Another Beginning

By Aimée O’Connell

Most of us associate Ash Wednesday with putting aside, going without, giving away and pruning back those distractions which have accumulated since (at least) the end of last Lent.  It seems an unusual choice for a website launch date, especially when screen use and social media are often among the first things we shave as we seek to get back to essentials.  Yet, here we are, unveiling AUTISM CONSECRATED, squarely on the first of Lent’s two strictest days of fasting and abstinence.  How so?  It is a question worth exploring, since it happens to coincide with other Ash Wednesdays of recent years.

In January of 2017, the need for spiritual support and direction specific to autism was yet unmet on a widespread basis.  I had a growing sense that the life and theology of St. Thorlak could help address this need, if only his story could be better known and understood.  I brought this to prayer by requesting a weekday Mass for this intention at my home parish.  I was offered the morning of March 1, and, in reaching for the right words to summarize my intention, I asked that the Mass be for “the mission of Saint Thorlak.”

Little did I realize that I would soon start building a website using that title, and that its launch date would coincide with the date of my Mass… and, that March 1 was also Ash Wednesday.  I marveled at how apt that St. Thorlak’s online debut coincided with the Church’s call to seek that path which will lead us closer to God.

Autistic theology is still a largely unbroken trail… meaning, it is not readily visible along the landscape, and takes significant determination to navigate.  The Mission of Saint Thorlak website has done a splendid job of commencing the journey and inviting others to travel along with us.  We have only been walking together three years, but we have made a significant start in defining this particular path, which we have come to call the Way of Saint Thorlak, and we have also made great headway in telling his story.  In fact, the opportunity to write (and eventually publish) a full biography of Saint Thorlak came, appropriately enough, on Ash Wednesday, 2018.  Another beginning!

It has become increasingly apparent that our trail is branching.  We are coming upon areas involving the larger community, and it is clear that we as autistics have both our own, distinct path and a common identity with the rest of the sojourners seeking the way to live in God’s love.  In short, we are all members of the Body of Christ.  The question has shifted from asking where we fit to wondering how the rest of the body interprets our being here.  We have the same Mission, with a different focus.

And so it is that we have taken the heart of the Mission of Saint Thorlak and placed it in the center of AUTISM CONSECRATED – our new website, and our new vision: to realize autism’s belonging in the Body of Christ.  Think of this as the same essential Mission from a new vantage point.  Over the next few weeks, we will highlight several of our website’s features, and then prepare to move forward once more on this yet-unbroken trail of autistic theology.

May this Ash Wednesday be, for all of us, another beginning.

Subscriber alert: ACAT Migration In Progress

A note to our subscribers (and all readers!) – the Annotated Catechism for Autistic Thinking, or ACAT, is being moved from the old site to our new home.  Please bear with us as these posts are placed, as this is going to hit like a wave in your inbox.  This is a one-time phenomenon which will allow future Annotated Catechism posts to integrate with our regular weekly thoughts from here on out.

Thank you for your patience!

ACAT 26: The Incarnation

“Incarnation” literally means “taking on flesh.”  Jesus’ Incarnation is that moment when God took on human flesh – fully God, fully human.  As with our discussion of the Holy Trinity, these tenets of the Catholic faith are impossible to state in the kind of factual terms we might use to describe the natural world.  The Catechism is not a scientific proof; it is an outline of what is offered when we accept the invitation to believe.  There are no words or experiences with which to relate supernatural realities beyond our own.  Instead, we are invited to believe in Jesus Christ, God-With-Us, God-Made-Flesh, as proof of God’s love of, and investment in, humanity.

Lesson Seven goes into much useful detail about why the Incarnation took place, and it is well worth reading.  [Link here and search “Lesson 7”].  But what of our annotation for autistic thinkers?  How do we truly make a connection with something this inexplicable, yet – especially at this point in December – visibly depicted everywhere we look?

The Annotated Catechism approaches matters of faith by asking, “What is being described?  How does this pertain to me as an individual, and what is my role?”  Simply: our role is to be human – to have a soul and a body, to have free will and curious intellect, deliberately and individually designed, and given by God.

Within that makeup, however, is the stain we inherited from our ancestors’ disobedience, resulting in a distrust of humanity’s goodness and doubt surrounding God’s designs.  God warned that the consequence of disobedience would be death… not immediately, but instead of enjoying perpetual blessing, disobedience forfeited our bodily protection from pollution, decay and death.

