Prayers for World Autism Day 2024

In recognition of World Autism Day 2024, we are pleased to offer a Short Form of our Prayer Petitions for Autism’s Belonging in the Body of Christ. The Short Form is, like the full list, free to download, print, copy and share for any use, individually or in groups, including adaptation for Prayers of the Faithful at daily or weekly Mass. Likewise, this post may also be shared freely, that people in communities far and wide may join with us in prayer!

Download Page for short form: https://autismconsecrated.com/prayers-for-autism-belonging-short-form/

Download Page for full list: https://autismconsecrated.com/autism-consecrated-prayer-intentions-any-dates-2/

The short form is as follows.

Prayers For Autism’s Belonging in the Body of Christ

Heavenly Father, we offer these prayers to You, that we may humbly recognize where we stand, and where we fall short, in supporting the autistic community. We ask You to give us the grace of healing and reconciliation where wounds and division exist.

May we:

  • Realize, and counteract, language and attitudes which stigmatize and pathologize autism
  • See autistic social, emotional, and cognitive processing as equal in dignity to neurotypical processing
  • Design our space such that autistic people are not expected to mask, suppress or replace neurodivergent traits
  • Grow in empathy toward the experiences of autistic individuals
  • Embrace a spirit of humility, repentance and curiosity as we acknowledge where we still lack understanding and comprehension of the autistic experience, including:
    • Communication (including non-spoken communication)
    • Sensory processing and overload
    • Emotional processing, alexithymia, and hyperempathy
    • Information processing and overload
    • Performance pressure, social rejection, and exclusion
    • Hidden co-occurring conditions such as dyspraxia, dysautonomia, joint hypermobility, migraine, food sensitivity
  • Appreciate the presence of autistic members of the community, realizing that it is not possible to know if someone is or is not autistic by assumption, and that autism is present in all age groups
  • Ponder how many neurodivergent people in our community cannot be present because of a lack of support, and how we can extend to them the chance to authentically belong
  • Strive to make our community accessible, welcoming, and accepting to neurodivergent people
  • See the obstacles which prevent or impede neurodivergent people from being present in our community
  • Invite neurodivergent people in our community to lead, rather than be led; teach, rather than be taught; explain things to us, rather than be told how things are
  • Promote a culture of neurodiversity
  • Look to autistic members of the community for guidance and suggestions on how to support and maintain accessibility and regular participation by neurodivergent individuals
  • Outwardly demonstrate how striving to make our community more accessible to autistic members benefits everyone

May we seek forgiveness for the times we have:

  • Perpetuated inaccurate and unhelpful stereotypes
  • Allowed fear and pride to limit our generosity, creativity, and hospitality
  • Cited scarcity of resources in upholding the status quo
  • Relied on numbers to justify or deny accommodations, rather than upholding the value of the individual
  • Made assumptions or decisions for autistic individuals without their input
  • Failed to believe an autistic person’s experience
  • Turned an autistic person away from our community for being autistic
  • Lectured an autistic person about the unsuitability or inconvenience of their needs
  • Failed to include, invite, or respond to autistic individuals in community activities
  • Passed over an autistic person for volunteer or leadership positions, for the sake of their autism
  • Cast autistic traits as character flaws
  • Allowed convenience, popular opinion, fear, or jealousy to influence how we respond to requests for accommodations and accessibility
  • Required autistic individuals to suppress, mask, or eliminate neurodivergent traits in order to participate or belong

We ask this all in Jesus’ Name: Lord, hear our prayer!

AMEN.

 

Thank you for praying with us!

Domestic Prayer Missionaries of Saint Thorlak

Tomorrow (14 December) begins the Novena in Honor of Saint Thorlák, prayed during the nine days leading up to his feast day of 23 December.

This year, we would like to suggest praying this novena as a spiritual bouquet to the clergy serving in the Diocese of Reykjavik: offering our prayers for the intentions and wellbeing of its sixteen priests, one deacon and one seminarian.

