This occurred to me today while I was doing my Morning Prayer. Today is an important feast day in the church, the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. Honoring the Cross is not something which comes naturally to most of us, or at least not to me. So it's possible that the following train of thought was engendered by my trying to come to grips with the meaning of the Cross. Whatever its genesis, here it is:
If God we believe God is merciful, then we shouldn't worry about the fate after death of those who don't know him - those who haven't really "received" the Good News.
Now - there is a strand of Christian spirituality (and I think it's a common one) which says that the whole point of the Christianity exercise is to prepare us for what comes after we die. If we adhere to that spirituality, then it would seem a kindness not to proclaim the Good News to those who haven't yet received it. After all, God will treat them mercifully after death, which presumably means that they won't be cast into the unquenchable flames. What's more, we know that all persons have innate goodness, because all of them are created by God. That innate goodness should serve to bolster the hope that God will treat them mercifully in their ignorance about him.
I think the corrective to that strand of Christian spirituality is that God wants his human creatures to get to know him, not only in the next life, but in this life as well. We are tasked with proclaiming the Good News so that people can get to know God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, both now and in the future.
But what is the inducement to get to know God in this life, if God is a warden, keeping track of each of our misdeeds in his book, so as to have a balance sheet for each of us which will determine our fate after death? Isn't getting to know that God a sentence to a lifetime of blind obedience and fear?
To that question, we must answer No: That is not how we should understand God. In my view, the key to thinking rightly about this is to encounter God - especially Jesus - in a personal and spiritual way in this life. When we really get to know Jesus - not just know about him, but know him through personal encounter - we appreciate that his relationship with us is a relationship of love, and a source of joy in our lives. And then, when we are able to welcome the Holy Spirit into our hearts, we experience that the Holy Spirit gives us gifts which help us in our lives in this world. And then we learn that it is right and fitting to offer God the Father thanks and praise for all he has done for us.
In short: the 'antidote' to a spirituality of blind obedience and fear, is to encounter God in this life, and thus experience the love and joy of knowing him.
Thoughts?
It sounds very vague.
ReplyDeleteMy growing awareness of something larger than myself, God, I suppose, was gradual and worked against the despair I felt in my 20s. My understanding of Scripture is always nurturing and evolving.
Catholic thinking and the saints and art were and remain an important part of my understanding of God.
Trying to live as a Catholic in my locale means invovement with culture warriors whose activities and views are ungenerous and narrow. No love and joy there.
I’ve encountered this idea many times, in reading, and I’ve heard it said in homilies many times. But it is vague, as Jean notes. How does a person “encounter” God, specifically Jesus, in their lives? Very few seem to - they are born christian, and most stay in the religion they were born into, at least nominally. Many are Christmas-Easter christians. Some become nones. Few Christians that I have known exhibit joy or love in their lives, much less do they actively embrace Jesus’s teachings. Many reject them, especially those that warn against wealth and those that say we are to love our neighbors, including the stranger, the poor, those in prison, the homeless. Or our own family members. It’s often easier to love in the abstract- to love the poor with whom we don’t actually live - than to love those to whom we are related, as noted in the previous thread.
ReplyDeleteEncounters with Christ seem to be random events, not something that can be engineered. How many of these encounters are simply wishful thinking? Objectively speaking, any cursory look at the overwhelming tragedies experienced by millions in this world make it difficult for many to really believe that God is love. I firmly believed it when I was younger, all the way into my 50s. But the more I opened my eyes to the tragedies experienced every day by millions in our world, the harder it became to believe that God is love. So I have chosen to believe it - in spite of the evidence. Why? Because belief in a God of love is comforting when looking at the tragedies of human life. The big huge ones, like war, and the little personal ones. We believe very often because we need to believe in order to keep going.
"I think the corrective to that strand of Christian spirituality is that God wants his human creatures to get to know him, not only in the next life, but in this life as well. We are tasked with proclaiming the Good News so that people can get to know God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, both now and in the future."
ReplyDeleteJim, yes, I agree with that. If I am reading you correctly, you are saying
that it's about a relationship that God wants to have with us.
I also agree that people of good will who don't know the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit aren't going to be cast into perdition; that God is merciful. But if I were them, I would want to get to know the One who brought me into being.
