Everywhere we turn, we see the human condition in all of its poverty, struggle, anguish, and dissatisfaction; with life and love just out of reach....

My purpose in these posts is to bring a variety of Christian and other writers in a desire to share significant writings that in my estimation contribute to the common good and directly or indirectly give glory to God and extend the Lord's work of salvation to all of humanity. G.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------

What the heck is going on, anyway?

Everywhere we look in our world, in our life - in the dynamics among nations, in the political arena, in the drama lived out in marriages and families, in churches and faith communities, in our own lives - everywhere human beings are to be found; we see situations and experiences that describe endless permutations of the human condition after the original sin. In Genesis chapter 3 is related the temptation and the fall of Eve and Adam. There we find related that moment when God described to the man and the woman the results, the consequences of their sin, their rebellion, their decision to stop trusting in God. When you hammer a nail, it goes into the wood. When you pour water on a thing, it becomes wet. When you drop a crystal glass on a marble floor, it shatters into pieces. The human condition is very much like what we all experience of trouble and dissatisfaction. Here is what Genesis 3 relates.

The man would lose the life of ease he had until then known in the garden provided by God his Creator. From now on, in order to live, he would have to obtain his food by the sweat of his brow. He would have to make constant efforts to cultivate the earth, but it would resist him and produce thorns and thistles instead of the good fruits of the earth. In contemporary terms, man tries to do his work, but the work constantly resists him and demands more of him, depleting him until there is nothing left of him; no energy, no time, no life, no spouse, no family, nothing... but only death. It is a slavery that, unlike the chains of the past, is cleverly devised to get the man to voluntarily go into slavery by his own choice. This is the contemporary situation in most of the Earth, where there is no longer the slavery in chains, which still exists in other parts of the world.

The woman, perhaps because her entire design centres around her capacity to conceive and nurture life, she is closer to her body than is the man. Also, she is more acutely sensitive to all that pertains to relations with others; also a feature of her capacity to give and nurture life. She is more aware of and more sensitive to her own self as well as to others in what and how they are. Now, Eve also decided to stop trusting in God; so, for her the consequences were inevitably going to be that her natural desire for her husband would become exaggerated, causing her to "cling" to him. However, he would perceive this and react, in a kind of survival reflex, by dominating her, to protect himself from this clinging, or "nagging". In addition, her distrust in God would also alienate her from her own self, her own body; such that her labour pains would become intensified.

We human beings have a specific design with "room for God" inside

Our human condition now, due to the original sin which becomes actualized in us the moment we are conceived in our mother's womb, is basically alienation from God and insecurity. Human knowledge and efforts can never resolve completely or perfectly this human condition. The man is never satisfied with his work, with the world as he finds it, and the woman is never satisfied with her husband and her life as she finds it. It is a vicious circle out of which there is no escape, but only one solution. That solution is to restore the lost trust in God, our Creator. This is why Jesus Christ called people to follow Him and learn from Him certain disciplines enabling them to accept to live differently, to live the new life He offers those who accept Him and believe in Him. 

These Christian disciplines are merely the ways we need in order to take back into our own hands responsibility for our own life, for cultivating our own life, and for reconnecting ourselves with trust in God our Creator; who is ever present, ever offering to pour into us the "divine vitality" which is designed and intended to be the "breath" and "blood" of our life.

Yes, we need to be loved, but first and foremost, by God our Creator, and at every moment of the day and of the night; constantly. To turn aside and expect to be loved by anyone else can only end in failure, because all human beings are contingent, imperfect, and incapable of fulfilling our infinite capacity and need for life and love. Disconnected from God, we are like a beautiful chandelier without electricity. Only God, the Most Holy Trinity, is worthy of our trust, because God is our origin and our eternal destiny. We have been designed to receive into ourselves the indwelling Presence of the Most Holy Trinity, without whom we remain empty and cold.

Who or what is God?

God is already complete and has always been complete and sufficient from all eternity. There was never any need for growth or testing in God. Jesus of Nazareth, a Jew of Galilee in Palestine two millennia ago, revealed that God is a trinity, a community and communion of divine Persons. From all eternity the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have been a completely fulfilled and vital community of love. They are love; they don't have or give love, they ARE LOVE. We, on the other hand, are contingent beings. We begin as nothing and slowly grow and develop. We need to be constantly tested in order for the tests to shake us from the impulse to relax our efforts and try to be "just carried" by someone else, like the baby we once were.

Living a human life is work, requires deliverate effort freely made

Only by our constant efforts to live, to strive, to create, to give, and to love are we able to take responsibility for our life and live it more fully. The only effective "fuel" for these constant efforts to live and love is the divine life and vitality of love which is God. God is our fuel, our food, our life, our love. No one else. To expect any other human being to love us, give us life, fulfill us, make us happy, is both unfair and impossible. No one can possibly ever meet our unlimited need and infinite capacity for life and love; no one except God. To expect this of any human being is to do them violence.

Eve is no more to blame than Adam

Why did the tempter approach Eve and not Adam? We think it was because Adam heard directly from God not to touch the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" or he would die. Eve had not yet been created. Adam later told Eve about this, but she did not hear it from God himself. The tempter considered her position a little weaker because of this; so, he probed that weakness.

Why did the woman and the man both find it attractive to seek out the "knowledge of both good and evil"? It can only be because they thought they were missing something, that they thought they were not entirely lovable in God's eyes; that they needed to do something to become more lovable, more acceptable to God. It was and still is a lie. God already loves us perfectly because God can only love perfectly; the Holy Trinity, the 3 divine Persons ARE love. The ocean doesn't have wet, it is wet. (From the film "Nikki and the Perfect Stranger". I will send you links to these wonderful films which explore what it would be like to have a visit here and now with Jesus.) God doesn't have love, God is love.

To focus on myself or on others? That is the question. 

When I focus on myself, how I feel, what I have and don't have; I remain isolated within myself. When I turn my focus away from myself to the other, I can see who and what the other is, what he is trying to do, what are her fears, hopes, struggles, aspirations, weaknesses, and strengths. If I study the other, I can discover in what ways the other needs to be loved; then, I can apply myself to love him or her in this way, putting myself at the service of the other out of love, pouring my vitality out in a flow of love. 

Love cannot be kept; it can only be given

Love's satisfaction is in the very act of love, of giving itself, of pouring itself out. Trying to get love, to have love, to hold onto love is like trying to hold water with a sieve. It's impossible. The only way to be full of love and never run out of love is to love, to give love away. That is impossible unless I am constantly connected to the River of Love, which is God.

You already know that as a mother or father, knowing how obviously dependent and helpless your child is from the moment of conception and birth. That poverty pulls love and caring out of you, and you find great satisfaction and pleasure loving your child; even to the point of exhaustion. Slowly, the child is developing a capacity to emerge as an individual, independent, and enterprising. This process will take at least 18 years or more before their autonomy is sufficient for them to go out on their own. The challenge then is to trust them and let them go as the new way to love them.

The human person is constantly changing; relationships never quite "catch up"

Along the way your manner of relating them is constantly changing, because they are constantly changing, and you never seem to quite catch up to the "new them", because the one you think they are today is actually the one you thought they were yesterday or last week or last month or last year. Today, they are quite different yet again... fetus, baby, toddler, little child, child, older child, pre-teen, pubescent child, young teen, older teen, transitional adult, young adult, adult, midlife adult, etc....

If you are a parent with young children, it would not be surprising that at the end of a day of pouring yourself out to your little children, that you would feel a need for someone else to take care of you. As a priest, I get to feel like that too. That's why I can say this, which may be difficult for you to hear or read, dear reader, but this is a "child's reflex", not a position of adult autonomy; it is a "passive reflex", not an "active reflex".

