Fixed: Email subscribers glitch

A note to email subscribers: We are attempting to fix the glitch which has prevented our recent notifications for new blog posts from sending.  If you have not received our latest notifications, we direct your attention now to our two most recent posts:

April: A Puzzling Month 

Autistic Egypt

Additionally, we invite readers to see Fr. Mark Nolette’s guest blog post on the National Catholic Partnership on Disability webpage: Autism Appreciation: Lessons from Horton Hears A Who

Thank you!
Aimee O’Connell – Autism Consecrated

The Pastoral Needs of Autism: Healing Prayer

by Aimée O’Connell

 

To those expecting this post to contain words meant to step in and undo anyone’s autism diagnosis, we apologize: our subtitle this week begins with a gerund, not an adjective.  We aim to suggest ways our manner of prayer might itself be healed.

Why?  Ask any autistic.  There are few things more alienating than hearing from members of our faith community that we are broken or unacceptable as we are.  Yet many prayers for autism purport to fix what the community finds wrong in us… to cure us of the things that seem frightfully different… to imagine what we want for ourselves, without asking us if that is correct.

This is not to say that intercessory prayer is wrong.  On the contrary!  Praying for one another is a beautiful and life-giving aspect of community and belonging.  Likewise, it is unlikely to ever be without need of prayer, in one way or another.  Prayer, in its purest form, is both conveyance of gratitude for and acknowledgement of our interdependence as a faith community.  But more often than not, autistic people (and many others with disabling conditions) hear how little our community knows us in the prayers offered on our behalf.  Not only is it disheartening to be so overtly misunderstood, but it is starkly marginalizing.

In fairness: Yes, there is a time and a place to pray for reversal of illness, for recovery of wellness and for remission from the kind of suffering that impairs our quality of life.  Yes, it merciful to pray for those experiencing pain or distress.  Sometimes, the anxiety and sensory overload secondary to autistic wiring falls under that category, to be sure.  But then, our prayer ought to focus on our merciful wish to relieve distress, and not to condemn the person for being distressed in the first place.  To wit: “Heavenly Father, come to the assistance of this person in their hour of need” upholds the person’s dignity within the community, as does, “… heal this person of that which causes them pain.”  Contrast that with, “… remake this person in Your image to be whole once more” and “… heal this person of the autism which imprisons them,” and you have a declaration of unfitness in the community, condemning a neurological type which, by itself, is neither physical disease nor mental disorder.

The following questions are meant to help illuminate the spirit in which we might offer prayer, regardless of who we are or what our particular conditions might be.

 

  • Does our prayer focus on alleviating any discomfort or dissatisfaction WE FEEL, or is it focused on needs expressed by the person we are praying for?
  • Does our prayer PRESUME TO KNOW what the person wants us to pray for, or is our prayer based on actual, known, expressed needs of this person?
  • Does our prayer echo GENERALIZATIONS we have heard about a particular condition, or does it reflect how we know this person as a unique individual?
  • Is our prayer rooted in any FEAR or DREAD of the situation? Is this fear or dread ours, or the person’s?
  • Does our prayer surrender to asking God what is best for the person, or does it seek to define what WE think would be best?
  • Would the words of our prayer be viewed as uplifting in love and dignity, or listing our grievances and pity, when heard by the person we pray for?
  • Does our prayer portray the person as a Beloved Child of God, “fearfully and wonderfully made”? Or, does it presume fault or defect?
  • Does our prayer reflect our gratitude for the gifts this person brings to the community, or to the burdens we feel from this person’s struggles and needs?

 

May these thoughts guide us on our journeys toward healing the way we pray… for ourselves, for others, and for our community.

A Word from Father Mark Nolette

(Ordinarily, Father Mark Nolette’s posts appear on his blog, The Anchorite.  If you have not yet seen his page or subscribed to his blog, it is well worth checking out.  Since his post today offers very timely support and validation for the autistic community, I am cross-posting here.  – Aimee O’Connell)

I begin with a statistic.  The New York Times reported this morning that the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 worldwide, as of yesterday, is 160,000.  About half of these are in China.  On the one hand, if we focus on this number only, it seems rather small compared to the total population of the planet, which is estimated at over seven billion people.  This number is, for the moment, far smaller than the number of people who are infected with a typical late winter flu outbreak.  However, that’s not the number that has experts worried.  They believe that the number of cases will explode geometrically, becoming many times that number before the outbreak peaks.

How many times?