Few reflexes are as primal and universal as the way we recoil in the presence of rot and flinch at imminent death.  “Thriller” films and novels evoke adrenaline for some and horror in others, but the same instinct is at play.  Even as many of us believe firmly that crossing over is the pathway home to God, there is an instinctive bodily opposition to pain, suffering and, ultimately, death.  This brings us to that paradoxical statement we sometimes hear in the course of evangelization: “God was born so that he could die.”  In all truth, that is a good way to sum up the Incarnation.  We also hear that “The sinless Jesus bore the stain of sin for us.”  But what does that mean?

Bishop Thorlak of Iceland was deeply influenced by the theology of Hugh of St. Victor, who explains the Incarnation in systematic terms of God’s desire to break through our barrier of distrust with demonstrable love.  The following insights come from Hugh of St. Victor’s De Sacramentis, Book Two, Part One.

First, some relational definitions.  Since God is Creator of all and Authority over all that is created, He cannot obey, as there is no authority outside Himself.  He cannot be sent forth, as there is none who might send Him.  He cannot choose between right and wrong, because He is Truth and Knowledge itself. And, God cannot die, as He is all in all of all.

Next: Our relationship with God was broken when our first ancestors disobediently ate the fruit which awakened the choice of exploiting God’s goodness for our own, solitary gain.  This gave rise to vice, which is the natural consequence of sin, and brought bodily death upon the human race as the final means by which our disordered inclinations can cease to plague our senses.  Humans have no natural ability to liberate ourselves from this inherited pattern.

God, grieving this consequence, knew that the only way to change this sequence without unraveling the makeup of humanity would be to somehow graft our broken nature back into the Godly line.  The logistical problem is that our nature is human, not Divine; and only God is God.

While humans cannot become God, could God become human?  Technically yes, but that would require his radically changing form and abdicating His Divinity, which would disintegrate all of Creation.  In order to reverse the curse affected by our ancestors, God would need the capacity to freely choose and obey, which (as shown above) is not possible if he remains Divine.

However: A son bears the name and inherited essence of his father.  A son with a human nature can freely choose to obey.  A son can be sent to carry on a father’s mission and values, becoming his de facto representative where he is sent.

Thus, God did not come as Creator to our earthly plane.  He sent His Son, born human of a human mother, with a human soul, free will, and earthly flesh.  Being born of Mary, who was preserved from inherited (original) sin, the Son would not have the same fallen focus self-gratification that other humans have; yet He would physically exist within the parameters of humanity – including subjection to bodily decay and death.

So: God sent a Son, Jesus, bearing His nature, to the womb of a mother free of original sin, so that He could live as a human, and die as a human.  God’s Son would act to reverse our disobedience, completely innocent of any vice but still obedient to the bodily the penalty of sin – death.  It is the equivalent of an innocent man offering to take the sentence of a convicted criminal, and serving it faithfully to its completion.

But… why?

We offer this admittedly oversimplified, but hopefully helpful analogy, addressing the question of God taking on the stain of sin and subjecting Himself to bodily death. Imagine God as an endless body of life-giving water free of all pollution.  When humanity partook of sin, we became splattered and caked with toxic waste, with no way to purify ourselves.  Dwelling directly with the water of God was no longer an option for us as we would poison all of Creation with our presence… but at the same time, that water is the only means by which we can detoxify from the pollution of sin.

How can we solve this conundrum?  We can’t return to Him polluted, and if God Himself were to descend, He, being pure water, would devastate and drown us!  But what if this pure water (God) could supernaturally take human form?  He would be a living, infinite source of life-giving water, simultaneously existing as, and contained by, a physical human body.  As God, He would be free of our pollution… but, would willingly mingle with us, acquiring more of our stain each time He infuses us with life-giving water.  He will dilute our sinful inclinations, that is, our toxicity, to the degree we accept His gift.  Some of us shrink back and say we are too dirty to ever think of mingling with God… some say that pollution is not bad and prefer to remain in the toxic state… and some will draw water from God’s Son again and again, wishing one day to return to that state of grace our ancestors knew before the stain of sin came into our line.  God, for His part, gives without account, as often as we wish, as often as we trust, as often as we accept.  He always invites, and never forces.

[Following our analogy to its conclusion: God’s human body eventually succumbed to the effects of our pollution.  But, being supernatural, it was only the physical, earthly form that died.  God knew that an earthly body could not live forever in our realm, so He made provisions for that in His scenario, which would include resurrection and establishment of a wider body, The Church.  That is an entirely different discussion for future commentary!]

This is all little more than a sketch which cannot compare to the deeper theology at hand.  For here, for now, let us conclude by revisiting our thought, “What is the Incarnation?  How does it pertain to us, and what is our role?”  May we find our answer close in our hearts.

ACAT 25: Mary’s Unstained, Unflinching Love

Catholic teaching on Mary is often a dividing line with other Christians, though it need not be.  Those familiar with the historical story of Jesus will know that his mother was Mary and his birth came about through Divine intervention.  Catholics do not worship Mary, but we do recognize her role in the story of human salvation – which includes the salvation of each individual reading this – and we understand that she has received the grace and privilege which comes with a role such as hers.