It is always "up to me" to decide to "care for myself"

Look at it this way. My life - body, mind, heart / psyche, and spirit / soul - is like the baby I once was. Then, it was Maman who took me up and cared for me in all my needs, more or less perfectly. Providing the care was sufficient, I would smile back at her, and she was content. (This relationship of care provider to infant is also the "theoretical model" adopted by Psychotherapist Dr. Jeannine Guindon, Ph.D., foundress of the Institut de Formation Humaine Intégrale in Montreal QC Canada. She founded a new helping profession called "psycho-education" or "psycho-educator".)

But now, I am no longer that baby, but my organism, my life, is as it were like that baby, because someone needs to take care of it. That someone is me. Once I became independent of Maman and Papa, it fell to me to care for myself in at least as good a manner as the care I had received from them. My "life" will only look back at me and smile when my care for my life is sufficient for it to be content. No one else can provide that for me; it is up to me to provide that for myself, somehow.

Self care is most effective and satisfying when it does not deprive anyone else

I need to care for my life on my own time, and in a way that does not put a burden on anyone else. Mostly, I need to care for myself between my two ears, in the way I choose to think about all these things and about my life and caring for my life. Even in the very midst of caring for another, a child or children for instance, within myself I can maintain a "sanctuary" of space in which I am selecting my attitudes and interior dispositions in such a way as to be "kind to myself" without depriving others of any good thing.

I am not a victim of my attitudes, but rather a "surfer of life"

The biggest most dramatic difference I can make for myself is, for example, when I notice anxiety rising within me, to acknowledge it, recognize it, understand where it's coming from, know that I can handle it, and put it aside; replacing it with deliberately connecting with God... welcoming God's love and vitality like exposing myself to the warmth and light of the sun.... This is only one example, but there are countless ways in which I can manage my life better by noticing, acknowledging, resolving now or putting aside to resolve later, and turning to God to be replenished here and now.

To employ a different analogy, it is true to say that I am not a "victim" of my attitudes, but rather a "surfer of life". My surf board is the meaning and purpose I wish to "give to my life", and with both feet firmly planted on this surf board, I see waves coming, position myself, keep my balance, and "ride each wave" for all the vitality, pleasure, and satisfaction it can afford; as I make my way along the beach.

Turning to God, opening myself up to God who is ever here, welcoming and receiving from God are so many elements of a way of living which is a kind of skill or practice, which can be learned easily enough because God is ever here and eager to fill me, refresh me, renew me, and love me.

Needless to say, it has been a life long challenge to learn to care well for my life, because that life is constantly changing with the times, as I age, with each new challenge, in each new situation, and also with the grinding routine of the repetitious demands of each repeated day and each repeated night.

----------------------------------------------------------------

My purpose in these posts is to bring a variety of Christian and other writers in a desire to share significant writings that in my estimation contribute to the common good and directly or indirectly give glory to God and extend the Lord's work of salvation to all of humanity. G.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------

© 2004-2022 All rights reserved Fr. Gilles Surprenant, Associate Priest of Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montreal  QC
© 2004-2022 Tous droits réservés Abbé Gilles Surprenant, Prêtre Associé de Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montréal QC 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +  

Ukraine - Russia - Europe - NATO - U.S.A.

Cordial Greetings and Respect to all at N.A.T.O.

As I understand the history of the past century, both the U.N. and N.A.T.O. came into existence in the context of the post-WW II world and the intensifying Cold War.

1989 saw the beginning of the dismantling of the U.S.S.R. and the liberation of many of the nations previously dominated by the Soviet Union. Some of these have subsequently engaged freely in relations with Russia, with formal or informal ties.

Meanwhile, despite the dismantling of the U.S.S.R., the U.S.A. and N.A.T.O. did not really "step back" or dismantle the "demonstrations of force" put in place during the Cold War and which, after the end of the Cold War, did not really make sense any more. It is understandable that mutual mistrust would continue for a while, but what actually happened is much worse.

Is it not true that Russia has complained for many years that these "shows of force" on the peripheries of Russia's borders by the U.N., N.A.T.O., and the U.S.A. have not been significantly reduced? In fact, is it not true that military installations and shows of force - particularly by the U.S.A. - have actually increased? Many excuses have been employed, but always with the same effect, which is to continue the pressure on Russia on all sides.

The Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 was all about the U.S.S.R. in effect saying to the U.S.A. "You continue your shows of force along our borders with your military presence; very well, now how do you like it when we take steps to do the same along your borders?"

In effect, the world has basically extended indefinitely into the future measures taken during the Cold War and which no longer make sense. Those who have seized power are obviously reluctant to let go of power, especially the U.S.A.; regardless of the effects they are having on other nations. Regardless of the apparently peace loving words expressed by American statesmen towards other nations in general and in Eastern Europe in particular; their political and military actions and the actions of their multinational corporations do anything but promote peace. The growing presence of U.S. military around the borders of Russia have done nothing but provoke the "sleeping bear".

In 1945-46 England, France, Russia, and the U.S.A. assembled together in Nuremberg, Germany, judged 22 Nazi leaders accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity; most of whom were convicted, and many executed. In succeeding decades, some nations have continued to commit "crimes against humanity"; yet these nations have not been brought to justice.

Consider how the U.S.A. invaded Iraq on the pretext of weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be false. With the removal of Saddam Hussein, Iraq was plunged into chaos, and various groups previously kept in order by Saddam Hussein found themselves free to conduct their policies of aggression against others. For example, almost all the Christians who had lived in relative peace for millennia were intensively persecuted and most of them left the country.

In a post cold war world, both Russia and the U.S.A. have "meddled" in the affairs of other nations, such as Afghanistan and Syria to name only these two, and at times committed crimes against humanity, but neither of them have been judged for these crimes. No one has brought them to justice.

There is no denying that there is a centuries long close relationship between Ukraine and Russia. The belligerent insistence of the U.S.A. that Ukraine be introduced into NATO has been done under cover of benevolence, in the name of peace, for the sake of security for all Europe, and other high sounding words. In actual fact, though, this intrusion by the U.S.A. in the affairs of Ukraine in particular and Europe in general has done nothing but stab at one of Russia's most sensitive spots. This is deliberate provocation, and we can only ask "Why? What is the U.S.A. trying to accomplish?" Even Ukraine has consistently told the U.S.A. in effect to shut up and back off, but America is not very good at listening. America insists on the world treating Russia as if there have been no changes since the disintegration of the U.S.S.R.

It seems obvious that these past few years, Russia's invasions of parts of Ukraine have been acts of frustration with the lack of listening or respect on the part of N.A.T.O. and the U.S.A. towards Russia and its own legitimate security concerns. Why is it that Russia is constantly treated as an enemy of humanity and that no consideration has been given to Russia's legitimate concerns regarding its own security? Nevertheless, it is true to say that if Russia is a bully; then it's not the only bully on the block.

The U.S.A. goes about intruding, sometimes violently, in the affairs of other nations; whether invited to do so or not, going so far as to topple governments overly loyal to their own people but resistant to the promotion of "American interests", that is, the interests of American capitalistic multinational corporations, the same ones dominating the lobbies in Washington. I believe there is a long list of nations in which the U.S.A. came apparently to aid and build up democracy, but in their wake left those nations no longer able to support their own populations and crushed under national debts to the World Bank encouraged by the U.S.A. The signs pointing to U.S.A.'s colonial ambitions are indisputable.

Why do the U.N., N.A.T.O. and the U.S.A. continue to be "asleep at the switch?" It's only a question of time before the whole world stands up as a single man and shouts: "The emperor has no clothes!"

