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 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.

ACAT 18: God’s Governing Style

In exploring God’s infinite perfection, the Baltimore Catechism leads us to three more attributes to ponder, and all in one sentence.  Question 20 of Lesson Two explores the style in which God governs his creation by asking if God is just, holy and merciful.  The answer given is a threefold, interrelated “yes,” with each attribute explicitly defined:

Just: Providing what is deserved, whether merit or punishment

Holy: Exalted in goodness

Merciful: Less exacting than justice demands

The Baltimore text gives an example of a judge in a court of law who is motivated by wisdom and virtue.  A criminal found guilty in this court will be sentenced according to what is right – no more, no less.  Occasionally, circumstance will arise where the person’s guilt is mitigated by factors beyond control, such as impaired thinking, ignorance of the law or extreme and immediate need.  In such cases, a just judge would show mercy by overriding the typical sentence with something more fitting, and in no way does this suggest the judge is corrupt or bending any rules.  A just judge follows the rules.  A holy judge asks what is morally right.  A merciful judge considers each person’s humanity and frailty, and keeps or adjusts decisions based on what will lead that person to a better way of life.

When taken together, these three attributes form a solid platform of checks and balances.  Any overreliance on one detracts from the ability of the others to achieve their intention.  God’s justice is no less real than God’s mercy, yet neither dominate, nor do they switch off and on.  All three operate simultaneously at any given moment: justice and mercy bound together in holiness.  However many sermons, books and homilies may focus on one aspect over the other, the reality is a constant, perfect and simultaneous triad.

Our post last week considered God in the spiritual tradition of St. Thorlak, which portrays Him against the backdrop of His purpose, which is LOVE.  God brought creation into existence with love, through love and for love… so, it ought to follow that God governs creation likewise: with love, through love and for love.  This is where we can find a solution among those who assert one aspect of God’s governance over another (that is, the fire-and-brimstone image on the one hand, and the none-are-ever-condemned image on the other).  LOVE is what motivates and binds justice, holiness and mercy into one cohesive truth.  1 John 4:18 shows how this works:  “There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment.”  If God is wrathful, there is reason to be afraid – either fearing God’s punishment for what we have done, or fearing that we can never reach or maintain a level of goodness to stay in the safe zone out of God’s way.  Likewise, if God holds none of us to any standard of virtue, nothing in any other part of the catechism, or any religious teaching, makes sense.   Some will say that Jesus’ death erased sin and guarantees salvation for all, even to the point of eliminating the concept of hell or damnation.  That also fails to hold up under scrutiny and test, and it gives rise to a different kind of fear – that of everyone making up their own rules, justifying themselves without consequence, and gradually losing sight of the common good.

Perfect love casts out fear.  If God is the essence of love, there ought to be no fear or chaos in God’s governance.  The triad of justice and mercy bound by holiness is perfectly balanced, with neither fear of wrath nor moral chaos.  Loving justice defends those who are abused and restores what is taken by holding abusers accountable.  Loving mercy considers those who stand accused and invites them to choose the better way before the evil of their actions is locked in.  Both exist simultaneously.  Nobody loses.  Those who decline God’s invitation to holiness reap the fullness of justice… and, those who accept God’s invitation to holiness reap the fullness of mercy.

ACAT 17: A Concept of God

Lesson Two of the Baltimore Catechism outlines the characteristics of God which most of us have heard in one way or another.  Most of these qualities are beyond anything we can relate to in human terms:

  • Spiritual
  • Perfect
  • Infinite
  • Without beginning
  • Without end
  • Everywhere
  • All-seeing
  • All-knowing
  • All-powerful

Without anything like this in our concrete reality, it falls to our imaginations to construct our idea of God.  That presumes, however, that we have a well-functioning imagination.  Many of us do not, and even who do still find this far past the range of speculation.  It often seems that our concept of God comes out like the mythical gods of long ago: Giant, thunderous, demanding, frightful in abject perfection (with ourselves, by comparison, looking like wretched fools or worse). In other scenarios, God ends up like a forerunner of Santa Claus, a benevolent grandfather figure who sees everything we do, knowing all that we feel, think and say, and exists to dispense gifts to us based on our merit.  Imagining God can feel like living in a snow globe, existing solely for God’s amusement – or abandonment when He tires of watching us.  It gets to be such absurdity that we eventually dismiss the whole thing as either too big to imagine, or outright fiction.  Autistics particularly struggle with the contradiction of concrete realities which consist of abstract qualities.  Perhaps, then, we might start with the implications of God rather than trying to comprehend His descriptions.  St. Augustine took this approach in his teachings, and over the centuries, he would influence many others, including our own St. Thorlak.  How did he – a scholar, and also a likely autistic – present these heady realities of God to the medieval Catholics of Iceland, few of whom were literate, all of whom labored day and night to survive on fishing and farming in an unreliable and punishing climate?