Which isn't to say that people who aren't believers as we understand it don't have some understanding of God. I am currently reading the book for our next book club selection, "The Sacred Bridge", by Anne Hillerman. It is fiction but the main characters are members of the Navajo nation. The husband and wife duo are practioners of their native religion, and it speaks of them doing morning prayer. But doesn't detail what those prayers are. But I know what my morning prayers are; the Morning Offering, Glory Be, and Angel of God, to begin with (I get around to Lauds after some breakfast and a cup of tea).. And I imagine theirs would be similar, to dedicate their day, give glory to their creator as they understand, and ask for help in living.
We have a 5:30 Mass this evening. Will be interesting to see what our priest says about the feast in his homily. Sometimes he has some interesting reflections.
ReplyDeleteGospel = God's Spiel = how to live in the way of Jesus and the prophets, I get that.
ReplyDeleteI'm less sure what the Good News means to people. You get to live forever with God if you do/feel/believe XYZ?
We are talking about the Kerygma - the proclamation of the life and the saving deeds of Jesus. I guess the primordial examples are the great preaching passages in Acts of the Apostles, as when Peter speaks to the crowds in Jerusalem in the wake of the Pentecost event.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't have to take the form of dramatic, open-air preaching to vast crowds. It happens when we share our faith with our spouse or children or co-workers.
This preaching - this sharing of faith - has the power to change the lives of listeners.
"How does a person “encounter” God, specifically Jesus, in their lives?"
ReplyDeleteRight - there are many answers to that question, or rather, many paths to Jesus. It occurs to me that a spiritual director is good if s/he helps you find a fruitful way of encountering Jesus. I don't think there is just one way, and different ways may work better for different people.
In my view, the foundational way is through prayer. Of course, that is a vast topic with many branches. I've had intense religious experiences - genuine encounters - both in private prayer, and in public, liturgical prayer. Anne has written many times about how Centering Prayer has been a boon to her.
Jean mentions above that art, literature and the lives of saints have been conduits to God for her. Those are all very traditional. Jean, you probably are aware that all these are ways promoted by Robert Barron.
The Bible - reading it, proclaiming it, contemplating it, discussing it - is another highway to Jesus.
We Catholics would point to the sacraments as primary ways to encounter Jesus. Sacraments combine the sensible (as in, "apprehensible by the senses") and the intangibly spiritual. Some very spiritual experiences for me have occurred in the sacrament of reconciliation. There is something about confessing my sins and being forgiven that makes me feel closer to God.
I am sure there are many other portals to encounter Jesus. These are top of mind for me.
It seems that God has made it really difficult for people to experience this divine .“encounter“. So many obstacles. How should this be interpreted? Does God really want to make it so hard? If so, why? The specific environment and conditions of an individual’s life have to be just right. Many don’t know much about prayer other than the rote prayers from childhood, including much of the mass. Few parishes introduce their parishioners to any forms of prayer beyond the basics. Very few people even know that there are spiritual directors for laity, what exactly they do, nor do they know how to find one. I contacted a couple but even after meeting them, had no idea exactly what they would do because they couldn’t really explain what is involved, their role, and how it all would unfold. I didn’t return. I would be curious to know more about intense religious experiences because I’ve never known anyone personally who has had them. If they have, they don’t talk about it except for some who seen to be charlatans, seeking money and fame, like an awful lot of those who claim to see and speak with Mary. But I’ve never known a normal person who is willing to share these experiences. Why not?
DeleteI don't think most people experience visions and ecstasies. In fact a lot of canonized saints didn't. St. Therese of Lisieux has been quoted as saying that the monotony of sacrifice was to be preferred to ecstasies.
DeletePersonally I have not experienced anything like that. What I have experienced are little glimmers of insight which only last a moment, then they are gone. Or feelings of being at peace in prayer. Once in a while I have had a dream which seemed to have a spiritual context.
I think most of the time we are meant to experience the divine in everyday things; prayer and meditation and sacraments, creation, and other people.
There are varieties of religious experience. In my case, I'd say that it was a childhood shock at realizing the strangeness and contingency of existence. Not an intellectual reality, more like getting hit by a truck. It
Deletemore or less has diffused unevenly through the rest of my being, including religion, though the original experience is a memory.
At least, I don't take things for granted.
Jim, your original post seems predicated, in part, on whether we should preach the Good News to those who don't know Jesus.
ReplyDeleteDefining those not in the know is construed differently by different denominations. Most fundamentalists and some evangelicals think Catholicism is an impediment to the essentials if faith. The standard Catholic line is that Protestants are "incomplete" Christians. I once thought that also.