Respectfully,

Gilles Surprenant, Montreal QC CANADA

-----------------------------

POSTSCRIPT - Thursday, April 21st, 2022.

After over 8 weeks of Russia's "war on Ukraine", it would seem that the West's fears concerning Russia have been proven to be well founded. However, Russia's current faults do not negate the faults of all the other national players on the world stage. There is very little, if any, "moral high ground" here. As long as nations pursue what they narrowly perceive to be their own interests, with disregard or even contempt for their neighbours' legitimate concerns; peace will elude humanity. 

World leaders may very well have their fingers on "the switch", namely, the "switch triggering their weapons" which they may contemplate using against their neighbours. My use of the word "switch" was not this meaning, but rather the "switch" which turns on the lights enabling us to recognize one another as all sharing the one common home of the natural environment on Planet Earth. 

Pope Francis is right on the money to call on the leaders of the world's nations to adopt a perspective on their neighbours that recognizes their humanity, and that we are all "brothers and sisters" in the one human "family", and that we need to cooperate if we are to make any progress in promoting the "common good" in a way that benefits all; especially the most vulnerable, excluded, and discarded.     Gilles Surprenant

----------------------------------------------------------------

My purpose in these posts is to bring a variety of Christian and other writers in a desire to share significant writings that in my estimation contribute to the common good and directly or indirectly give glory to God and extend the Lord's work of salvation to all of humanity. G.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------

© 2004-2022 All rights reserved Fr. Gilles Surprenant, Associate Priest of Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montreal  QC
© 2004-2022 Tous droits réservés Abbé Gilles Surprenant, Prêtre Associé de Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montréal QC 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +  

Note to U.N. regarding U.N., N.A.T.O., the U.S.A., Russia, & Ukraine

My purpose in these posts is to bring a variety of Christian and other writers in a desire to share significant writings that in my estimation contribute to the common good and directly or indirectly give glory to God and extend the Lord's work of salvation to all of humanity. G.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Note to U.N. regarding U.N., N.A.T.O., the U.S.A., Russia, & Ukraine

Cordial Greetings and Respect to all at the U.N. and N.A.T.O.

Why is it that Western nations automatically situate themselves on what could be called the "moral high ground"; as though they are automatically morally superior, regardless of their actual declaration, actions, and behaviours on the world stage? 

As I understand the history of the past century, both the U.N. and N.A.T.O. came into existence in 1949 in the context of the post-WW II world and the Cold War.

1989 saw the dismantling of the U.S.S.R. and the liberation of many of the nations previously dominated by the Soviet Union. 

Since then it is true that both Russia and the U.S.A. have "meddled" in the affairs of such countries at Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and other Middle East nations. 

Meanwhile, despite the dismantling of the U.S.S.R., the U.S.A. and N.A.T.O. did not really "step back" or dismantle the "demonstrations of force" put in place during the Cold War and which, after the end of the Cold War, did not really make sense.

Is it not true that Russia has complained for many years that these "shows of force" on the peripheries of Russia's borders by the U.N., N.A.T.O., and the U.S.A. have not been significantly reduced?

The Cuban Missile Crisis on 1962 was all about the U.S.S.R. in effect saying to the U.S.A. "You continue your shows of force along our borders with your military presence; well, how do you like it when we take steps to do the same along your borders?"

In effect, the world has basically extended indefinitely into the future measures taken during the Cold War and which no longer make sense. Those who have seized power are obviously reluctant to let go of power. 

In 1945-46 England, France, Russia, and the U.S.A. together judged 22 Nazi leaders accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity; most of whom were convicted, and many executed. In succeeding decades, some nations have continued to commit "crimes against humanity"; yet these nations have not been brought to justice. In light of the excesses committed by the Nazis from 1933 to 1945, these judging nations did consider themselves standing on the moral high ground, but is that still the case?

Consider how the U.S.A. invaded Iraq on the pretext of weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be false. With the removal of Saddam Hussein, Iraq was plunged into chaos, and various groups previously kept in order by Saddam Hussein found themselves free to conduct their policies of aggression against others. Almost all the Christians who had lived in relative peace for millennia were intensively persecuted and most of them left the country. 

In a post cold war world, both Russia and the U.S.A. have "meddled" in the affairs of other nations, and at times committed crimes against humanity, but neither of them have been judged for these crimes.

It seems obvious that these past few years, Russia's invasions of parts of Ukraine have been acts of frustration with the lack of demonstrations of respect on the part of N.A.T.O. and the U.S.A. 

Why is it that Russia is constantly treated as an enemy of humanity and that no consideration has been given to Russia's concerns regarding its own security? Why have Russia's stated concerns about its own security never been taken seriously? 

Why are the U.N., N.A.T.O. and the U.S.A. "asleep at the switch?" 

"Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it." credited to Winston Churchill

-----------------------------

POSTSCRIPT - Thursday, April 21st, 2022.

After over 8 weeks of Russia's "war on Ukraine", it would seem that the West's fears concerning Russia have been proven to be well founded. However, Russia's current faults do not negate the faults of all the other national players on the world stage. There is very little, if any, "moral high ground" here. As long as nations pursue what they narrowly perceive to be their own interests, with disregard or even contempt for their neighbours' legitimate concerns; peace will elude humanity. 

World leaders may very well have their fingers on "the switch", namely, the "switch triggering their weapons" which they may contemplate using against their neighbours. My use of the word "switch" was not this meaning, but rather the "switch" which turns on the lights enabling us to recognize one another as all sharing the one common home of the natural environment on Planet Earth. 

Pope Francis is right on the money to call on the leaders of the world's nations to adopt a perspective on their neighbours that recognizes their humanity, and that we are all "brothers and sisters" in the one human "family", and that we need to cooperate if we are to make any progress in promoting the "common good" in a way that benefits all; especially the most vulnerable, excluded, and discarded.     Gilles Surprenant

----------------------------------------------------------------

My purpose in these posts is to bring a variety of Christian and other writers in a desire to share significant writings that in my estimation contribute to the common good and directly or indirectly give glory to God and extend the Lord's work of salvation to all of humanity. G.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------

© 2004-2022 All rights reserved Fr. Gilles Surprenant, Associate Priest of Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montreal  QC
© 2004-2022 Tous droits réservés Abbé Gilles Surprenant, Prêtre Associé de Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montréal QC 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +  

Marriage or celibacy? What is better, healthier, more likely to lead to happiness: a life with sex or a life without sex? What about contentment versus loneliness? Does human life have a universal purpose and meaning?

My purpose in these posts is to bring a variety of Christian and other writers in a desire to share significant writings that in my estimation contribute to the common good and directly or indirectly give glory to God and extend the Lord's work of salvation to all of humanity. G.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Marriage or celibacy? What is better, healthier, more likely to lead to happiness: a life with sex or a life without sex? Does human sexuality have any bearing on loneliness, contentment, peace and serenity, and joy? Are there any other factors at work? Are there any other factors stitching all these elements together?

There are as many views as there are human beings living and breathing on the Earth at any given time, I suppose. What is most likely to bring clarity is what we know most definitively from the domain of science from publicly verified sources, whose findings have been universally corroborated and verified as true and reliable. The picture would not be complete without also taking into consideration the findings, confirmed repeatedly through various times and places, cultures and societies, by those that have been universally upheld by their contemporaries as "holy" or "wise", the "enlightened" and "saints", who had the courage and determination to pursue in practical ways and with perseverance the principles they discovered themselves and those they received from the "wise" and the "saints" who preceded them.

Form these generally accepted and trusted sources, several operating principles have, over the centuries and millennia, been clearly established as universal, verifiable, and everywhere applicable. Let us list them, in no particular order.