That word, immaculate, derives from Latin, and means “not stained.”  Mary does not possess superpowers of her own merit; rather, she is as ordinary as any other person, but unstained by the splash of evil which spilled in the Garden when our ancestors’ eyes were opened to all that destroys love.  Unstained = unaffected, untainted… and therefore, unflinching in her ability to love God and love like God.

This is what the Baltimore Catechism says about Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

  1. Was anyone ever preserved from Original Sin?
  2. The Blessed Virgin Mary, through the merits of her divine Son, was preserved free from the guilt of Original Sin, and this privilege is called her Immaculate Conception.

The Blessed Virgin was to be the Mother of the Son of God. Now it would not be proper for the Mother of God to be even for one moment the servant of the devil, or under his power. If the Blessed Virgin had been in Original Sin, she would have been in the service of the devil. Whatever disgraces a mother disgraces also her son; so Our Lord would never permit His dear Mother to be subject to the devil, and consequently He, through His merits, saved her from Original Sin. She is the only one of the whole human race who enjoys this great privilege, and it is called her “Immaculate Conception,” that is, she was conceived—brought into existence by her mother—without having any spot or stain of sin upon her soul, and hence without Original Sin.

Our Lord came into the world to crush the power which the devil had exercised over men from the fall of Adam. This He did by meriting grace for them and giving them this spiritual help to withstand the devil in all his attacks upon them. As the Blessed Mother was never under the devil’s power, next to God she has the greatest strength against him, and she will help us to resist him if we seek her aid. The devil himself knows her power and fears her, and if he sees her coming to our assistance will quickly fly. Never fail, then, in time of temptation to call upon our Blessed Mother; she will hear and help you and pray to God for you.

Mary’s Immaculate Conception cannot be explained much more directly than the Catechism itself.  Many struggle to understand or believe what this means, as it is not something we can directly observe, experience or relate to.  It is, quite simply, a matter of faith – which is our willingness to accept things beyond our experiences with confidence that such belief does not compromise our freedom or integrity in any way.  Furthermore, it is a comfort to many to know that Mary is as human as we are, yet has the privilege to repulse evil with her prayer.  Evil is ugly.  Evil destroys.  Evil seeks to break up what is beautiful for the sake of jealousy.  Anyone who stands opposed to evil is on the side of what we’re all longing for.  The Catholic Catechism assures us that Mary is humankind’s advocate against the division and destruction of evil by virtue of her unstained, unflinching love.

ACAT 24: Capital Sins Through Autistic Lenses

The Baltimore Catechism lists seven “capital” sins as those which most blatantly present obstacles to our ability to trust God’s love.  The term “capital,” as used here, comes from the same root as “captain,” which is a useful image of how temptations work.  Beyond choices on a flow chart, each temptation acts like an enemy captain determined to undermine our loyalty to God.  These “captains” subvert our trust in God by introducing resentment, jealousy and doubt to our daily doings.  In theory, any temptation we name might be an agent of such things, depending on the circumstances.  Even innocuous or essential items can subvert our love of God if viewed or used wrongly.

At any rate, these are the capital sins (or, chief temptations leading to sin) as listed in the Baltimore Catechism:

  • Pride
  • Covetousness
  • Lust
  • Anger
  • Gluttony
  • Envy
  • Sloth

We now look at each temptation as viewed through the lens of living with autism.

Pride.  Most of us are familiar with “pride” as a positive statement of celebrating our gifts.  As embodied by social movements, pride is a way to showcase the best of who we are, as we are.  However, we are vulnerable to two detrimental mindsets: competition, and focus on strength.  The first can be avoided if we agree that every person has gifts worth celebrating — even those who do not share the particular views, attributes or talents we celebrate in ourselves.  Unless we recognize that everyone has something valuable to contribute, we turn celebration into competition. “Pride” done right is about our gifts, not superiority.  Secondly, we must include our weaker and less developed areas in presenting our gifts, lest we fall victim to the mindset that our worth comes only from our strengths – or worse, that we must minimize or camouflage our weak spots.  Finally, we can find ourselves reluctant to celebrate others because of their strengths (jealousy) or because of their weakness (doubt).  In all things, let our “pride” be in God’s designs and not our own desires.

