Jesus with Christ, I think our theology is going to become a more and more limited worldview that will end up being in competition with the other world religions. Balancing Jesus with Christ gives us a vision that is so big, so universal that it includes every thing and everybody. You don’t even have to use the words Jesus or Christ to contemplate this Mystery.

This is in line with the thinking of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, of course. When I was about 15 or 16, in the SIxth Form of a Jesuit grammar school, our headmaster (a layman whom we thought of as a brutal dictator, nicknamed "Killer", but on hindsight he was more enlightened than we thought!) exposed us to lectures on Teilhard. At the time we didn't really understand it, but much later I have come to appreciate Teilhard - and my headmaster!

>39 John5918: The wonder of it is that we are being invited to participate in our Redemption, rather than being passive recipients. We are in school, in some sense; learning how to create with words and prayer.

Let me post Rohr's final reflection for this week - Link

When the bow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature—every mortal being that is on the earth. —Genesis 9:16

Franciscan alternative orthodoxy emphasized mysticism over morality. Moralism is the task of low-level religion, concerned with creating an ego identity that seemingly places us on moral high ground. But moralism is normally not a primary concern for love, the focus of mature spirituality. Scripture, Jesus, the mystics, and the saints recognized that the goal of religion is not a perfect moral stance, but union with God. Mysticism is about connection not perfection. Perfectionism always leads to individualism—as if the individual could ever be perfect.

The single biggest heresy that allows us to misinterpret the scriptural tradition is individualism, revealed now in the problems we are facing with climate change, pollution, the loss of biodiversity, and the extinction of many species. We became so anthropocentric and self-referential that we thought God cared not about “every living creature” nor about the new heaven and the new earth (Revelation 21:1), but just about “us people” and not even very many of us. That’s what happens when we go down the track of individualism and lose the mystical level of perception.

Eco-spirituality could be considered another gift of Franciscan alternative orthodoxy. Francis of Assisi is the patron saint of ecology because he granted animals, elements, and the earth subjectivity, respect, and mutuality. In his Canticle of the Creatures*, Francis the mystic describes a participatory universe in which God loves and cares for us through Brother Sun, Sister Moon, Brothers Wind and Air, Sister Water, Brother Fire, and “through our sister, Mother Earth.” At the same time, God receives praise, honor, glory, and blessing through each of God’s creations. On the mystical level, Francis could see the transformational power of Love’s presence within all creation.

I often wonder if the one thing we all share in common—our planet—could ultimately bring us all together. We stand on this same “sister, Mother Earth” and we look up at this same Brother Sun and Sister Moon. Could it be that the Mystery of God is already hidden and revealed here? I believe so. Naming the universal Christ helps us to recognize the inherent sacrality, holiness, goodness, and value of the whole material world. For those who see deeply, there is only One Reality; there is no distinction between sacred and profane. Humanity is becoming capable of a truly global spirituality which is desperately needed for the common good to be realized.

God has come to save us all by grace. No exceptions. The mystics have no trouble surrendering to such fullness. For Bonaventure, God is a “fountain fullness” of outflowing love, only flowing in one positive direction, always and forever. There is no wrath in God. There is only outpouring love.

* Francis wrote this song praising God through all creation during the last year of his life; the full text of the Canticle can be found at https://www.franciscantradition.org/francis-of-assisi-early-documents/the-saint/....