DON QUIXOTE AND THE WOMAN AT THE WELL

DON QUIXOTE

Have you ever tried to do something, and everybody around you told you it was impossible? Maybe you were trying to change something, and they would say, "You can’t do that. It’s always been done this way!"

Maybe you’ve seen something wrong with the system and tried to make it right. Like the fact that there are never enough stalls in the ladies room, while stalls go unused in the men’s room because they have a whole row of urinals. We went to the theater last night, and it was the same old story. Intermission is never long enough for the women to make it through the long line outside the rest room and winding all across the lobby (making it nearly impossible to get to the concession stand).

Or maybe you’ve gotten so frustrated, you decided to ignore the system and do it your way. One woman at a ball game got so frustrated by the long lines at the women’s rest room, that she walked into the men’s room, used an empty stall, and walked out. She would have gotten away with it, too, except she couldn’t resist opening her mouth.

As she passed by the guys at the urinals, she said, "I left the seat up for ya, just the way you like it." That got her arrested. But her arrest was not in vain. It brought public attention to the whole issue of potty parity, and (who knows) someday something might actually be done about it.

Or maybe your quest was something more serious, like eliminating inequities in the tax system or improving health care. Why is it insurance companies will pay enormous amounts of money to take care of you when you’re hospitalized, but they won’t pay anything for simple preventive measures to keep you well? The alternative is to join an HMO. They will pay for preventive medicine, but if you do get sick, they try to convince you you’re not. Why can’t we have a true national health program that does both parts right?

One of our quests is campaign finance reform — the attempt to separate money and power. The problem is that those who have to fix the system are the people on the take.

Whatever your quest, if you’re up against seemingly insurmountable odds, people say you’re "tilting at windmills." Or they call your venture "Quixotic," a way of saying you’re crazy for even trying. These colorful expressions come, of course, from Cervantes’ novel "Don Quixote" and its musical counterpart, "Man of La Mancha." They have become part of our language.

Two days ago, Richard Kiley, the quintessential and original "Man of La Mancha" passed away. Maggie and I saw him play the part in Hollywood many years ago. He played a great crazy man, and he will be missed.

One of the "crazy" things Don Quixote did was to fall in love with a local prostitute, Aldonza. He treats her like a lady, and calls her Dulcinea ("Sweet One"). Her reaction is, "Are you crazy? I’m a whore!" Everyone laughs at foolish Don Quixote.

Personally, when someone calls me a Don Quixote, I take it as a compliment. You see, Don Quixote has a lot in common with Jesus of Nazareth, who tilted at quite a few windmills in His time, too.

Nowhere in the Gospels is this better illustrated than in today’s story of Jesus and the Woman at the Well.

This meeting took place when Jesus left Judea and the region around Jerusalem to go once more back to his native Galilee in the North of Israel. Between Judea and Galilee lies Samaria, a region of about 1600 square miles, stretching between the Jordan River on the east and the Mediterranean Sea on the West.

The Samaritans who inhabited this region were the descendants of Jews who intermarried with the Assyrians who occupied the area from 726 to 721 B.C., during one of the many times Israel was conquered. Their intermarriage with the Gentiles enabled them to survive the occupation and fare better than the Jews who resisted.

While the Samaritans did not give up their belief in the God of Abraham, nor accept the religion of their conquerors, small changes in the practice of their faith developed. Over the years, a great animosity grew up between the Samaritans and the Judeans. The Jews considered the Samaritans traitors, half-breeds, and heretics.

Jews who had to travel back and forth between Judea in the south and Galilee in the north avoided Samaria. Instead of taking the direct route through Samaria, they would go down to Jericho, cross the Jordan River into Perea (which is now the Kingdom of Jordan) and then turn north through Decapolis, not crossing back over the river until they were well north of Samaria and due east of Nazareth. This turned a sixty mile trip into a journey of a hundred miles, but it was worth it to avoid the feared and hated Samaritans.

Not Jesus, though. He would not follow a trail that fear and hatred had blazed. When he left Jerusalem, he went due north, through the heart of Samaria and within about a mile of Mt. Gerizim, the center of Samaritan worship. It was at this point, near the village of Sychar or Shechem, that Jesus sat and rested at Jacob’s Well while his disciples went into town for food. (I bet they were thrilled at that! I can imagine they were terrified.)