There we find a difference of opinion.  Last week, the New York Times reported on four possible scenarios for how many people in this country could be infected with coronavirus, and how many could die.  The estimates of infection range from 15% to 50% of the population.  The number of deaths range from 500k to 2 million.  The experts acknowledge that containment efforts, if applied, could reduce these estimates.  Moreover, because coronavirus is novel, no one knows if some people might have some immunity to it or not.

The fear we are feeling is not so much about the numbers of people who now have it, a number we can safely estimate.  The fear is about the uncertainty of how many people will eventually get it, and how bad it will be.  Moreover, given that a sizable number of people in this country do not trust scientific or medical experts, that compounds the uncertainty.  Moreover, the very existence of this virus among us makes us feel vulnerable.  All the king’s horses and all the king’s men (and all the king’s money) cannot drive it away.  No wall can keep it out.  We Americans are not used to feeling vulnerable.  This only heightens the anxiety.

What do we have, then? A grave level of fear and anxiety.  An overwhelming sense of impending doom. People grasping at any straw, even to the point of stockpiling toilet paper, in order to feel some sense of security or preparedness.  A sense of panic that may be more severe than the virus itself.

Welcome to the world of autistic people.

What I am seeing, as a priest and an autistic person, looks very much like autistic anxiety.  Some of the reactions I see look very much to me like autistic meltdown.  The anxiety I often feel before a weekend liturgy is something like this.  The anxiety I feel when something unexpected, like a funeral, enters my life is something like this.  The anxiety I feel when some future plan is still uncertain is something like this.  As an autistic person, I have needed to grapple with anxieties like these, learn to decipher them, and learn to live with them.  Therefore, I may be able to offer something from my experience as an autistic person that could help many other people during these trying times.

What have I learned that may be of help to others?

1) Things are not as bad as they feel. Yes, I am well aware of the danger of minimizing the risk of coronavirus. However, my sense is that the opposite is the greater danger; that people will panic and make the danger more than it really is.  Then, with panic in control, people do not think well. They may make choices that make the situation worse.  They may look for people to blame.  Sometimes, when I am celebrating Mass, it can feel as though I were the deer and the congregation were all hunters.  Now, there’s a kernel of truth in this. Social exposure of this kind is difficult for me.  However, it’s not quite as bad as it might feel for me at that moment.  In the same way, coronavirus is a real danger, but it’s not quite as bad as our panic might make it out to be.

2) We are not powerless. When anxiety becomes panic, we feel overwhelmed. We feel that we have no control, no options.  We learn to step back when this happens and remind ourselves that this is not true.  As an autistic person, I know that there are ways to manage anxiety.  There are also ways to address the outbreak and reduce the risk.  In managing anxiety, there are techniques like cognitive behavioral therapy, which help us examine our thoughts and see if they correspond to what really is.  Many people find that a few moments with camomile tea helps them soothe their nerves and be recollected.  Then, when anxiety and panic are more manageable, we can look at the actual situation and take appropriate action.  There are ways to significantly reduce our risk of catching or spreading coronavirus.

3) We must never deny or ignore our needs. This COVID-19 outbreak reminds us of our fundamental vulnerability as human beings.  We may find it difficult to acknowledge this vulnerability, to ourselves or to others.  We may feel the overwhelming temptation to camouflage those weak spots at all costs.  As an autistic person, I am well aware of my own vulnerabilities and limitations, especially in social situations.  Nevertheless, I have found that the stronger and more courageous thing to do is to acknowledge those vulnerabilities to myself and to others.  Paradoxically, this unlocks a strength in me and in others that makes all of us stronger.  Acknowledging our legitimate needs, and drawing healthy boundaries, are essential for our health and survival.  This is all the more true in the stressful situation we now find ourselves in.

4) We are not alone. Perhaps the greatest danger when we feel overwhelmed with intense anxieties, panic, or depression is the sense that each one of us is alone in this.  No one else could understand, we tell ourselves.  In this kind of isolation, we feel weaker.  We become easier prey to panic, depression and despair.  As an autistic person, I grew up with a profound sense of being “different” without being able to name that difference.  There were things about me that others could not understand, and there were things about others that I could not understand.  Though there is truth in this, there is also a danger – the danger of feeling ultimately alone in a dangerous world.  When I find others who share some of these attributes with me, I know I am not alone.  It is important for us all to share our anxieties and concerns with others so that we know we are not alone.