Covetousness is the habit of looking unhappily at ourselves and resentfully at the gifts of others.  Thoughts like these are common temptations and not sinful unto themselves; it is in entertaining them, and acting on them, that sin comes in.  We are especially vulnerable when conditions are hard, when people are unkind, and when exhaustion sets in.  When we find ourselves depleted, marginalized or overlooked, it seems all the more unfair that others are favored.  Why are some people more easily accepted?  Better able to function?  Better liked?  Temptation is ripe when we focus on the status of others.  The antidote is remembering that social capital is an illusion of perception, not a reflection of our objective worth.  Opinions change like the wind.  Our value is constant.  If we can persevere through fluctuations in opinions, we are less likely to wish for more than what we are.

Lust is a word we most associate with sexuality.  However, it applies to anything we wish to take for ourselves, without giving anything in return, for our pleasure alone.  In the throes of a craving, resentment, jealousy and doubt can sharpen the sense of scarcity while our focus (possibly even fixation) drives us to act.  Lust underlies most addictive and predatory behavior, whatever the gratification may be – food, money, sex, power or social status.  We resent the craving, we are jealous of anyone who has what we want, and we doubt anything else can satisfy.  Lust is the opposite of trust, and the opposite of love.  Lust not only harms the other, but the powerful rush of gratification sets up habits which are very difficult to change.  The antidote is actively cultivating gratitude for what we have, trusting that God will provide what will bring us true joy over the long term, not just momentary pleasure.  As lust develops by habit, so too does this mindset of gratitude.

Anger  A sin? Not by itself.  Anger is a human emotion, and part of our design by God.  Anger is a useful and essential part of relationships and moral development.  How else could we express outrage against aggression or violations of human dignity?  Anger is a signal of wrong, a stir to corrective action and a protection against harm.  Anger only becomes sinful when it is the product of resentment, jealousy and doubt.  Dissatisfaction with what we are, or focus on what we are not, is more rooted in fear than justice.  It may feel the same as useful anger, but the object of such resentment ultimately is God and His designs conflicting with ours.  An honest look can tell whether or not we are drawing closer to God or departing from Him in our moments of anger, and that will determine if it is useful or sinful.

Gluttony is the temptation to take more than we need.  It goes back to scarcity, which is rooted in doubt.  Some of us genuinely struggle with knowing when we are satisfied and when we are not.  Autistics in particular can have a tricky time moderating things that feel good, especially as they provide periods of relief to our perpetual anxiety.  Sometimes we genuinely need others to suggest where healthy limits are so that we concretely see the cutoff between just enough and too much of whatever we enjoy — be that food, drink, music, screen time, reading, and anything else that delights us.  A quick rule is: if our joy lingers after we stop, it’s more likely to be healthy than if putting it down makes us fret about craving more.

Envy is the temptation to resent other people’s happiness.  When we are anxious and exhausted, it is challenging to see others at rest and not feel anger or hopelessness at our own condition.  Autism is not for the faint of heart, and gratitude when our very bodies feel constantly under siege can be a long shot.  How, then, can we counter this temptation?  One thought is to remember that nobody is ever perfectly happy.  In the same way our own struggles are often invisible, others also struggle unseen with their own hidden needs.  It is important to remember that we are not losing the race if someone else is where we want to be; we simply are not there yet.  Sometimes, we need to remind ourselves these things hour by hour.

Sloth.  Given this word’s association with laziness, we need to make the distinction between willful inactivity and actual, legitimate conditions under which autistic people are called unproductive.  Lack of energy is a reality among autistics for numerous reasons: the drain of social demands, decreased muscle tone, variances in blood pressure and metabolism, migraines, connective tissue anomalies and chronic pain, just for starters.  These are actual physical, cognitive and neurological conditions associated with autism and have nothing to do with our character.  In fact, most autistics, if asked, will express the wish for more energy and the ability to do things on par with the rest of our communities!  Sloth is the choice not to act when action is needed and we are capable of acting.  It is up to each one of us to know in our hearts and minds what our capability is – and to be honest with ourselves in making these decisions.  When we live congruently within our abilities and our limits, we have nothing to fear… and, we can (hopefully, politely) dismiss unwarranted criticism with a clear conscience.

The capital sins are by no means the last word on right and wrong, nor do they contain everything we need to consider when examining the morality of our own behavior.  However, if we see these as some of the more common gateways toward seeking pleasure before seeking God’s design first, they make a useful starting point.

ACAT 23: Departures from God

Our discussion on sin continues this week in step with the Baltimore Catechism, Lesson Six.  As we study various examples of sin, we can equally call this a study of our human faculties and how we respond to the opportunities which come our way.

God desires a firm and freely chosen place in the heart and mind of each soul He creates.  Our hearts and minds are distracted, however, by the knowledge of evil which we now inherit as part of the human condition.  The degree to which we dwell upon these distractions is one indicator of how fully we trust and accept God in relationship to ourselves.