1. Marriage, Children, and Family

The most basic and fundamental human institution is that of marriage, that is, the lifelong union of one man with one woman, for the purpose of their mutual aid in the course of their life times, in their pursuit of procreating and raising children and the establishment and maintenance of a family, for the most part in collabortion and solidarity with other families, generally in social groupings known as clans, tribes, extended families, peoples, and nations.

2. Celibates as complements and supports to Society

In almost every time and place, in just about every society, there have always been individuals, both men and women, who for various reasons did not become a couple with a counterpart of the opposite sex and gender, but who - either by choice or necessity - lived alone, often in isolation, but generally in some form of solidarity, with the rest of their society. These celibate men and women generally lived as hermits, or else within the circle of a larger community of clan, village, tribe, or people, and who often offered some sort of service or help to their society, and which enabled them to sustain themselves.

3. The resolution of conflicts and works of peace towards the common good 

Very diverse societies, cultures, times, and places all seem to afford examples of arrangements, either formal or informal, whereby the majority of the population develop into couples with families, and at the same time a small number of celibates live "on the fringe" or even in the "heart" of their society. These celibates may be among the "ruling class" or simply be considered to dwell among the "servant class" or more remotely on the "fringes" or "peripheries" of their society. Whenever such a celibate acquires truly and justly the good reputation of being "holy" or "wise", "enlightened" or "saints", people in need of their guidance or help would go out to them with various requests. 

The more these requests obtained satisfactory resolutions, the more "beaten" the path to that celibate's door became. Peace and serenity, practical advice and counsel, and even healings and miraculous interventions have been widely documented as experienced and verified by people who have had recourse to such celibate men and women. Occasionally, the celibate or hermit would come into the heart of the society in the face of some grave conflict in order to bring counsel and resolution to those locked in apparently unsolvable conflict. As a reward for their labours, these advocates of peace were either thanked or persecuted and killed, depending on the quality of openness and welcome their words found in the hearts of those in conflict. 

4. What about human sexuality and the sexual "appetite"?

University degrees are not needed for anyone to come to the realization that our various human appetites are never fully satisfied. We are drawn to food because our mortal body requires the regular replenishment of "fuel reserves" in order to sustain itself and function optimally according to "normal parameters", to take an expression from the Star Trek "universe". We also have normal appetites for water and other forms of drink, for water to wash and bathe for cleanliness, for clothing to protect the body from variations of cold and heat, and for shelter from the elements and protection from predators and other dangers. We have appetites for pleasant sights and sounds, for smells and touch sensations.

The human "sexual appetite" is universally recognized as one of our most powerful, if not our most powerful human appetite. Among all our appetites, some are oriented towards survival and the maintenance of our physical life and existence; while others are rather oriented towards learning, diversion, entertainment, and pleasure. We don't need music to survive, but it greatly enhances the quality of life and may even contribute to the peace and ultimately, to the survival of a people. 

5. What about human sexuality and clear communication, health and mutual respect?

There exists a superabundant store of knowledge touching on human sexualty and the human "sexual appetite" to draw the certain conclusion that this unique human appetite is fraught with challenges and dangers, both for individuals and for others whose lives are "touched" be each individual man and woman. At the "dark end of the spectrum", we have come to learn about the many infections and sexually transmitted diseases that are related to the unrestricted engagement in sexual practices. As long as a human couple made up of one man and one woman remain faithful to each other and refrain from engaging in sexual activity with anyone else, they generally remain free from such threats to their health and life. Sexually transmitted infections and life threatening diseases are generally known to be the result of "serial sexual activity", or the unfettered sexual activity of people with a limited or unlimited "series of partners", of either the opposite or their own sex and gender. These are serious threats not only to individuals but also to the entire fabric of human society. For this reason, both civil and religious authorities have not only the right but the obligation to propose and impose sanctions on their constituents with rapport to any sexual activity outside the confines of each individual couple. 

The dimension of clear and honest communication between men and women generally, but in particular with rapport to the human sexual appetite and legitimate sexual activity within the confines of the human couple and family, has been found to be at the heart of all sexual activity and restraint. These principles are not only relevant to health and survival, but they are most pertinent to good order, peace and serenity, and that contentment which permits happiness in this mortal and brief existence. A life without mutual respect quickly degenerates into a miserable existence when added to all the other challenges of survival and the simple maintenance of life, health, security, and peace. 

At the heart of all distress related to both desired and unwanted sexual behaviour and activity is the great challenge of engaging in clear communication while simultaneously avoiding misinterpretation of one another's intentions. In particular, many women who later claim to have been violated by a man related how they were initially interested in the exchange of low intensity forms of affection, but how at some point the man's advances became too suddenly more intense or beyond the normal limits of low levels of affection. At that point they would have said "No." or would have tried to get up or withdraw themselves, or push away the advances that were no longer wanted. Sadly, the man either did not hear or perceive the change in them or the withdrawal of their consent, or else that man chose to ignore this change, deciding to pursue to the ultimate conclusion the satisfaction of his sexual appetite with callous disregard for the respect due to that woman or for the change in her intentions or consent. 

6. What about the human sexual appetite makes it so beautiful or misleading and dangerous?

It is well known by all who have ever engaged in sexual activity, but also can be known by those willing to learn from their elders, that once the sexual appetite is aroused, the faculty of our human will remains free only for a brief and limited time. The further "in" one goes in the pursuit of satisfaction of this sexual appetite, the degree of freedom in our human will experiences simultaneous and opposite reduction. In other words, the more one is "sexually aroused" the less one is free to slow down or stop. 

This is where the logic of the married couple becomes more and more apparent. The man and woman to become friends and, over a period of time which becomes courtship and leading to engagement, which then prepares them to enter into marriage, this couple is constituted by one man and one woman to come to know each other more and more truly and more and more intimately. They learn to verify one another's signals and intentions, learning especially from their failures if misinterpretation, and in such ways having their own impressions, interpretations, and judgements "purified" by the other through an intricate and never ending process of mutual knowledge and understanding. Such a couple become very refined in their ability to "read" one another's needs, desires, wants, intentions, hopes, and aspirations.

As some put it, each of them pass through the stages of primary school, high school, college, university, post-graduate studies, post-doctoral research, and life-long learning and expertise in the knowledge of their partner, friend, and spouse. With time, it becomes more and more unlikely that either of them would misinterpret one another's "sexual signals", which allows them to show one another more and more "mutual respect" and "mutual love and devotion". The very intense experiences of sexual arousal with the release of all the powerful related hormones all become highly disciplined by the ways in which they have come to know, love, and respect one another, and to put themselves at the service of one another for the greater good of their couple and family. In other words, the sexual appetite is more and more "tamed" and "domesticated" and made to "serve" the other and the couple, as opposed to remaining an unbridled "wild thing" interested only in the pursuit of its own selfish desires.

In any event, the sexual appetite in itself is hopelessly "handicapped" and unable ever to attain anything resembling contentment or satisfaction. No man can ever reach in himself deep and lasting satisfaction for his sexual appetite; nor can any woman by herself either. The simple reason for this is that the ultimate and lasting satisfaction of the human sexual appetite lies not in its use, but rather beyond itself; that is, in its contribution to the "higher" and "deeper" purpose of the human relationship itself. To put it simply, the sexual union of a married man and woman with each other, with each successive "union", "cements" them to each other. At the same time, all that they live together and for each other in the course of every day and night, builds up their friendship and relationship of love; so that when they do come to the preliminaries and intensity of sexual union, it is truly a celebration of all that they have become for one another and together. 