5) We are saved by Love.  Everything I have tried to say is summed up here.  It is Love that saves us.  It is Love that empowers us.  It is Love that assures us, above all, that we are not alone.  It is Love that we need more than any other thing.  And this Love is God.  As an autistic child, I felt more withdrawn from other people than I do now.  The first things to reach me were what some call “special interests” – my love for astronomy, dinosaurs, history, and many other things I began to discover.  Caught up in love for these things, I could easily talk your ear off, whereas I’d be silent most of the time otherwise.  Some see these interests as excessive and pathological.  Not necessarily.  They are meant, for the autistic person, to be a training ground for love.  Learning how to love these things helps us begin to love other people and, ultimately, to love God with that same total devotion that flows from the very marrow of our bones and the very cardiac tissue of our hearts.  All of us, faced with the fears caused by this outbreak, can renew our love for our own interests and, especially, for God who is Love.  It is this Love that ultimately frees us from panic and fear.  We need to do what we can to open ourselves as fully as possible to this Love.

This is why I have argued, and continue to argue, that we need the Sacraments and, especially, the Mass and the Eucharist at this time.  Yes, we should follow flu protocols and take all reasonable precautions to safeguard ourselves and our loved ones.  However, we cannot deny or ignore our need for Love.  Our need for Christ.  He has told us that we need to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood so that we might have the fullness of His life in us.  Christians of past centuries believed that this need was so fundamental that it was worth risking their lives for it.  That has not changed.  We need the Lord, and we need to follow His own teaching of how we can best receive His love.  Who could know this better than Him?

I leave you with this in the hope that my insight – that our experience of this outbreak parallels autistic experience – will be helpful, as well as my sharing of what I have learned from this.  It may be that this outbreak is a time when people who may have been shunned as eccentric or lacking in social graces may have something most valuable to offer the world.

May the love of the Lord be with us, now and always!

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 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 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 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 13: Body Vs. Soul

Does taking care of our body somehow interfere with taking care of our soul?

We come back to the interconnectedness of soul, body and mind with hopefully a little more clarity.

All three elements – body, mind and soul – are integral parts of who we are.  The core of our identity rests in the soul, the center from which our thoughts, feelings, intentions, impressions and actions arise.

Much has been debated over the centuries as to the role the body plays in the health of our soul.  Some contend that the body and soul are in constant battle, with the cravings of the flesh ever drawing us toward pleasure at the expense of virtue and morality.  Some feel that morality is subjective, and that contentment of the body reflects, or promotes, contentment of the soul.  Some fall somewhere in between.

The Catholic Church has a very well-defined moral code spelled out in its Catechisms, consistently seen from the Baltimore edition to the 1992 edition published under Pope John Paul II, to the most recently published 2011 Youth Catechism (YOUCAT).  The Catholic Church is very specific in telling us that comfort of the body must not take more importance than the integrity of our soul.  Why?  Because, a life ordered around pleasing the body is incompatible with the intended design and operating parameters of the soul.

Here is a way to summarize the right order of living:

The role of body and mind is to promote and uphold the purity and integrity of the soul.

  • Purity: Preservation from corruption
  • Integrity: Wholeness; being undivided

We can use a chart like this to compare operating parameters:

Body Soul
Mortal (will die) Immortal (cannot die)
Tangible Intangible
Can change appearance Cannot change appearance
Does not determine who a person is by itself Determines who a person is by itself
Has infused, actual cellular identity Has infused, actual essential identity

 

Though we might see this as a list of opposites, taking care of our body does not have to interfere with taking care of our soul, or vice versa.  It would be absurd to think that God would set up a creature opposed to itself.  The two are not designed to be at odds.  In fact, when each maintains awareness of the other, body and soul work in harmonious balance which upholds the wholeness of the entire person.

Imbalance occurs when we exaggerate emphasis on our body’s needs or consider our bodily needs more frequently than considering the needs of our soul.  Think in terms of the chart above.  If we spend a great deal of energy on things that are mortal, we have less to devote to the immortal.  If we focus on sensual feelings, we spend less time feeding our intangible needs.  If we put more stock in our body’s appearance than our soul’s identity, we neglect that core part of ourselves that makes us who we are.  It begins to sound like common sense.

Living in right order means that our body’s actions respect our soul’s operating parameters.  Choosing body over soul neglects the immortal.  What does this mean, since a soul can’t die?  It will never cease to exist… but, if neglected, a soul can starve.

One last question: Can it ever be that we give too much emphasis to soul care, and not enough to body or mind?  No.  Here’s why: The soul is the essence of our life.  A healthy soul produces a sound mind and actualized body.  A very, very healthy soul produces a very, very sound mind and a very, very actualized body.  Shall we keep going?  Is there such a thing as too much health?  Thankfully, no!

When we look at it this way, then, the best way to care for the body is to lavish excellent care upon the soul.  Does care of the body interfere with care of the soul?  No; it BEGINS WITH, and THRIVES UPON, care of the soul.