The Catechism explains that sin is a willful – that is, freely chosen – departure from God.  This can be done by thought, by word or by deed.  As we consider this in terms of relationship, we can call to mind similar dynamics in any of our existing relationships, be these friends or family, neighbors or coworkers.  Imagine those elements which cause friction and erosion in our relationships.  Thoughts by themselves are not harmful, nor necessarily sinful, until we nurture and entertain thoughts which breed unrest.   Feelings are valid.  Thoughts come and go.  Many times, people act in irritating ways.  We can think and feel a hundred different ways toward the same person throughout any given day, but these thoughts will not erode our relationship with this person unless they take a practiced, divisive turn.  Likewise, if we are tempted by ideas that would lead to harm or use the other person as an object for our own thrill, we can choose to dismiss these thoughts or retain them.  If we retain them, we can well imagine how the other person would feel if these ideas were suddenly made transparent.  Thoughts which erode relationships and cultivate resentment tend to be sinful.  And, since thoughts lay the foundation for attitudes and behavior, then words and deeds logically follow suit.  Any thought, word or action which knowingly erodes and divides reflects a departure from God’s intended design for humanity.

The question of “Yes, but is it sinful?” boils down to three factors, as the Catechism goes on to explain: seriousness of the matter at hand, degree of prior reflection, and our consent to the departure from God.  These are truths which can only fully be acknowledged deep within ourselves, and even then it can be difficult to reach absolute certainty.  The Catholic Church is very clear: sin exists, and all sin destroys our ability to trust and experience God.  A departure which meets all criteria – a serious matter which we have pondered and consent to carrying out – is considered a mortal sin, in that it is a full break from God that requires our repentance and renunciation to repair if we truly do not want to forfeit our relationship with God completely.  “Mortal,” in this sense, literally refers to the life of our soul.  Not every sin is this dire.  The majority of departures from God are venial, which comes from roots meaning “pardonable,” and refers to sin that stems more from weakness in the face of temptation than from calculated disavowal of God.  This is not to diminish the erosive power of venial sin.  Anyone can attest that a relationship can be just as easily destroyed by small erosion over time as by a single catastrophic break.

Readers will likely note that our study has not included any specific list of dos or don’ts.  God’s law is not a list of rules, so it would not be practical to list what is sinful and what is not.  God does not dole out permission or watch over humanity with a running count of our infractions.  God exists, and God loves.  We either trust His love or we skirt around it, sometimes outright deny it.  There are as many ways to depart from God as there are individuals who depart from Him.  Sin is about our soul’s relationship with God, bottom line.

The good news is that God’s relationship with us is constant and alive.  If we depart from Him, He waits for our return without abandoning or condemning us.  And, He has given us a clear and definitive way back for each and every instance of departure.  No soul is ever without the opportunity to be restored to the relationship God intended with us from the beginning.

ACAT 22: Sin and Law

Original Sin – Actual Sin – Mortal Sin – Venial Sin

Many people have heard by rote the types of sin “taught” by the Catholic Church.  This line of thinking characterizes the Church as a group of elders who gather to define what constitutes naughty behavior, and who further go on to assign spiritual penalties to such transgressions.  Such ideas go all the way back to the Middle Ages and beyond, and are about as accurate as thinking the public education system invented the alphabet for the purposes of issuing report cards.

No church or religion invented sin.  And, no church or religion “teaches” sin.  The Catholic Church ascribes to the idea that there are metaphysical laws which define the universe in which we live, meaning that God created all things and all creatures with its own purpose and design.  Humans, as you may recall from previous posts, were created and designed to know God, to love God, to receive God’s love and to live harmoniously with the way in which God imagined all people to express and fulfill their talents.  Just as we plan and design our crafts with particular form and function, so too does God create people with intentional design.  The intended form and function of something can be said to be the laws under which that “something” operates.  An automobile has form and function which can vary from car to car but must have certain basic principles met before it is a “good” automobile.  In other words, if a piece of machinery follows the “laws” which makes something an “automobile,” it functions well.  If not, it falters, or fails, or functions as something that does not qualify as an automobile.

The same phrasing can describe humanity.  The “laws” which make something “human” are how well we know God, love God, receive God’s love and respond to God’s intended design.

Sin is the consequence of not following the law… that is, not following God’s intended design.

Thus: Nobody can “invent” sin.  Sin is a state of misalignment.

With that in mind, let us see now the two ways that misalignment occurs:

  • ORIGINAL SIN: The inherited misalignment that originated with Adam and Eve, the first two humans, whose very makeup was altered by their choice to see and know evil;
  • ACTUAL SIN: The choices people make which go against God’s intended design.