Their married life becomes a beautiful and harmonious tempo and "dance" between living and celebrating, serving and embracing, giving and receiving. It is the strength of their love in mutual service and devotion that "protects" them from the potential ravages of the otherwise "unfettered" sexual appetite. Such married couples, as they become devoted parents, enter into the paradox of experiencing deeper and deeper meaning and satisfaction in the "spending" of themselves and "pouring themselves out" in loving service to each other and to their children. They find "rest" in each other's arms when they are able to be together in recognition and celebration of all that they are becoming for each other, for others, and together. 

Having seen all this as it unfolds and applies to each mutually faithful, respectful, and devoted married couple of husband and wife, we can see how the same factors would be found to apply in reverse for all human beings who engage in sexual activity outside the context and protection of the married couple. Without the mutual knowledge of one single life long partner, it is impossible to ever sufficiently know others or their intentions or true desires; which exponentially increases the likelihood of misreading and misunderstanding one another's behaviours, words, facial expressions, "signals", and intentions. To this same extent then are increased the likelihood of misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and violation.

People who have no knowledge of or no interest or motivation in attenuating or controlling or restraining their sexual impulses and appetites are for these very reasons "dangerous" in their potention for not perceiving, misreading, or intentionally ignoring the intentions of their chosen sexual "partner" who is much more likely to become "prey" or "victim". This is why such people with unbridled or unfettered sexual appetites are generally categorized as "sexual predators". 

7. What about human sexuality and society?

Human sexuality is rather uniquely situated in that it is oriented towards the continuation and survival of our entire human species, by the function of human reproduction, and the necessary complementary function of the raising, education, and formation of the children who - from the moment of their birth and separation from their mother - live and exist in a relatively helpless and dependent state until their maturity and independence can be established. In some societies, boys and girls are deemed fully mature and independent as soon as they can survive on their own and contribute to the sustenance of their immediate collectivity, their family or clan or village. This has been observed to happen as soon as shortly after the transformation that occurs at the time of puberty. Boys and girls as young as 12 or 13 would assume their place in their society and even be given to each other in marriage.

For any family or other social grouping or community to function optimally for the common good of the whole collectivity and the personal good of all that collectivity's individuals, all children must be taught and formed to understand and discipline their sexual appetite, and to learn how to see how it relates to the entire range of their human emotions. As well, they must learn to better know and understand themselves in all these intricate dimensions of human life, how to relate to others with respect, and how to give their assent to the "social contract" whereby they will assume their part in contributing to the common good; while also giving meaning and purpose to their own life. 

8. What about the universal human experience of loneliness?

Dr. Jeannine Guindon, Ph.D, foundress of the Institut de Formation Humaine Intégrale de Montréal and of the social service field of "psycho-education", while doing all that she did to establish her method of formation in Montreal, Québec, Canada; also conducted over several decades a study of the stages of human development, otherwise called the seasons of human life. Avoiding starting out with premices or biases or scientific theories; she simply interviewed people at various ages, asking them what was happening in their life. What were their satisfactions and dissatisfactions, desires and frustrations, accomplishments and failures. What failed to satisfy and what brought meaning and purpose to their lives? Over time she found a certain confirmation of established psychological and social theories, namely, that human beings go through certain "stages in life". We pass from one stage to the next over a period of a few years, and how this varies from one person to another establishes each transition as potentially taking place within the range of a decade, that is, from the middle of one decade to the middle of the next; for example, sometime between the age of 26 and 35 we find "turning 30". Dr. Guindon touched on these seasons of life in her foundational work on the stages of re-education whereby people are helped to better understand themselves and take responsibility for their lives.

To sum up the two stages of turning 30 and 40, Dr. Guindon found that after setting out in life from 16 to 25, people almost universally experienced "increasing dissatisfaction" with what they have lived and experienced by the time they approach 30, that is, somewhere between 26 and 35, depending on whether they arrive at this "earlier" or "later". As she "distilled" people's comments, she was able to draw out a common thread, and she described this dissatisfaction as the person "experiencing a call to go deeper" into their life, or into the meaning and purpose they wish to give to their life. She gave to this particular decade and its "calling" to us as a "call to interiority". In other words, all that motivated the young adult entering into their 20's was no longer sufficient to sustain a high degree of satisfaction. Superficial or material goals were no longer enought. Their human spirit craved deeper objectives.

The person who successfully navigates this stage of "turning 30" and does attempt to "go deeper" in their quest to give meaning and purpose to their lives are able to experience a new level or degree of satisfaction in the meaning and purpose of their lives. They are now fully qualified to experience and sense a new dissatisfaction, a new calling. Having progressed and ventured into deeper realms of their human existence, these people begin to sense deep within their accomplishment a troubling unease. They begin to feel lonely beyond the normal human experience of loneliness at certain times. This new experience or sensation of loneliness comes and is felt as "embedded" within the satisfaction and the felt accomplishment in giving their chosen meaning and purpose to their lives. Their appetite for meaning and purpose, for fulfillment and happiness, remains unabated, not fully satisfied. 

They remain lonely. What does this mean? What is a happily married person, in a happily married couple, to make of this loneliness within the very depth of their deep mutual love and happiness? Dr. Guindon found that this new development, this new depth of dissatisfaction represented the coming to more acute awareness of our individuality as human beings. We are each separate individual human beings, like separate "bubbles" of human existence, unable to "merge" into one another. No one can enter into me to see and feel what it is like to "be me" on the inside. Nor am I able to enter into the other to see and feel what it is like to "be them" on the inside. We are each of us alone. I am alone.

There is no final remedy for this condition, but it is not a curse. Dr. Guindon discovered that people do not experience this isolation and feeling of loneliness as a curse. On the contrary, she found that there is within this sensation of loneliness a new human "calling" and she termed it as the "call to solitude". This human call to solitude, somewhere between 36 and 45 years of age, is a blessing, or a wonderful opportunity to more fully and deeply accept and embrace the truth of what and who we are as humans.

The person who at turning 30 accepted to respond to their "call to interiority" and who now at turning 40 experiences this novel degree or depth of loneliness and accept and embrace it as a "call to solitude" find that there is unleashed within them a new "surge" of energy that is released by the new clarity with which they understand and deliberately, freely embrace their unique human life and common condition.

9. What about the celibate and the universal human experience of loneliness?

What both the married person and the celibate need to understand in order to experience greater freedom in life and better opportunity to embrace their life and condition and take effective steps to give greater and deeper meaning and purpose to their lives, is that we human beings have within us two operative "wills" or "centers of identity". To put it in the religious or theological terms employed by Saint Paul the evangelist, which he received from his Hebrew culture and Jewish religious tradition, we human beings are composed of "flesh" and "spirit". In modern terms, we are "body" and "mind" or "body" and "spirit", "body" and "soul". Our body self experiences within itself its own "logic" and orientation; while our mind, spirit, soul lives at a different "level" or "dimension" of life, and the two remain somewhat insulated or separate from one another. This insulation or separation accounts for much of the unfolding of human misery in this mortal human condition and existence.

Saint Paul, Saint Peter, and Saint James all greed to this "diagnosis" of our human condition about the "war" between these two human dimensions and "wills" within us. The celibate who ignores this opposition and takes no measures to "set up camp" in the domain of the spirit will find his life careening out of control; such that an appropriate caricature for his life might be that he is thinking, feeling, for a man, like "a big penis on wheels". The man who thinks, acts, and lives out of the "will" or "appetite" of his penis and all of his body sensations centered around his genitals will never experience any depth of satisfaction or fulfillment. He will be perennially frustrated in his desire to give higher or deeper meaning and purpose to his life. Even the married man who has equally failed to set camp in his spirit will be unable to attend rightfully or properly to his wife. Thinking only out of his own sexual appetite he will never be able to consider his wife as a separate human being with her own life, feelings, and purpose, but will be trapped and condemned to ever see her only through the think lens of his sexual appetite. He will never be able to consider her anything more than an object for his satisfaction, but that satisfaction will be forever frustrated and postponed in his inability to see her as a person.