And exactly who should spread the Good News to those who don't "know" Jesus is another question. Most clergy and freelance preachers are more comfortable with telling people what's what than in opening a dialogue about what's happening in the minds and hearts of those wanting to deepen their conversion. That was the big difference between Pope Gregory and St Augustine of Canterbury.
I always appreciate your throwing these ideas out there. I know you are a very conservative person and traditional Christian. But the fact that you entertain other ideas makes me feel respected and helps maintain my tenuous connection to the Church. I'm sure you are a good deacon for your parish.
Jean, thank you for your kind words!
DeleteThe stock answer from Catholic teaching to the question, "Who should spread the Good News?" is, "All of us". Of course, that doesn't mean we all should pull up stakes and move to a remote Pacific island in search of indigenous pagans. The quintessential way many of us evangelize is by teaching our children and grandchildren about Jesus.
As Catholicism has evolved over the centuries (and there have been those would characterize this as being part of the "genius of Catholicism"), religious orders have taken up the Great Commission by planting themselves in so-called mission territories and witnessing to the faith. Mother Theresa surely is in that category. Frances Cabrini, and many other great names in North American religious orders, could be categorized likewise.
As to who the question, "With whom should we share our faith?" again, the stock Catholic answer is, "Everyone!". Obviously, the situation is unrecognizably different today than it would have been at the time of Acts. Christianity has something like 2 billion adherents already, all over the world.
Part of the idea of the New Evangelization called for by Paul VI and his successors, is that this proclamation of Jesus's saving words and deeds is to be directed to different audiences. The need to proclaim to those who truly have not heard this Good News before, hasn't abated. But we also need to continually evangelize one another, even if we're already baptized, have received instruction and formation, and so on.
Ugh. "Evangelizing others" smacks of turning others into a project to be taken on like a merit badge.
DeleteDuring my pregnancies, my fundie sister in law was always telling me that she was trying to "bring me before the Lord." I became very superstitious that somehow her prayers were making her mean Baptist God was notice I was pregnant and that was killing the babies.
I didn't tell her I was pregnant with The Boy until I was five months along. Without her prayers, I managed to come to term.
Yes, completely irrational thinking.
But illustrates that what you might say in the way of spreading the Good News might not have the intended effect.
Many people are uncomfortable with proselytizing. It’s very intrusive. I believe that those who wish to share their faith should wait to be asked. I certainly never brought up my religious beliefs with co- workers or neighbors that I didn’t/ don’t know well or with anyone who doesn’t ask. If they wanted to know, they would have asked. And I certainly didn’t want them to share their religious beliefs with me unless I asked if they were willing to do so. The only time I did that was when I asked a colleague who spent two weeks in India every year at a meditation retreat if he would be willing to share with me why he had converted to Hinduism from Christianity.
DeleteI received a snail mailing from some unknown-to-me Jehovah's Witness yesterday. It was a typed note, wrapped around a tri-fold pamphlet containing some biblical quotes intended to comfort me, in case I'm feeling despair. I recycled it. It was obviously not targeted to me in particular; it's possible every neighbor up and down the block got the same thing.
DeleteI don't think that kind of proselytizing is very effective. I have no patience for street-corner preachers (one used to find them in downtown Chicago, perhaps they still show up). Nor would I want to jeopardize a work relationship with unsolicited exhortations to amend your life! and get to know Jesus!
These are just my own modest views: there are situations where it's both appropriate and welcome to share faith:
* With our children and (when family relationships allow for it) our grandchildren. We're not fulfilling our obligations as parents if we don't form our children in our faith.
* In settings where it's expected that faith will be shared - i.e. a church or a religious ed class or a Catholic schoolroom. Everyone is already there for that reason, so it's expected. It doesn't just have to be a priest or deacon preaching at you during mass; faith-sharing could happen in an adult-ed group discussion.
* At certain ripe moments in a close relationship. If a dear friend pours our her heart to you, saying, "I'm at the end of my tether; what should I do?", at that point, I think it's ok to say, "This verse from the Bible helps me", or "Centering prayer is what gets me through days like yours," or, "I find peace from my faith life", or "there was a saint in the Middle Ages who wrote about something similar" or...
About the Jehovah's Witnesses, during Covid (I know we're not through with it yet, but during the shutdown period) they were writing letters instead of knocking on doors. I received a couple of letters from a girl; from her handwriting it appeared that she was a young teen. It was rather sweet, wishing me well and inviting me to consider some Scripture passages. I didn't agree with their interpretation, but I wasn't offended. It wasn't an in-your-face style of proselytizing.