The phrase “original sin” is meant to signify that we begin our earthly lives in misalignment, since God’s intended design for humanity was not to know evil.  Yet, once our ancestors chose to do so, it could not be un-seen.  Our lenses no longer pointed solely at God.  Think of it as someone altering the process before it even begins, such that everything coming out has this design flaw, and our minds now have a sharp focus on, and skew toward, things that divide and destroy relationships (since that is, in essence, what evil is – the destruction of our relationship with God).

NOTE!

“Original sin” does NOT mean that God created damaged goods, or that people are set up to fail from birth.  In fact, God provided a correction – a “patch,” if you will – for original sin, and that is baptism.  (We will discuss baptism in greater detail in future posts.)

Another note!

Humans have free will, free choice, and are never coerced or manipulated by God or His Church into doing anything.  If one finds an example of coercion, it is not authentically of God.  Period.

“Actual Sin,” then, is the term used to describe those times when we choose something that is not part of God’s intended design.  As one can imagine, there are degrees of sin which range from accidental to carefully calculated.  The bottom line is, all sin is a deviation from God’s intended design (or, in metaphysical terms, a violation of natural law).

With such a range of degree of sin, can we expect that sin’s consequences are equally variable?

NO.

Earthly, material consequences are variable.  Spiritual consequences are not.  The consequence of every sin is a break in our relationship with God.  Sin disrupts our act of loving God and our ability to receive God’s love.  Each and every time.

ACAT 21: A Study of Adam and Eve

Adam and Eve.

There cannot be many who have not heard some version of the Creation Story.  Adam and Eve are humanity’s notorious duo, the first of our kind and the first to bungle things up.  So numerous are the commentaries on these two that it borders on cliche to find their names in the Catholic Catechism.  Yet, there they are, occupying the entire Lesson Five of the Baltimore Catechism, and likewise, our discussion for this week.

The Church believes Adam and Eve truly existed.  They were created as man and woman were intended to exist, innocent of any corruption, fully expressing the rich gifts of their endowments of body, mind and soul by God, who loved the idea of them into flesh and bone and breath.  Whether or not there was a botanical tree with literal fruit, or a spiritual construct embodied by metaphorical assignment, it is certain that God warned Adam and Eve of “partaking of the knowledge of good and evil.”  God wished to preserve the innocence of the first man and woman by keeping their intellect focused on that which is good, beautiful and true.  Could God have created anything that was evil, ugly or false?  No… but He did create angels with free will, some of whom rebelled and set out to destroy and undermine God’s work.  God likewise gave free will to Adam and Eve.  While allowing them this freedom, he still intended them to live in purity and perfect balance.  There would be no useful reason to follow any of the doings of the renegade angels.

As we know from the story, Eve was tempted by Satan to partake of that knowledge of good and evil, despite God’s warning.  Satan asserted that God’s motive was to keep the man and woman from becoming a threat to God’s omnipotence.  “You will not die if you eat the fruit,” Satan said.  “Rather, you will become like God.”  It was a clever exploitation of human nature: arouse curiosity, plant doubt and watch the rumor spread.  Once Eve ate the fruit, Adam became curious and, using the disobedience of the other person as his rationale, followed suit.  Part impulse, part calculated risk, part willingness to listen to a voice sowing seeds of distrust… our ancestors’ eyes were opened.  Innocence was spoiled.  Now, instead of seeing the good and the beautiful and the true, they saw it in terms of every way it could be perverted, distorted, exploited and ruined.

Horrified, Adam and Eve no longer felt safe.  If goodness and beauty and truth could be corrupted, what guarantee did anyone have of anything?  What once was seen in abundance suddenly became scarce.  The present was no longer enough.  Security became risk.  In the presence of evil, God no longer seemed sufficient.  In short: FEAR was introduced into humanity.

Our previous posts have emphasized a consistent theme: 1 John 4:18.  Perfect love casts out all fear.  And, in Adam and Eve, we see the inverse at work: fear deprives us of perfect love.

In the story, Adam and Eve cower in fear as they comprehend what they have done, and they can’t un-see the evil they now know.  They understand why God instructed them to leave that fruit alone.  What will God think?  How could he love them now?  Fear and doubt paralyze their once clear intellect.  To make things worse, Adam and Eve now realize their very bodies can be used in perverse and corrupt ways, compared to the innocence and majesty of purpose they knew before seeing the ugliness of gluttony, lust and gratification.  They covered themselves in shame.

Of course God knew what happened.  With great sorrow, God watched His beloved man and woman fall away.  Their responses betrayed them.  Even God’s all-encompassing love fell into doubt in their minds.  Fear gripped Adam and Eve… and they could not bear the perfect love of God.  Perfect love casts out all fear… and so, Adam and Eve, enslaved by fear, were cast out on their own.

God did not abandon Adam and Eve.  He continued loving them and all of their descendants no less than perfectly.  With the institution of fear, however, humanity remains separated from God by the degree to which that fear holds sway over our minds.

Is there any hope for redeeming humanity’s relationship with God?  Yes.  In fact, God began laying the foundation for that redemption almost immediately.  Through promises and covenants with the ones who trusted Him in spite of this primal fall, God led the way for the eventual birth of Jesus, the act through which God would become human himself and go before us in a story that would reverse every misstep of Adam and Eve, eventually taking on every conceivable fear and facing it himself in an incomprehensible demonstration of solidarity and desire to restore faith in Divine Love.

Remember, our task here is to annotate the Baltimore Catechism in ways that speak to the contemporary autistic mind.  The Baltimore Catechism does a thorough job of explaining the “what” of the fall of humanity from grace.  We aim, with the help of St. Thorlak’s theology of merciful love, to explain “why” – because, without a sense of why, the Catechism reads increasingly like a book of arbitrary rules… which speaks little to autistics and non-autistics alike.

Reference: Lesson Five, Questions 39-49.

 

ACAT 20: Angels 101

Lesson Four of the Baltimore Catechism turns now toward God’s creatures.  The first two questions review:

  1. Q: Who created Heaven, Earth and all things?

A: God.

  1. Q: How did God create Heaven and Earth?

A: God created Heaven and earth from nothing, by His word; that is, a single act of His will.

Now it gets a little more interesting.

  1. Q: Which are the chief creatures of God?

A: The chief creatures of God are angels and humankind.

  1. Q: What are angels?

A: Angels are pure spirits without a body, created to adore and enjoy God in Heaven.

  1. Q: Were angels created for any other purpose?

A: The angels were also created to assist before the Throne of God and to minister unto Him; they have often been sent as messengers from God to humanity; and are also appointed our guardians.

  1. Q: Were the angels, as God created them, good and happy?

A: The angels, as God created them, were good and happy.

  1. Q: Did all the angels remain good and happy?

A: All the angels did not remain good and happy; many of them sinned and were cast into Hell; and these are called devils or bad angels.

Angels are certainly well-depicted in pop culture.  As most imagery goes, angels are large, winged, human-like creatures said to come down from the heavens.  They can be visible or invisible, and are most often (but not always) benevolent.  Pop culture’s angels are the celestial counterpart to fairies, who are smaller, winged, human-like creatures said to rise from the earth and can likewise be seen, unseen, kindly or malicious.

The Baltimore Catechism speaks of none of these attributes, instead stating that God created the angels for His delight in Heaven.  Implied in questions 32-38 are several points of note:

  • Heaven and Hell are separately delineated, and exist
  • Angels are of high importance
  • Angels exert influence on humanity

Let us look now systematically at the attributes which the Catechism names regarding angels.

  • Angels are pure spirits, without bodies, created to exist in the Heavenly realm. This negates most of the popular imagery people have come to expect when discussing angels.  People cannot be angels, nor do loved ones become angels when they die.
  • Angels exist to adore and enjoy God. At first, it may sound arrogant to think that God created angels “to adore him.”  That word, adore, means to deeply and profoundly love and respect another.  In the absence of context, it seems like quite the power trip for an all-perfect Creator to design beings specifically for adoring him.  However, we do have context.  We suggest in recent posts that God is the essence of love itself, and his acts of creation are his uncontainable love taking on living expression.  Angels are no exception.  If God creates for the sake of loving the created, then how do we expect his creatures to respond?  Also: Nowhere does it say that God demands angels’ love.  In fact, just a few lines later we will find some angels rejecting God, which negates the idea that God controls angels like puppets.
  • Angels assist and minister to God. In the context of love, this also flows logically.  “Minister” here means “attend to the needs of someone.”  When existence begins with love and is sustained by love, we can guess that those who assist and minister do so freely, happily and willingly.  No coercion here.  The bigger question is, what could God – all-powerful, all-seeing, all-knowing – possibly need?  Again, the context of love provides an answer.  Love, by itself, can exist; but love cannot stagnate.  Love needs a beloved, and needs to give to that beloved.  Could the angels’ role in ministering to God be… to allow themselves to be loved by embracing God’s love?  With what we’ve discussed about God so far, that seems to be the only answer that makes sense without needing immediate exception and qualification.
  • Angels communicate with and defend humanity. Here is where most of us imagine angels as winged messengers and celestial warriors.  There are numerous instances in Sacred Scripture where “an angel of God” appears, yet there are no concrete descriptions given, nor is it explained if the words imparted are spoken and heard aloud or more intuitive and interior.  The angels’ role in defending humanity is the source of the Catholic tradition that each person has a dedicated guardian angel.  While this is not meticulously outlined in Sacred Scripture, the one passage which implies this very clearly is Matthew 18:10, where Jesus says, “See that you not look down upon any child; their angels always see the face of My Father.”  It is noteworthy that Jesus gives this reference without any further need of clarification or explanation; it is merely a given.
  • Angels are created fundamentally good and happy, but have the capacity to rebel and become devils, cast into Hell. Talk about foreshadowing!  In the midst of the “angel facts” section, the Catechism tosses in both “devils” and “Hell” – two concepts that have not yet been discussed in any context.  Will this topic get more due in later lessons?    But for now, consider this as both preview and basic introduction.  Devil, here, refers to a creature with destructive and hostile intentions.  Hell is a spiritual state of torment and suffering.  There is no reason at this point to define “hell” as a mappable geographic location where flames, pitchforks and sulfur make up the landscape.  It is sufficient to think that God’s realm is infused with the benefits of loving and being loved.  Who could reject or doubt God’s perfect love?  It would have to be only the most hostile and destructive creatures, indeed; and such creatures would deny themselves any comfort of loving and being loved.  With the opposite of love being fear, “hell” is no doubt a dreadful state of being in a constant sense of terror, abandonment and untended suffering.  But, again, these topics will get more attention later on.