The only way for human beings to bring order into their lives between these two "wills", between their spirit / mind / will and their flesh, is to set camp in their spirit, and from there to "regulate", subdue, "bridle", and discipline their sexual appetite, and taming it, make it serve the meaning and purpose they want to give to their life. For the married man, he must give up his human sexuality, put it at the service of his wife, and each day renew the selfless gift of himself to his wife out of selfless love for her, to serve her and respect her, to cherich her as his friend and partner and as the mother of their children.

That is the definition of chastity for the married man. For the celibate, chastity is defined and experienced as reducing to the state of "unemployment" of his genitals, but simultaneously recruiting to the service of love of neighbour all the faculties and energies of his "capacity for affection", laying aside any personal seeking for affective satisfaction. Instead, the celibate enters into a life of selfless service, in which in the very service and encounter of others, he will find affection in the very giving of human warmth, caring and service to others. He can only receive affection in the giving of it, and never in the "taking" or "grabbing" after it. By gently and kindly acknowledging the "murmuring" or "complaints" and "arousals" of his sexual apparatus - from the genitals all the way to the brain by way of his emotions - the celibate deliberately "starves of his attention" all the clamoring and noise coming from his human flesh and sexual appetite, gradually subduing all those "voices" with the mastery of a "benevolent ruler" totally devoted to ruling his "subjects" with wisdom and expertise for their good.

All of this has been expressed from a man's point of view, which I am. I gather that the basic principles also apply for women, but in light of their different but complementary nature, they would express the understanding and application of these principles in a different but complementary fashion. I look forward to reading a similar reflection from any number of my sister human beings.

----------------------------------------------------------------

My purpose in these posts is to bring a variety of Christian and other writers in a desire to share significant writings that in my estimation contribute to the common good and directly or indirectly give glory to God and extend the Lord's work of salvation to all of humanity. G.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------

© 2004-2021 All rights reserved Fr. Gilles Surprenant, Associate Priest of Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montreal  QC
© 2004-2021 Tous droits réservés Abbé Gilles Surprenant, Prêtre Associé de Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montréal QC 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +  

Mercy or “The Law” – God or Man?

My purpose in these posts is to bring a variety of Christian and other writers in a desire to share significant writings that in my estimation contribute to the common good and directly or indirectly give glory to God and extend the Lord's work of salvation to all of humanity. G.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing to you, directors, staff, associated contributors, and volunteers working together at and for EWTN and Catholic Media on the topic of Pope Francis in general, and in particular, regarding the critical stance being taken most notably from what could be called an “elite sector” in Western society. This criticism may best be symbolized in the title question “What about Pope Francis vs His Critics – Mercy or “The Law”?”

Almost from his very first day in office, Pope Francis has enthralled many while also irking others. Born 17 December 1936, Jorge Bergoglio lived and served as a Jesuit, mostly in Argentina, for 55 years until his election as Bishop of Rome, the 266^th Roman Pontiff, the 265^th successor of Saint Peter, on March 13^th, 2013, just two weeks after Pope Benedict XVI’s historic resignation on February 28^th. He immediately manifested preference for the poor, the suffering, the marginalized, and those who are neglected, abandoned, and cast aside.

Then, just two and a half years later, Pope Francis inaugurated the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy, a period of prayer from 8 December 2015, the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, to 20 November 2016, the Feast of Christ the King. During this time Pope Francis called on all the clergy to extend God’s mercy to the faithful, encouraging people to trust in God’s mercy and come back to the reception of the sacraments. He made it easier for priests to show mercy over making strict applications of the law. He also created numerous opportunities for the faithful to obtain plenary indulgences.

Ever since then, in particular, a resistance movement has arisen among both laity and clergy, including prominent bishops and even cardinals, that is highly critical of Pope Francis, going so far as to hold him as incompetent and in contempt of his role as Pope. As we step back to take a wide view of the situation, what becomes most apparent is a series of parallels with the People of Israel, the Apostolic Age, and Church history.

While they were in the desert and on the way to the Promised Land, the People of Israel complained about their harsh conditions and on numerous occasions declared loudly and long that they were much better off in Egypt, asking Moses to bring them back. They preferred going back into slavery rather than rough it for a while on the way to the fulfillment of God’s promises to them. They preferred the familiar to following God.

Much the same happened during the Apostolic Age. Even as Saint Paul brought the Good News to the pagan world and welcomed many converts to faith in Jesus Christ, there was no lack of Jewish Christians who not only wanted to keep the practice of The Law, but also insisted that all male pagan converts be circumcised and obliged to follow all the demands of The Law as well. They preferred a familiar Moses to following Jesus.

Paul called those people “Judaizers” and “circumcisers” and denounced them for preferring the old life of law and order rather than following Jesus and putting their trust in Him. They preferred the familiarity of The Law to this new adventure of trust in God’s mercy and they were loath to no longer live by their own will but in God’s love and mercy with trust in the Holy Spirit. They were afraid to leave the familiarity of “The Law”.

This same tension persisted throughout the history of the Church founded by Jesus Christ on his Apostles as well as the history of the People of Israel. Jesus calls us all to put our trust in God the Father and in Him, his Son, whom the Father sent into the world. Being baptized, receiving the Holy Spirit, and living a new life required leaving behind everything of the old way of living, including habits of sin. During the first millennium, countless people, including Emperor Constantine, uncertain of being able to follow the Gospel thoroughly, delayed being baptized. Later on, it was the Sacrament of Confession that people delayed until their death bed, when the forgiveness of sins could only be given once in a lifetime as a “second chance” after Baptism.

God in Jesus Christ offers humanity a new life of communion in the Most Holy Trinity; so why would we want to go back to a life of slavery under the scrutiny of The Law which no one was able to observe perfectly anyway? It can only be the allure of control, or of the illusion of control. It doesn’t take long before those who prefer to have everything “under control” try to “take charge” rather than obey and put their trust in God.

The religious leaders of Jesus’ day, as those who preceded them also did, stood firmly on The Law because it gave them control over the people and the affairs of the Temple. They could judge who was faithful and who was not, who were the pure and impure, and rule their society accordingly. They didn’t have to rely on God. It also hearkens back to the day when the people demanded of Samuel a king like the other nations all around them. God replied to Samuel that it was not the prophet that the people had rejected, but they were rejecting God as king over them in preference of a human king. It has always ever been about control.

It is not a small thing to call into question the Bishop of Rome at any time in the history of the Church. It is even bolder if not arrogant to do so in our time; when the popes have been men with incredible credentials, experience, and wisdom. In the face of all these detractors, I feel rather powerless. Who am I, anyway? I'm nobody, with no doctorate but only a B.A. in English literature with double minor in philosophy and theology 50 years ago, a civil and also an ecclesiastic Bachelor of Theology., and an M.A. in Pastoral Studies, General Ministry 40 years ago, a retired priest doing part time ministry in Montreal, Québec. 

I know that saints and servants of God like Catherine de Hueck Doherty, the Foundress of the Madonna House Apostolate, would react strongly to those who criticize and spread doubt about the Pope. They would declare loudly that "the voice of the bishop is the voice of God". If, as his detractors claim, Pope Francis is the product of a false or flawed election, if he is either incompetent or stupid, if he really is leading the Church and the world astray; then Jesus has gone on vacation, or is asleep as He was on the boat, or has resigned as Lord. These scenarios are unthinkable. It would be to claim that Jesus is no longer faithful to his promise as recorded by St. Matthew at the end of his Gospel; that He would be with us until the end. 