DeleteOne thing that the JWs and the Mormons do locally is a lot of volunteer work in the community. I think that is a kind of witnessing that does make a difference, even if one doesn't agree with the theology. If my husband meets some of the young missionaries when out and about he will engage with them and say that he afmires their dedication (but that he already has a church home).
Jim, your discretion in evangelizing is appropriate. However, you may need to think about what you expect when “forming” the faith of children and grandchildren. Explaining your beliefs and exposing them to religious education in your beliefs is fine. But creating an atmosphere of “ you are my children/ grandchildren and I expect that you WILL believe what I believe” is not. Our children attended a few years of public school, but mostly Catholic from middle through high school. The youngest attended both Catholic and Episcopal schools. We went to church on Sundays. However, we also told them that while we were educating them in Christianity, especially the Catholic understanding, they would have to decide for themselves what they wanted to do once they were adults. We would not pressure them to marry in a church nor would we pressure them to baptize their children. They understood that Catholicism was my heritage and that mainline Protestantism was their father’s heritage and so they were exposed to both. We told them that our focus was on what Jesus taught in the gospels. Many people fear giving their children the right to religious freedom.
ReplyDeleteWe did something similar with The Boy, talked a lot about the Catholic way, answered questions. But the CCD teachers were always screaming at him, so he associated church with boredom at best and intense disapproval at worst. Not a surprise to me he considers himself a None, though he still talks to us about what we believe. Honestly, I think he pays more attention now than he did at 14.
DeleteAnne, what you describe is more or less our parenting style, too. The kids had to grow up knowing their dad is a deacon (which is hugely uncool) and, before that, a liturgical musician (which is not quite as uncool - in fact, when the kids were young enough to simply find joy in music, it was kind of cool). They've known all along that both parents are involved in church. We don't hide what we believe, but, especially now that they're adults, we don't try to coerce them.
DeleteTo the best of our knowledge, none of our kids are on the verge of marrying (much to their mom's chagrin!) but if/when that ever comes about - they'll have to decide all those details. I'm a deacon, I do weddings and, hey, I'm available, but that's up to them.
Jim, with four, it’s likely that at least one, maybe more, won’t marry a Catholic. So if one comes home beaming with joy to announce his/her engagement to someone who is not Catholic, how will you respond? Especially if they don’t want to marry in the Catholic Church and want a wedding in a Protestant church, or in a hotel ballroom with a Jewish cantor as presider? Jewish weddings are great fun, BTW. One of the most memorable weddings I’ve gone to had a Catholic bride, a Jewish groom, and two presiders, a Catholic priest and a cantor. The marriage took place in a park. The brides mom, an Italian Catholic married to an Irish Catholic, made a point of telling me that the marriage was “sacramental” and had been duly recorded in her parish. The bride remains a practicing Catholic, her husband is an observant Jew, and they raised their son as a Jew. The marriage is happy, and their 30 something anniversary is coming up in October. You may need to prepare yourself before any of yours become engaged. Maybe they will want to have a wedding on a beach of Lake Michigan, or maybe in the forest, with a Protestant minister or maybe a justice of the peace officiating? Some Catholics are ok with their child marrying someone who isn’t Catholic as long they get married in a Catholic Church and have pledged to raise children Catholic. That satisfied my mom when I married a Protestant. I’m not sure how she would have reacted if we hadn’t. Will you and your wife be ok if one of yours doesn’t want to follow that program?
DeleteWe as parents do the best we can, and just have to trust the kids to live their own lives when they grow up. Ours both married in the church, but they got married way older than we did. Especially the older ones, they were middle/ late 30s, and I think it's a lot harder to blend your lives at that point.
DeleteKatherine, I’m not sure we’ve been to a wedding in the last 30 years with brides and grooms younger than 30. These marriages have all lasted so far, some now for 30 years, more successes than some in my era who married soon after high school, in college or right after college graduation. The data show that those with the most education completed, and older age at marriage, have a significantly lower divorce rate than those who married young without a college education.
DeleteAnne, FWIW our kids are still finding their way into and through adulthood. If/when any of them decide to marry, then what we'll be concerned about is that the spouses are good people who love our kids, treat them well and are good life partners. If any of them turn out to be Catholic, too- great!