Thorlak’s intellectual leaning was a peculiarity to his fellow Icelanders, including those at the Oddi, the center of Icelandic scholarship.  He found his niche 1,359 miles (2,187 km) abroad, studying theology at the renowned Abbey of St-Victor in Paris.  He never intended to subsist on academia, though.  Thorlak was eager to return to his homeland with the mission of bringing this marvelous knowledge of God to those unable to pursue theology.  And, in the way many fellow autistics have of drawing out profoundly simple yet powerful solutions to confounding complexities, Thorlak showed a way to see the unseeable God by using the backdrop of His purpose: LOVE.

In that manner, then, let us employ the Catechism’s list of attributes to understand not a demanding deity, not an indifferent toymaker in the sky, but One who embodies and defines the essence of love.

We, being human, have the limits of our minds and senses; thus, the first three attributes reflect the limits to how we can know God.  God is spiritual, perfect and infinite.  Spiritual suggests He exists within the interior and unseen realm, the experience itself of being.  One of the earliest translations of “spirit” is “breath.”  We can think of God as the breath that says “yes” to all that has existed, exists now, and will exist far beyond our participation.  Perfect means complete, whole, without flaw.  Infinite: God encompasses the totality of all that is.  Since creation is very much alive and unfolding, that totality is not finished, nor can we comprehend how far back it goes or how far ahead it will go on.

Without beginning, without end… everywhere… all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful: These are, in one sense, embellishments on the notion of being infinite.  God’s essence and intentionality infuses and sustains all creation, which includes us and the world around us and the universe in which our world exists.   But more specifically, these reflect the intentionality of God.  He exists not just to exist, but to be, see, know and act.  Why?

What if the answer is love?  If God is love’s very essence, then creation is the expression of joy so ripe that it had to be given form.  The “love” that is God is that creative love underpinning the interests which propel our spirits.  God’s love is no mere greeting card sentiment.  God’s love is all-consuming, all-knowing, all-seeing and without end.  God’s love of the very notion of humanity and earth and universe, and all its intricacies, is indistinguishable from God Himself, and exceeds the capacity of God to remain statically fixed or detached.  It is such a burning drive that God, unable to be contained, brought it all into being to experience it.

Repeat: God did not simply imagine us.  The delight He took in imagining us was so consuming that He was moved to experience us.  Hence, God actively sees, knows and empowers what He has given form and substance.

Autistics know the difference between thinking about something and experiencing that intense rapture which drives us, draws us forward, consumes our minds and feels like the meaning of life itself.  Onlookers call this our “special interest.”  We go along with that terminology because it avoids degrading our joy into something pejorative, like “obsession,” but it grossly dismisses how greatly that joy affects us.  (To the point, who would ever gaze upon a loved one and whisper, “You are my special interest?”)

With “love” as God’s backdrop, we see that he is neither dictator nor spy in the sky.  God supplies all, designs all and sustains all because He is love which cannot be contained.

This may still be too much to comprehend or believe, especially when we look around and see everything that is NOT love.  Where did all the mess come from, and why does God not step in and clean it up for us?  We will continue this discussion as we explore more of the Catechism.  In the meantime, let us recall that list in answer to the question, “In what manner does God love us?”

Spiritually.  Perfectly.  Infinitely.  Without beginning or end.  Everywhere.  Seeing and knowing all, and loving us with all His power.

ACAT 16: What Are We To Believe?

From the Baltimore Catechism:

How shall we know the things which we are to believe?

We shall know the things which we are to believe from the Catholic Church, through which God speaks to us.

Where shall we find the chief truths which the Catholic Church teaches?

We shall find the chief truths which the Catholic Church teaches in the Apostles’ Creed.

Let us comment, then, on these two questions as we pick up our look at the Catechism once more.

The Baltimore Catechism was ostensibly prepared and published for use by school-aged children being raised in the Catholic faith.  However, it is still a valid and informative resource outside that context – for instance, as a starting point for those unfamiliar with, or seriously questioning, the Catholic faith.  To that end, this week’s questions seem almost circular.  “How do we know what to believe, if we want to be Catholic?” – “Find out by being Catholic.”  It also seems a bit too direct for many sensibilities if we conceptualize “The Catholic Church” as a monarchy (or worse, a dictatorship).  Autistics often feel the tension between a desire for truth and the cultural persuasion to see truth as a relative construct.

In reality, the Catholic Church is a much broader entity than a mere governing board.  “Church” means both the community of believers and the structure surrounding us – both in a literal and figurative sense.  The structure can be both bricks in the building in which we worship and the beliefs we hold as part of that community.

The Catholic Church as a community of believers does indeed have people in charge, from the top down, and these people are as human as anyone we know.  Some of them are skilled leaders.  Some are shining examples of honesty and integrity.  Some are insincere.  Some are manipulative.  Some start out one way and are influenced into acting another way, for better or for worse.  All are human.  All have the same potential for growth, for grace and for salvation.  If any of us are looking for that one leader who makes no mistakes, who never lapses in judgment, who has no weaknesses, let us stop here.  We will not find perfect people in the Catholic Church.  But this is a function of our humanity, not a failure on the Church’s part.  We are exactly as likely to find flawed people anywhere else we look.  The Catholic Church was not established on any pretense of perfection, and anyone who tells us otherwise is plain wrong.  (The Church does exist, in part, to teach us to strive toward perfection, but the understanding has always been that we are not there yet, and cannot reach that mark until we have completed our earthly lifetimes).

The phrasing of the Baltimore Catechism does reflect its nineteenth-century origin.  However, it remains accurate to say, “If we want to understand the Catholic way of life, study the totality of the Catholic Church, and we’ll find out.”  And, yes: Catholics do believe that God speaks to us through the design and operation of this Church.  The Baltimore text explains that this includes the teachings of the Pope, the councils, bishops and the priests.  We can go further and add deacons, lay ministers and earnestly practicing Catholics in the pews.  The lives of the saints also give us great insight about what it means to live the Catholic faith.  Though there are certain basic tenets, there are as many valid expressions of this faith as there are individuals following it.

These basic tenets are indeed enumerated in the Apostles’ Creed.  This prayer is more often recited in private or small-group prayer than the Nicene Creed, which is prayed by the entire congregation at Holy Mass each week.  The two creeds are basically the same, with the Nicene Creed being a revised wording to more specifically define elements of the faith causing confusion prior its clarification in the fourth century.

The Baltimore Catechism proceeds next into a detailed discussion of the Apostles’ Creed.  Our Spiritual Director, Fr. Mark Nolette, has written a series of articles diving into the relevance and complexities of Nicene Creed.  Find them in these issues of Harvest Magazine, a publication of the Diocese of Portland, Maine.

September/October 2019 Issue

November/December 2019 Issue

January/February 2020 Issue

 

ACAT 14: Care for Our Body

How can we take care of our body without compromising our soul?

The tone of this question may sound a little confusing.  How would taking care of our body compromise our soul in the first place?  In a reasonable manner, not at all.  Caring for our body is responsible and Godly.  There is no conflict between practicing physically wellness and spiritual wellness.

The problem is, physical wellness, as a concept, has become very marketable, and very profitable.  Wellness has been taken from its place of common sense and elevated to an ideal which we are encouraged to strive toward at all costs… particularly those costs transferring from our pockets to those selling products promising to bring us that much closer to this nebulous but never quite fully defined state of “well.”

In the spirit of keeping things simple, we look back to why our bodies exist (= to know, love and serve God), and feel that provides a sufficient enough answer to the question.  We can take care of our bodies by optimizing their ability to help us know God, love God and serve God, and by minimizing the things that interfere with our knowing, loving or serving God.

Every principle of wellness seems to flow logically from the know-love-serve-God formula.  If God endowed us with the body we have, we naturally have an obligation to give it care that reflects our acknowledgment of this gift.  We ought not to abuse or overindulge our bodies’ capacities for pleasure or pain.  We ought to recognize the interconnection between physical, emotional and mental wellness and strive for balance in all that we do, produce and consume.  We do well to notice the chain reactions between mental distress, emotional distress, physical distress and spiritual distress.  A healthy body promotes a healthy mind, and a healthy mind promotes a healthy spiritual connection to God.

Anything truly good promotes wellness without cultivating worry or scarcity.  Godly wellness flows from the abundance and peace characteristic of God Himself.  Within this formula, then, nothing can compromise soul care.  Physical fitness, self-care, food and beverage, leisure, expressions of love and beauty all have a place within a God-knowing, God-loving and God-serving life.  Only when any of the above take excessive attention from knowing, loving or serving God does soul care become compromised.

How can we tell when something takes excessive attention from knowing, loving or serving God?  We dare say, when it reaches the point where we wish God weren’t watching.  If we feel like we have to sneak something we intend to do, take a closer look.  Why sneak it?  Who will disapprove, and why?  Would God disapprove?  If so, it’s not good for the soul.  If we’re not sure, it’s probably a very good time to find out first.  And, if not… then maybe this is a good time to revisit how we understand God.  There are definite limits to the bodily pleasures God intends, and definite reasons for the limits of Godly order… along the same lines as the limits imposed by a wellness-oriented lifestyle.  Denying indulgence in one area is often the avenue to produce a greater good in another.  This is just as true in soul wellness as it is in body wellness.

In the end, recognizing that “caring” is far healthier than “pleasing” is a shortcut that applies to body care, soul care… and even our relationship with God.