It could be said that the trend to denounce Pope Francis is rooted at least in part in a white elite – both clerical / religious and lay / secular in the U.S.A. deeply invested in their long experience of power, influence and control as churchmen and churchwomen in their society; as well as having a long history as a nation of dictating to the whole world what is required of them in order to align themselves correctly with “American interests”. Pope Francis challenges them, as Jesus did, and they hate him for it. In this sense, they are doing to Pope Francis exactly as the Jewish religious leaders did to Jesus in his day. Why people anywhere have uncritically joined this trend, I don't know and can't understand, but perhaps it's not for me to know. 

All this confusion and controversy around Pope Francis has to do, at least in part, with the possibility of admitting to Holy Communion people whose marriage situation is irregular. As I understand it, Pope Francis wants us to get close enough to people to "get dirty", that is, to be affected by their struggle in order to come to understand their plight more closely, specifically, and intimately. Only then can we bring some clarity from the Gospel to them and help them learn to discern God's will for them. This process of discernment cannot be done in a "cookie cutter" kind of way, but only one unique person at a time. We are not to tell people what to do or have the temerity to claim to discern for them or on their behalf, but what God does expect us to do, in charity and humility, is to help them become more familiar with and understanding of the Scriptures, our faith Tradition and the teaching of the Church since the Apostles, and to help awaken their conscience to discern God’s will. 

In some cases, such as when a party has been abused or victimized by a divorce, that is, abandoned by their former spouse, and they clearly bear no part of responsibility for the divorce; if the person is manifestly being called by the Lord to Communion and have a great need of the Bread of Life, a pastor could very well receive them after a good confession. Of course, the pastor would have to do all he can to help the person take the steps necessary for them to have their status clarified or regularized, such as through the nullity process, but this is not always possible for people, for one reason or another, or their life situation may not afford enough time. 

It seems as though it is due to such cases that Pope Francis wants us to understand the Church more as a field hospital than a museum or an organization for the rewarding and acknowledgement of the worthy. As pastors, we are called to serve people personally, one person at a time, rather than "rule from on high" and try to make sweeping policies. We are not to “parade in public” as the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, lawyers, and priests did in Jesus’ day, and strutting about lording it over ordinary people, most egregiously the poor.

Those who take objection with Pope Francis want a universal "one size fits all" moral policy, perhaps so as to avoid the trouble of "getting dirty" by getting “too” close to people and their miseries. I believe many of them are sincerely troubled by the state of the world, of society, and of the suffering of souls, and they want to help, but they are impatient with this personal pastoral approach. They are highly resistant to and intolerant of Pope Francis’ unrelenting insistence that we all “go to the peripheries” where people are judged, condemned, pushed, isolated, relegated, and abandoned by our obsession with law and order. We demand an expedient universal and legal solution; maybe afraid people might abuse God's mercy and try to enjoy grace and sin simultaneously. 

I believe that Pope Francis trusts us to have more judgment than that and he expects us to discern such cases of abuse and to personally warn people to repent such attitudes and behaviors. It seems clear enough from Pope Francis' preaching and talks that he is more than well versed in our Catholic tradition and moral teaching and never provides shadows or opportunity to misinterpret God's will or his laws. On the contrary, Pope Francis is known for giving very practical counsel in his homilies, talks, and encounters.

I believe one reason that Pope Francis irks many is precisely because he is addressing our inclination to be parsimonious with God's mercy; whereas God in Jesus is extravagantly generous with his mercy. The sincerity and authenticity of Divine Mercy as Jesus revealed Himself to Saint Sister Faustina is such that his voice would shame anyone trying to abuse his mercy, so warm and personal is his invitation to come to Him. God is quite capable of scrutinizing souls and He doesn't need us to probe people's consciences. The “scrutiny” of the Holy Spirit, reaches deeply into human spirits and consciences, for the Spirit is (Heb 4:12-13) “penetrating indeed, (and) the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before him no creature is hidden, but all are naked and laid bare to the eyes of the one to whom we must render an account.”

It is sufficient for us to declare the Good News, all of it, to allow ourselves to be touched by the miseries and troubles of souls, and let the Holy Spirit do the rest. God's ways are far above our ways, and He is patient towards souls so that they might repent willingly and enter into his love and mercy. There are those who are impatient with the Lord's ways as they are with Pope Francis, and they would want to "lay down the law". 

This is how I understand the controversy between mercy and laying down the law. Pope Francis' call for us to "do mercy" and "bring God's mercy" to people and to the world in no way trumps or cancels the moral law or the Church's tradition. They are both essential and complementary. As a Church for centuries we were simply too heavily leaning on the side of law and order, with abundant threats of hell fire, and without mercy. 

While it may be true that people generally have lost a sense of sin as such, they are not without having troubled consciences. They tend to know when they are being too selfish or unkind to others, when they have “messed up” and are not their best selves, and even when they may not be honest and true towards God. When we walk kindly with people and show them that we genuinely love them and are worthy of their trust, all the painful truth tends to come out. I don't think we will help souls is we demand the Pope apply generalizations about morality and the conditions of souls in a “one size fits all” manner more suited to the marketplace. 

The more we encourage doubt about the moral leadership of Pope Francis; we will actually do more harm to souls. His entire approach is to call everyone, from the most learned to the least, to understand and to practice the discipline of discernment. It is the only way for people to find their way to God; lest we intrude between souls and God pretending we know better than souls how to discern the will of God for them.

When pastors tried to do that in the past few centuries, they merely succeeded in showing people that their clergy were unworthy of trust. For generations clergy would not let people discern in their own consciences, not trusting them to do it. It was felt that only those well versed in moral theology could discern what is right and wrong in specific instances. People were taught to go ask the pastor, rather than use their own judgment. We can see today the result in the almost universal abandonment of the Church by people in many places.

When we take too much place in people's interior lives, we actually move in on the private place within souls that the Most Holy Trinity reserve to them. That is a serious offense against souls and against God, and I believe it is this danger that has been troubling me about this whole controversy over Pope Francis' pontificate. Our distrust of Pope Francis reveals our unwillingness to fully trust in God and his reign in hearts, minds, and souls. We don't trust that God is managing very well; so we feel He needs us to step in and make things clear. This controversy isn't really about Pope Francis, but about us and our unwillingness to really trust in God and obey Him even in these matters. We are unwilling to be lambs as Jesus was, with complete trust in his Father. As we have clung for centuries to our hegemony over the entire world; so now we want to push the Lord aside and take over management of the Kingdom of God.

This worldwide controversy is about power and influence, prosperity, affluence, wealth, and control. By analogy, nations like the U.S.A., Canada, and the other G7, and even China; all carry the conviction that their understanding of the world and the way things should be is the only way. They are blind to how they "shout over" the voices of the poor, little, and less powerful nations; like rich, healthy, and powerful people do over the timid voices of the poor, convinced that they know better. This is the cause of many conflicts worldwide.

All the while, all too often, leaders of nations and rebellions are blind, as we are blind to the ways in which we exploit the poor and enjoy too much of what the Creator intends for all to enjoy. I've heard Raymond Arroyo and other commentators on EWTN and other mass media criticize Pope Francis, and they seemed to me to be the picture of this blindness of the affluent, blinded by their own self interest and that of their class. 

In all of this, I don't hold myself guiltless; on the contrary, I struggle with being a citizen of this nation in Canada that continues arrogantly in its self-assurance to enact policies and behaviors that remain to this day very much in the "colonizing" mentality of the first Europeans who came here and had a "free for all" with the abundant resources they saw in this land, among which native peoples trod with reverence. Since then we have very irreverently trodden down on them in our greed to grab all the goods that we can as quickly as we can.