DeleteSorry to say your Italian-heritage friend is, canonically speaking, incorrect: a marriage between a baptized person and an unbaptized person isn't sacramental. Doesn't mean it can't be a good and loving marriage, though.
As I understand it there is a difference between whether a marriage is valid and whether it is sacramental. The marriage Anne described would be valid canonically speaking. Same with my former boss, who was from India and is a cultural Hindu but is married to a Catholic.
DeleteI suspect my friend was confused about her daughter’s marital status in the eyes of the RCC. So if it’s valid, but not sacramental, is she still welcome to receive communion? As I understand it, if they had divorced, annulment would be required for her to remarry in the church because the marriage is “ valid”. But I’ve never thought about the rules about communion for Catholics in a non- sacramental marriage except in cases of divorce and remarriage.
DeleteYes, the Catholic partner in a valid marriage with an unbaptized person can receive Communion. If they divorced, I think the "Pauline Privilege" would apply. The Catholic partner would still need to apply for an annulment if they wanted to remarry, but it would be pretty open -and-shut. (Jim P, please correct me if I am wrong.)
DeleteI wonder what would have happen if I had married a non-Catholic.
ReplyDeleteIt is easy for me to image myself going to an Orthodox, Anglican or Evangelical church or synagogue at least occasionally or perhaps even regularly if I really liked the services. I might even go there rather than to Catholic liturgies during Ordinary Time. However, I am sure I would continue to attend Catholic services during the Advent-Christmas and Lent-Pentecost cycles.
If my wife had strong feeling about raising the children in her religion, I would have no objections. I am sure the children would learn much about my Catholic faith without me giving any lessons so that they would be able to choose it if they wanted. I would let the Holy Spirit take care of that.
The big question: how would the Divine Office have affected the marriage? My celebration of the hours is not like a priest or deacon going off to some private corner and praying his breviary. I think most women with any intelligence would quickly come to the conclusion that they should join me with the Divine Office. Otherwise, I think they would get the feeling that I had this mistress who was really the center of my life.
The question had never occurred to me until Betty and I began living together with the pandemic. Betty did use the Magnificat monthly booklet that contains some of the prayers from the hours. And she had almost became a Benedictine after her first marriage broke up.
When we first began dating, I gave her several of Merton’s books including his affair with M, told her that I was a contemplative and had a vocation to solitude, but unlike Merton I did not have an Abbot nor a vow of celibacy.
Her respect for my solitude has been facilitated by the fact that she often stays up late at night to read, and regularly gets up several hours later than I.
Much of my celebration of the Hours occurs each day when I use the treadmill in the basement, so Betty hears all that music in the distance. She loves music so it is like living in a monastery. When the hours are not being celebrated, we are often bathed in classical music.
We do sing Vespers each day. We love the Meinrad psalm tones. It binds us together more than our meals. While Betty usually cooks several fine vegetarian dinners each week, most of the time we eat separately due to our different daily rhythms. Often, I have a working breakfast on the porch, a working lunch at my computer, and a snack before Vespers each evening. Often, I join Betty at her late breakfast for a second cup of coffee and update her with what is going on around the world including here at NewGathering and we discuss our projects for the day.
Imagine chlldren growing up in a Rakosky household being raised Jewish with a Jewish mother and a Catholic father who over the month sings most of the psalms in Latin or English.
Since I live in a Christian minority community, I know several Catholic-Jewish couples. All very successful marriages. One couple raised their daughter as a Catholic, the mom’s religion, and the son as a Jew, dad’s religion. I can imagine you would have also learned to chant the psalms in Hebrew if you had married a Jewish woman.
DeleteLearning new languages has never been easy for me. I did give Hebrew a try once briefly. The alphabet was very difficult. I might have learned the psalms in Hebrew through transliteration. I can follow some of the YouTube recordings that have that.
DeletePeople change. Marriage is a vocation that demands people learn to stretch without tearing--or perhaps learn good mending skills.
ReplyDeleteThere is never any point where you are home free. Even if you retire with a nice income and your many adult kids are pillars of the community with great spouses who live nearby and are of a mind to help, one of you will get sick. And illness changes people's personalities and physical abilities at a time when you are old and resentful of change.
At times, one yearns for an abbott or referee to tell you what to do. For those in sacramental marriages, perhaps marriage prep offers some gems. For the rest of us, it's hope, pray, keep developing your sense if humor, and learn to be selectively deaf.