This entire topic seems by itself an interesting study in God’s creatures.  However, it sets the stage for understanding what the Catholic church teaches about the roots of good and evil in the tangible world we live in.  Though the existence of angels and devils remains unseen and cannot readily be proven using the scientific method, accepting their existence does provide a logical foundation for much of what is to come.  For many, it is a stretch.  For all, it is why we call it “faith.”

ACAT 19: The Holy Trinity

Lesson Three of the Baltimore Catechism takes on the mystery of One God in Three Persons.  Scholars and theologians have worked with this conundrum since the beginning of Christianity.  While we claim no superiority or edge in offering our explanation, we hope that we can present the concept in a way that enhances our pursuit of faith.

  1. Is there but one God? Yes.
  2. Why can there be but one God?

The Catechism says there can only be one God because God is supreme and perfect, and has no equal.  It is a matter of definition.  Since God is the exemplar of perfection, and is the source of all else that exists, He is a single point which cannot be duplicated.  If we were talking branding, which we certainly are not, God is universally recognized as unique and unable to be repeated.  His perfection (and the fact that He is the creator of all things) transcends patent, trademark and copyright.  There is no possibility of a knockoff, clone or generic formula which could even come close enough to be called “God.”  It is not a matter of supremacy; it is a matter of recognition by all of creation that God’s essence is beyond anything which could ever be manufactured.

  1. How many persons are there in God?

A: In God there are three divine persons, really distinct and equal in all things: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Catechism adds in Questions 30 and 31 that we can never fully understand how this is; only in partial glimpses and analogy.  The full comprehension of this concept remains a mystery, which is defined as a truth we do not yet understand.

There is so much already written about the Trinity that readers are better off exploring this on their own than trying to learn it here.  The better part, here, is to present a recurring theme in the Catholic faith, which is comfort with the unknown.

Autistics are known for concrete, predictable and logical thinking.  Uncertainty can be an autistic’s archnemesis.  So, the first point we want to make is that there is no uncertainty in discussing the Trinity.  We are quite certain that there are three distinct and equal persons in one God.  This, to us, is not up for question.

The HOW becomes the sticking point.  Many want a solid explanation in order to accept the conclusion.  But, just as scientific research must accept in part the unknown, so too our faith must accept that we humans have neither terminology nor paradigm to relate to something as utterly impossible as one entity consisting of three distinct, equal persons.  Every known creature has a one-to-one correspondence with its essence, whether human or plant or animal.  No species has been discovered which has multiple distinct, separate and equal essences.  Even if we looked to the extremes, we’d find that polymorphic organisms or multiple personalities do not express the full criteria of distinct, separate and equal all of the time.  Scientific research requires faith, or trust that a truth exists even if we have not yet reached it.  Our second point is that something is not negated just because its explanation has not been found.

One person’s suggestion of the HOW of the Trinity employs geometric imagery:

Finally, WHY?  Why have three distinct, equal persons?  Well, we don’t know… not definitively, anyway.  But, sticking with our answer from the past two posts, we believe it fits our notion that God is the essence of love, personified.  Love cannot exist by itself; neither can God.  Once again, there is much to be explored by readers on the theme of love within the Holy Trinity.  Two such articles, written by our spiritual director Fr. Mark Nolette, explore this topic in greater detail:

First, by way of the teachings of Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia, “The Joy of Love”

Then, this, by way of reflecting on the Gospel of John.