Among those who go with this currently trending discourse that is critical of Pope Francis; it is felt that his insistence on extending the mercy of God to contemporary society coincides with a failure to clarify the moral demands of the divine law as revealed in the Scriptures. This trend in the broader Catholic culture seems to look nostalgically to the anathema statements of many of the councils which preceded Vatican II and regrets the “softer approach” taken since Vatican II in an effort to present the Good News to contemporary society in a manner which can capture the mind and heart of people much as Jesus did during his brief ministry on Earth.

This line of thinking goes something like this: “What is the use of proclaiming God’s mercy to people who have no sense of sin? Convinced as they are that they have no sin, they have no sense of being in need of God’s mercy.” This view is held to show the need to proclaim loud and long the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments, and to make practical applications to ceaselessly denounce all contemporary behaviors that go against God’s law, much as the religious leaders did in Jesus’ day. It is felt that people can only begin to understand their need of God’s forgiveness and mercy once they realize they are breaking God’s law. So, all those who hold this view are understandably critical of Pope Francis, in part due to the fact that they do not understand what he is trying to do or why he is trying to do it. They want the highest voice in the Roman Catholic Church to never tire of proclaiming the demands of moral law and consequences people must expect to suffer for each transgression.

Pope Francis is not of the view that the Church needs to “lay down the law” so that people can come to realize that they are breaking it. On the contrary, Pope Francis is of the view that the Holy Spirit is already at work in people’s spirits and consciences, and they already have a sense that all is not well in the kingdom of Denmark. Human beings today, as in all generations, realize full well that, for all their posturing and demands, they are not satisfied or at peace or entirely happy. Something is missing in their lives. Pope Francis teaches and models St. Ignatius’ method of discernment of spirits to help people learn to distinguish the voice of God.

Pope Francis’ view of life and of ministry, of the Church’s mission, is that we must follow in the steps of Jesus and “go out to the peripheries” in order to encounter people up close, to walk with them, get to know them, and as they discover that we are genuinely interested in them and their welfare; they will open their minds and hearts to us, much as Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman did with Jesus. Only then, only once they put questions to us, can we find words to speak the good news to them, as is done by good Christians everywhere.

The Holy Spirit at work in them will draw them to listen to the Holy Spirit speaking through us, but only once they know that we truly love them. The first thing people need is the love and mercy of God, and for many if not most people, they will only get their first glimpse of God’s love and mercy when we show them God’s love and mercy by loving and having mercy on them ourselves. People only need to be exposed to God’s life-giving love and mercy once in order to be touched by God. Only then can they want to know what God wants and how they can please Him. Only then will morality and a moral life make any sense and seem good to them.

Our Church took the “law and order” approach for centuries, and for the most part, it produced people who were literate to some degree in Christianity but who did not know God or his love and mercy. Once the trials and temptations of modern progress came, they did not last, like the seed thrown among thorns or in rocky soil. Not having root, they dried up and left the Church or the faith or God. Look at Quebec and Ireland, among other places, even including the U.S.A. Jesus did not form disciples by preaching morality but by loving them. He called them to follow Him and showed them how to love and care for the sheep. He corrected them in very personal ways and was patient and understanding with them to the end, showing them love to the point of death.

There is one author who has known Jorge Bergoglio personally, and who understands the depths of Pope Francis’ theology and pastoral approach and who has been able to trace his interior and ecclesial itinerary and demonstrate with specific applications in real instances what it is that Pope Francis has been doing since his election and how and why he is calling us to join him in this approach or mercy to people today.

In “The Great Reformer. (2014) Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope” Austin Ivereigh traces Jorge Bergoglio in his journey through life, vocation, and ministry, drawing out the unifying threads whereby God formed him to become the universal pastor needed by our Church today. Ivereigh is a Catholic “British writer, journalist, and commentator on religious and political affairs who holds a doctorate from Oxford University.

His work appears regularly in the Jesuit magazine America and in many other periodicals.” He published a sequel in 2019 titled “Wounded Shepherd. Pope Francis and His Struggle to Convert the Catholic Church”. In this second work, among other things, the author addresses Pope Francis’ statements, actions, and positions that became controversial in the media or for Catholic critics or both. He explains with great insight what the Pope is doing and why he is doing it; as well as why he generally does not rebut his critics directly, but takes note of them and on occasion says something about those situations when and where he thinks it is appropriate. In this sense, Pope Francis deliberately walks in the steps of Jesus who was also generally “silent as a lamb before its shearers”. As a man of discernment, he ever seeks to do everything for the glory of God.

It would be wise for those who are critical of Pope Francis to read these two volumes before continuing to lead people to join them in doubting the Pope’s reliability. It is ironic that, as a Jesuit, Jorge Bergoglio is far better educated and far more deeply formed and spiritually mature than the vast majority of us, and even than his fiercest critics. It very much seems a case of the more ignorant being critical of one who is far wiser, precisely because they are not capable of understanding him, his approach, or his motives. That is what happened to Jesus and how He was treated by the religious leaders of his day, who were also far less intelligent and far less “formed spiritually” than Jesus, and hence quite incapable of understanding Him. Ultimately, this is a question of humility, docility, willingness to learn, and willingness to listen and obey; as Jesus did his Father.

This seems to be the inevitable pattern of the original sin, that we human beings, creatures who are the works of God’s hand, turn around in judgment and accuse our Creator, precisely because we cannot reduce Him to the narrow confines of our understanding. Since He doesn’t fit our categories; therefore He must be wrong, He must be guilty. Pope Francis doesn’t fit our categories; so he must be wrong and incompetent.

My distinct impression is that Pope Francis has more confidence in us than we are willing to have in him. He knows that there is already sufficient record of God’s laws in human culture and society, in terms of the Ten Commandments, but in other terms as well. What is most lacking is sufficient tangible and personal, up close demonstration of God’s infinite love and mercy. Jesus seems to agree because He troubled Himself to form and establish Saint Sister Faustina Kowalska as “his secretary of Divine Mercy” for the world in the 1930’s.

What seems obvious in Pope Francis’ approach as Bishop of Rome and universal Pastor is that, in his view, looking at the Church in the world as a whole, we clergy are far too inclined to “lay down the law” from the comfort of our residences, as from behind our fortresses, rather than get “out there” where we are most likely to “get dirty” and “take on the smell of the sheep”. Were we to really walk with people – those farthest away from God and the Church especially – and genuinely listen to them and care for them; they might meet Mercy.

Pope Francis is calling on all the clergy, all the missionary disciples, and all the laity of the Church to “go out to the peripheries”, to find the lost sheep, to care for those “beaten up and left for dead at the side of the world’s roads”, “do mercy”, and become God’s mercy for them. Once they are touched by the love and mercy of God and discover that He is real and that He truly loves them; their spirits will perceive the Holy Spirit and want to know all that pleases and all that displeases Him, all that promotes life and all that harms life. Of course, we must all continue to preach the Good News and to proclaim God’s law and explain it on a regular basis, but our focus is not to be on “laying down the law”, but rather on becoming and doing Divine Mercy.  Rather than try to “line people up in the sights” of our “morality guns”; we are called by the Lord Jesus to approach people humbly and with open faces, empty hands, and broken hearts. 

----------------------------------------------------------------

My purpose in these posts is to bring a variety of Christian and other writers in a desire to share significant writings that in my estimation contribute to the common good and directly or indirectly give glory to God and extend the Lord's work of salvation to all of humanity. G.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------

© 2004-2021 All rights reserved Fr. Gilles Surprenant, Associate Priest of Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montreal  QC
© 2004-2021 Tous droits réservés Abbé Gilles Surprenant, Prêtre Associé de Madonna House Apostolate & Poustinik, Montréal QC 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +