Category Archives: Essays

Looking In and Looking Through

Posted on by

I have often spoke and written about paradox, why I think it is meaningful, and how we can use it to better understand our beautiful Catholicism. Just as allegory in the biblical world becomes a metaphor, in the same manner, paradox becomes an analogy. The mystery of our faith demands we understand what it means when we say both these, and this also. Two contradictory elements which are in themselves complementary demonstrates the mystery. As Catholics, we are forced to the conclusion that problems have a definitive answer and mysteries do not. We revere the mystery just as wise people seek out problems because they need their gifts. Jesus’ answers were frequently, better questions. His answers were often outside the parameters of the question. He spoke in parables and morality stories using the locations and audiences as His scenery.  All of this, in an effort to direct His followers to go beyond their thinking and into a mental imagery inspired by His revolutionary message.

Jesus lived in a world of unending matrix. Nothing wasted, nothing without meaning. Nothing going unnoticed. His followers spoke of Him as the corner-stone, and He was the keystone in the archway between worldly and divine. How many times do we hear Jesus asking His disciples to go beyond themselves, out of the practical world of this and that, and into the world of the greatest paradox of all? There He stood in front of them as entity and singularity, the physical precursor of the Trinity.  He is both these and this also. In our image and likeness of Him, we express the psychological, the philosophical and the worldly. He expresses all of these worldly attributes and He is ecclesial, spiritual and  mystical.  

So, where do we go from here? I say we go to His Church, into the building, where we find the physical and definitive expression of the Real Presence. We enter into the liturgy and sacraments, where the practical meets the transcendental; where the visible meets the mystical; where the signs and symbols meet the fruit; where we can become the cause and the effect, His mystical body,  His hands and feet.

God Is Absolute

Posted on by

God is Absolute: which points to the greatest paradox of all; He is both infinite and finite. Infinite in terms of; God is the sum of infinity, again another paradox, one that is true because there is nothing greater than God and there is no situation in which there is God and something more. Finite because as in any absolute there must be limitations, because if it is absolute it can’t be something else, again another paradox and necessarily so. It’s important that both aspects of God, the infinite and finite be paradoxical, because both describe a condition which cannot be, but is. Now, we see on closer examination, that when two elements in the same thought or sentence are contradictory yet true, this is when paradox becomes analogy. G.K. Chesterton said, paradox is the truth standing on its head to get attention.  I am saying this in response to Father Albert’s homily concerning summoning God’s forgiveness after a confession.

On one hand, Father Albert is categorically correct, no one can invoke or provoke God into doing anything. On the other hand, you are correct again, because you as a priest do give His blessings at the time of confession. This make sense; that you can give something from God, when we just established you can’t invoke anything from Him; if we agree, that God is absolute. Consider this: by His word, He made what is. He said it would be and it is. So, when Jesus proclaimed by His word, by His oath (as in Matthew 18: 15-20); He established a covenant; definitive in its manifestation and infinite in its mercy. If this points to the truth and I think it does, then what follows are limitations God places on Himself, by His manifestation in this distinctive reality which He created. Let’s consider several conditions; God cannot create a God greater than Himself, if He could He wouldn’t be God. God cannot be evil; evil is the absence of God. God can not punish. He can heal, He can cure, He can re-align, He can rehabilitate, He can discipline, and He can put us through therapy however none of this is punishment. Our worldly father sent us to our room for what we did, our Heavenly Father sends us to our room for what we will become. God cannot lie. There are no circumstances, no contingencies in which God would misdirect or misinform us for our own good. Mercy, understanding and unconditional love demand honesty and sincerity. God did create a world where great tragedies both natural and manmade can and have occurred. Why He did this is another discussion, whether He intervenes during these times is His will. 

Form and Content

Posted on by

   To understand the model Form and Content, we need to discern the foundational precepts of the Form and then recognize the shared content with other models. Perhaps the purest depiction would be to use the metaphor of the hourglass. Immediately recognizable in its structural form and full of a measured amount of sand for its content. The hourglass has one purpose, a unique form and a single content. However, Form and Content is not so straight forward in a world of men, women and ideas. 

   For example, some Eastern religions believe God is everything; Christians believe God made everything. Here we see two very different forms about the essence of God, yet both share lots of content. Both have monasteries, centers of learning based on written and oral traditions. Both have strong social justice standards, share many of the Ten Commandments and most importantly both believe in a higher power. Another example is Islam, Muslims believe in a God almighty, have reverence for Mary and believe individuals must follow the will of God. This is also true for Catholics, yet no one would say, if you want to be a good Muslim you would have to be Catholic. It’s obvious, Muslims would say it is blasphemy to call the Almighty our father, for Christians it is foundational. Two very different forms, lots of shared content.

The Baltimore Catechism

Posted on by

The published catechism of the Catholic Church can easily be traced to the Council of Trent. This English version from the reformation era has been subsequently reprinted many many times through the work of councils, synods and popes. Although the language has changed over the years to appeal to the audience, the message and content has remained the same. Finding the roots of the Catholic Church from the time when Abram became Abraham, we can see the constant conversion of humanity’s world view growing from the fragmentation of a world dominated by many gods to this post-modern era. How different this world view is today from ancient times is a debate for another day. The Church knows the faithful of todays’ societies are certainly grateful for the gifts of the Holy Spirit. It is this gift which has led the laity and the Church in today’s continuing conversion.

The Baltimore Catechism of 1885 is certainly a product of the continuing conversion, a deepening of the faith and an ever-broadening scope of understanding in the cherished pages of the Catechism. Like Holy Scripture, the Catechism can be taken at face value. And like Holy Scripture, on each reading a deeper and more richly textured picture of love, meaning and understanding emerges. It is within this frame of reference that I offer you this continuing conversion.

The Catechism opens with “Lesson First” in which the questions and answers concerning God, who He is,  and how He relates to the world and the humanity He created are presented. And again, if we are to receive, accept and obey the Catechism on face value, it must be based on the objective dogma and doctrines of the Church as given in those pages. Broadly speaking exegesis is the process of drawing out the objective explanation from the text without the subjective bias of the reader. In the same manner, eisegesis would be bringing the readers bias into the text. Both of these situations, this author is painstakingly trying to avoid. It is my intention to show there are dual, reciprocal and complimentary interpretations. When the Catechism asks, “Why did God make you?”; the definitive answer is, “God made me to know Him, to love Him, and serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.” From the created ones’ point of view, this certainly fulfills the purpose and function for each of us. I offer you this: God made us because He loves us.