This bouquet reflects the prayer on a regular basis throughout the year by the Domestic Prayer Missionaries of Saint Thorlák, a volunteer corps of missionaries-in-place whose work is to pray from where we are, in our current circumstances, in our present states of body and mind.  We are “domestic,” meaning, staying in place; we pray from wherever we are able to be, transforming “everywhere” into one, common household, one family of God: “Domestic” Missionaries of St. Thorlák do our work from within the “home” of God’s Household. This Domestic form of missionary work differs from that of missionaries who leave home to do their work elsewhere, publicly.

The Domestic Prayer Missionaries’ focus is prayer in any way we are capable, including all forms of communication: fully spoken, low speaking, variably spoken and non-speaking. Our prayer takes the form of however we best express our hearts and intentions to God, in the place best suited to our abilities: at home, in chapel, outdoors; standing, kneeling, sitting, walking; wherever we connect fully with God at any given moment. Many Domestic Missionaries spend their time in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, but others may pray better in motion. Some “practice the presence of God” throughout the day, offering as we go, and some simply focus on the breath in prayer (e.g., breathe in “My Jesus,” breathe out “Mercy”) to create a “chapel of the heart” wherever we happen to be. Domestic Missionary prayer deliberately minimizes physical and social demands to keep our efforts focused on prayer. We draw special inspiration from the ways of Brother Lawrence of the Resurrection, whose Practice of the Presence of God is an excellent model for anyone, in any state of ability or disability, to offer prayers efficaciously and sincerely alongside those called to more conventional and active forms of missionary work.

To learn more about the Domestic Prayer Missionaries of Saint Thorlák, or to become a Prayer Missionary yourself, download our prayer manual or contact us at AutismConsecrated.Com.

 

Domestic Missionaries of Saint Thorlak – Prayer Booklet

 

 

We Interrupt This Lent…

by Aimée O’Connell

 

Nearly three weeks into the Lenten season, I come to our readers with the following string of thoughts, under the category heading: NOTHING WE HAVE EVER HEARD ABOUT LENT WAS IMAGINED WITH NEURODIVERSE INDIVIDUALS IN MIND.

(Okay… since I am a stickler for avoiding absolutes, let’s say “Almost Nothing.”)

 

While the better time to post this might have been before Lent began, there’s something to be said about solidarity in the trenches.  By “trenches,” I mean the places where we find the people who…

  • Are still trying to think of what to do for Lent
  • Have tried adding things but have not yet made it happen consistently
  • Have tried giving things up but realize we don’t function well without them
  • Have sat staring at examinations of conscience and wondered when we will ever find one that applies to our lives
  • Have abandoned stacks of planners, devotionals, penitential calendars and mini-retreats which seemed like a great idea when we picked them up
  • Find Lent JUST TOO MUCH

 

Maybe this doesn’t apply to you (… congrats!).  Or, maybe you’re reading this and thinking this is not exclusively an autism or ADHD thing (… but I will say, even if that’s the case, I guarantee, we feel it much more intensely!)  Bottom line is, I don’t see much written about the particular challenges of Lent for the neurodiverse, and so, for those who find Lent penitential for the sake of its being unattainable: you are not alone!

 

My intention here is not to say that Lent should be jettisoned altogether, or that neurodiverse people should be dispensed from Lent.  What I do wish is that we could have some real resources available for the neurodiverse, a list of Lent Hacks for us to familiarize ourselves with and practice here and there so that when the actual season rolls around, we have something proven to work with.  I don’t claim to have the answers, but I do have a growing list of thoughts.

 

For starters: We need to define Lent consistently and concisely.  What IS Lent?  We know it is a time of prayer, fasting and almsgiving, intended to remind us that our purpose in life is to love God with all our hearts, minds, souls and strength, and to pattern our lives around loving God, particularly in how we treat others.  Some will say it is a time to steer our focus back to God and away from the distractions of worldly entertainments and luxuries.  Some will say it is a time to make room for God amidst the clutter of our lives.  Some will say it is a time to discard the things that tempt us away from God, or a time to develop habits of prayer, meditation and contemplation.  All of this sounds good, in a very general sense; but, for the neurodiverse, it can also sound too broad… not specific enough… not tangible, not measurable – and, therefore, not anything we can grasp, physically or conceptually.

 

What about when the things other people consider “luxuries” are, for us, necessities?  Who decides what constitutes luxury? If we go by what the devotional guides say, we end up going without things that we absolutely rely on, such as grocery delivery and prepared meals.  Even more difficult is teasing out what others consider “entertainments” which, again, for us, are necessities.  Many, many neurodiverse people can regulate, cope and function better with help from electronic devices with screens.  Many of us communicate and connect with others over electronic devices in ways we simply cannot do in person.  Who gets to decide what is adaptive and assistive, and what is “luxury” or “entertainment”?  I never see that distinction made in suggested acts of penance or fasting… just the same urging to switch off our screens so that we can be more present to the people around us.  (If that were possible, we’d have already done it).  Where is the line drawn between acts of penance and denying ourselves basic needs?  And why is it okay to lump the things that neurodiverse people successfully rely on to function, in with the things deemed superfluous by neurotypical people, without some kind of qualification?  Does anyone ever suggest giving up other assistive and adaptive accommodations that are acceptable standards for other disabilities?  Is it ever printed in a Lenten devotional, “Just for today, leave your walker or cane home” – or, “For these forty days, stop relying on closed captioning, and rely on God instead” – ?

 

What about when our executive functioning does not know the difference between “distractions” and “important items”?  Do the authors of Lenten devotionals realize that, for some people, what you call “distractions” are an integral part of our panoramic, multisensory processing, and can’t just be given up?  Moreover, if what others call distractions are a way of life for us, is any spiritual growth even possible?  All I’ve seen are essays and dissertations saying that distractions are our downfall.  There goes another category of things that sound good for typical people, but don’t apply to us, unless difficulties with executive functioning really do disqualify us as saints.

 

Another question: How can we know which way to pray best, when the suggestion is to “pray more”?  What if we have difficulty keeping all our tasks in mind for any given day, and are doing well, but do not have the cognitive flexibility to stop midstream and pray?  What if our functioning is stretched to its limit already? What can we give up, to make time for prayer, when we struggle with time-blindness?  What if praying feels too verbal for us on any given day?  We are taught that mental prayer takes focus and years of discipline, and requires things like stillness and interior silence which does not often come easily to the neurodivergent.  We may be outwardly silent, but inwardly, the trains of thought are running on multiple tracks at full capacity.  We don’t have the cognitive ability to just stop.  Where is that accounted for, in Lenten guides and spiritual direction?

 

As an autistic adult, I find the Lenten guides for children easier to use and follow than those intended for grown-ups.  It is easier for me to concretely count out some of my possessions with the idea of donating them, or to budget out a certain percentage of my income or savings for charity.  It is easier to count prayers or minutes or check-boxes than to try and do an assessment of my life and my habits – because my environment and my routines are all wrapped up in the wild and crazy way I make sense of the world and function in it.  And yet – when I pray by rote, and write checks because it’s the time of year to do so… it doesn’t feel any different afterward.  I’ve done my duty.  How does that bring me closer to God?

 

Making a list of Lenten Resolutions has likewise proven ineffective for many of us, mainly because it is the equivalent of taking our familiar flight plan and adding in several detours and extra stops – without the allowance of more time in the itinerary.  Calling our routines “autopilot” is not a bad thing at all.  Autopilot is a reliable means of getting from Point A to Point B in the face of all kinds of variables, interference and conditions.  Taking a plane off autopilot is not a guaranteed disaster, but it requires an enormous and constant expenditure of attention, energy and action.  While we can fairly say it will develop discipline among the flight crew, it will also put everyone on high alert and raise the potential for going off course and encountering difficulties, and demands our full, constant and immediate attention.  We all know that voluntarily adding stress to our already-stretched-too-thin processing systems is a straight line to crash and burn.  Changing our routines for Lent – at least, among the neurodiverse – is not a very useful idea; and yet, that seems to be the overarching theme to most Lent devotionals and calendars.

 

More and more, I see the need – a desperate need – for new wineskins for neurodiverse people.  We need guidance on how to approach Lent in the ways we are wired to approach anything.  We need permission to pass up the devotionals, calendars and suggested penances which are written for neurotypical lifestyles.  We need better examinations of conscience, written by neurodiverse individuals for neurodiverse individuals, so that we do not keep treating our failure to align with neurotypical standards as sinful.  Of course we sin, of course we are in need of forgiveness – but how many sinful habits have evolved from trying to do things in ways not suited to our wiring?  How much confusion comes from compromising our needs because we have been conditioned from the youngest age that it is of utmost importance to satisfy others?  How many times has our character been called into question over things we genuinely cannot change about ourselves?

 

We need to hear more from neurodiverse clergy, supported by more and better understanding of neurodiversity by the Church.  This is something I pray for every day.  I would like to see a prayer calendar with forty days’ reflections on how our Church can grow in this understanding and need for support.  I would imagine this would benefit the entire Body of Christ, not just the neurodiverse.

 

For now, my working plan is to see Lent as a season during which we invite Our Lord to show Himself to us in our lives, and to show us the ways our lives can be offered (i.e., made meaningful) to Him.  How does He use our neurodiversity to build the Kingdom of God?  How does the witness of our lives reflect Him to those in our orbit?  Do we spend more of our energy trying to know, love and serve Him in neurotypical ways than in ways that we are naturally wired to be?  Do we trust that He does not ask us to extend ourselves past our neurodivergent limits?  Do we trust that it is better to say “no” to resolutions that are not compatible with (and even harmful to) our physical, sensory or social processing?

 

It takes real courage to step out of the boxes other people would have us in, and be authentically and vulnerably who we are.  To me, that is the most radical offering we can make.

 

Dr. Hahn: It’s not funny

by Aimee O’Connell

 

I have recently become aware of a book just published, Autism and Holy Orders, touted as a long-overdue resource for helping autistic men navigate the process of priestly formation, ordination and service in the Church.  I could not wait to start reading… until I hit the foreword by Scott Hahn.

Scott Hahn’s name always brings a smile to my face.  I have an entire shelf devoted to his books.  I have attended his conferences and speaking engagements.  I relish with guilty pleasure every single Dad joke he has made and refer many, many people to his writing, as I feel he has a gift in being able to explain Church doctrine in a way that is memorable, relevant and relatable to anyone.  I don’t know him personally, but it’s no exaggeration to say he is a part of my Catholic fabric.

The foreword made me gasp.

In an instant, this well respected, well recognized, NON AUTISTIC writer / speaker / scholar, to whom so many look for guidance and encouragement, dismissed the condition of being autistic as a fad, a marketing ploy, a source of confusion.  His flippant tone made me want to shrink, mask, camouflage, hide.  If he said this in one of his public talks, any autistic person in the crowd would wish to become instantly invisible.

He goes on to qualify his thoughts along the lines of some of his best and brightest students have had autism, and it pains him to see them suffer needlessly from a lack of understanding.  His departure from Dad jokes to full-on irony hit me like a hard smack in the face, and I’m still not laughing.

The rest of the book, I’m sad to say, followed suit.  You can read my review here.  On the one hand, it’s a consolation to know that a book like this has a very narrow target audience, so Dr. Hahn’s insensitivity won’t necessarily be felt by as many people as it might if he wrote this in a more mainstream book.  On the other hand, how many autistic people know what sort of attitude Dr. Hahn holds toward us, and perpetuates – knowingly or unknowingly – through his example?

Certainly, Dr. Hahn is entitled to believe and feel whatever he does.  It is not my place to police his comments.  However, it is within bounds to remind everyone who is not autistic that autism is no picnic.  We aren’t broken, yet people still look at us that way.  Alexithymia and sensory anxiety still make it very difficult for us to feel we are “enough” in the eyes of God, let alone the eyes of the Church.  Our intellect may know that God loves us as we are, but our bodies send signals of constant doubt which we have to consciously recognize and counteract if we want to maintain any kind of spiritual life.  It is a thousand times worse when our community sends us signals that feed this doubt (… such as when a renowned Catholic speaker belittles autism as a fad).  And, it’s amazing to see that even the people who consider autism a disability still speak about it as though they know everything about it, yet have zero knowledge of what it’s like from the inside, or any seeming desire to truly listen to those of us who talk openly about it it (… especially if they so quickly dismiss that as attention-seeking).

Dr. Hahn: It’s not funny.  I’m not laughing.  I pray that you may grow in compassion, offering Jesus’ prayer on your behalf: “Father, forgive him; he does not know what he is doing.”

 

 

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.