When they returned (probably thankful that they had escaped unharmed), they found Jesus chatting with the Samaritan woman. This was a shocking defiance of Jewish convention on at least three counts: (1) she was a Samaritan, (2) she was a woman, and (3) she was a notorious sinner.

By engaging the Samaritan woman in conversation, Jesus broke through several of the major barriers that divide the human family to this very day.

The first of these windmills he tilted at was racism. Because the Samaritans had intermarried, the Jews considered them half-breeds and mongrels. They were not to be associated with, but feared and despised. I’m sure you can think of at least a few places in the world where racism still exists — in spite of Jesus’ efforts. Time after time, he told parables where Samaritans were the good guys. But some people still don’t get it.

Another barrier Jesus broke was that of fundamentalism. The Samaritans worshipped God at Mt. Gerizim, not at Jerusalem, and they only used the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) in their worship, so the Jews pronounced them heretics and excommunicated them. They would not eat or drink with them. They would not even use a cup or bowl that had been used by a Samaritan. But Jesus asked her for a drink or water from her cup. He shared a cup with the heretic.

We desperately need that example to be followed today by the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, the Catholics and Orthodox in Bosnia, the Roman Catholics and the "Roamin’ Catholics" in Rochester, the Southern Baptists and the American Baptists in North Carolina, and by all the other folks who practice a religion of exclusion. Jesus practiced a religion of inclusion.

The whole concept of excommunication is foreign to Jesus. He told the Samaritan woman that the time was coming when it wouldn’t matter where you worshipped God or in what words. What matters, he said, is to worship God "in Spirit and in truth." Now when Christ said that , he was not implying that unless you have "all the truth" you can’t worship God. "All the truth" is defined differently by every denomination. For some, it’s the inerrancy of the Bible.

For others, it’s a long list of dogmas. For still others, it’s "tradition," which can be taken to mean every word that comes out of the mouth of some religious leader. When will we learn that our salvation doesn’t depend even the tiniest bit on whether we believe in pre- or post-tribulation millenialism!? Or whether we believe in it at all. It does not depend on our acceptance or rejection of the deutero-canonical books of the Old Testament, or even on our position on the ordination of women.

No, what Jesus was talking about was sincerity. To worship in truth means that ours is not a sham religion, that we’re not just putting on a show of religiosity, we’re not just filling a square. We truly love and worship God, and we worship Him in Spirit and in truth.

Jesus made believers of many of the Samaritans in the town of Shechem. And He accepted them. He did not ask them to change their worship practice. He did not ask them to "convert" to orthodox Judaism. He did not ask them to travel to Jerusalem to do their worship. He did not ask them to include later books in their Bible. He accepted them as they were, where they were, for who they were. And they accepted him as the Messiah they had been looking for — a Messiah for Samaritans as well as for Jews.

Jesus was a Messiah for everyone ... and He still is.

Another barrier transcended by Jesus that day was that of nationalism and tribalism. The Jews hated the Samaritans not only because they were half-breeds and heretics, but also because they were traitors. They had, after all, accommodated an enemy some seven and a half centuries earlier, and such transgressions are not easily forgotten.

And, of course, these "isms" are with us still. If race or religion doesn’t provide a reason for hatred, often real estate does. These are the deadly three Rs of warfare: race, religion, and real estate. Whether it’s the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda or the Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo, tribalism is still one of the death-dealing sins Jesus tried so hard to rid us of by His example.

Yes, the Jews hated the Samaritans. By the same token, the Samaritans were not overly fond of the Jews. When the Samaritans built a temple to God on Mt. Gerizim in 400 B.C., Jews came and destroyed it. Is it any wonder that the Samaritan woman was astounded when Jesus, a Jewish man, asked her for a drink of water? John explained her reaction to his readers by saying "For Jews do not associate with Samaritans."

But Jesus walked through this barrier as if it did not exist ... because in his mind it did not exist. When he looked at the woman, he did not see a member of an inferior race. He saw a person made in the image of God. She was a Samaritan; he was a Jew. But to him all that mattered was the human race. All people matter supremely to him. And you and I must follow him. We can be bigots or Christians; but we cannot be both. God inspired his apostle Paul to write, "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. They are all one in Christ Jesus."

Another barrier Jesus broke through was sexism or gender bias. When the disciples returned to the well and saw Jesus talking to the woman, their reaction was surprise bordering on shock. They could hardly believe it. That kind of thing was simply not done. They belonged to a male-dominated society in which women were second-class citizens. No man would be seen talking to a woman in public — especially a strange woman. But all this meant nothing to Jesus.

He did everything He could to keep the sexism of first century Palestine from infecting His Church. He openly conversed in public with women. He welcomed them into His inner circle of followers. (In spite of DaVinci’s all-male portrayal, we believe women were present at the Last Supper.) After His resurrection, Jesus first appeared to a woman, Mary Magdalene, known as the Apostle to the Apostles.

Still, sadly, sexism is today alive and well in many parts of Christ’s church. After about two hundred years of church leadership and presiding at the Eucharist, women in the third century were suddenly excluded from ordination and full participation in the life of the Church. Some denominations have yet to follow the example of Jesus (Who commissioned the Samaritan woman as his missionary to Shechem); they have yet to right this wrong. Those of us who are pressing for all churches to accept women fully are told we are "tilting at windmills." So be it. So did Jesus.

Yet another windmill Jesus tilted at that day (as on many others) was judgmentalism, an arrogant rejection of "sinners."

Most women came to draw water early in the morning or late in the evening when it was cool. It was a social occasion when they visited with neighbors and friends. But this woman came at around noon, in the heat of the day, a time when she was sure to be alone. She may have done this because of her sordid reputation. Behind her was a trail of five failed marriages, and at present she was living with a man who was not her husband. Everyone knew about her and treated her accordingly.

So she learned to avoid rejection by avoiding the presence of other women. But moral barriers meant nothing to Jesus. He treated this woman with the same respect that he would his own mother, the same dignity with which Don Quixote treated Aldonza. It wasn’t that Jesus was unaware of her reputation. He simply refused to single her out from the rest of humanity for condemnation. (Indeed, he singled her out to be his evangelist to all in her village.)

If there was any one thing for which Jesus was continually getting in trouble with the Pharisees, it was consorting with sinners. He ate and drank with prostitutes and tax collectors. He let whores anoint His feet with oil. He dined with Zaccheus. He called Matthew to be an Apostle. And here He was again, sharing a cup and discussing religion with a woman whose reputation as a tramp was so bad the other women wouldn’t associate with her. What’s more, it’s to her that He first reveals Himself as the Messiah. This is the only instance in Scripture where Jesus openly says Who He is before His trial in Jerusalem. And He knew what she was.

In light of this, how dare we be judgmental toward anyone? We should hold high moral standards for ourselves and try to live by them, but we should never lose sight of the fact that we too are sinners in need of God’s love and mercy and forgiveness. And we should never ever feel superior to someone else.

Unfortunately, racism, fundamentalism, nationalism, tribalism, sexism, and judgmentalism still exist today, even among Christians. But because of the example of Jesus with the woman at the well, we can say with certainty that they are not in accord with the mind of Christ. They therefore must be viewed as faults to be rooted out — not from others (for that would be self-righteous moralism again), but at least from ourselves. And inasmuch as it is in our power, we should attempt to root them out from our family, our society, and our church.

An impossible dream? Tilting at windmills? A Quixotic quest? Perhaps. But let us remember Don Quixote. His love for Aldonza was an impossible fantasy of a foolish old man, wasted on an unworthy woman. But he loved Aldonza with a pure unselfish love, seeking nothing from her but to serve her. And when he died, Aldonza was at his side, weeping. She stood up for him, having at last accepted his love for her. And after his death, she serenely announced, "My name is Dulcinea." She had been redeemed and made pure by his love. Just as we are redeemed and made pure by the unselfish, unmerited love of Christ.

[Not by His death, but by His love. I am convinced that Jesus did not die to satisfy some lust for revenge or "justice" on the part of God the Father. It is rather, our acceptance of God’s love that saves us. Christ’s death on the cross was God’s plan to show us the depth of His love (just as the resurrection was God’s plan to show us the truth of the Gospel message He proclaimed and the Messiahship He claimed.)

Just as through his death, Don Quixote was victorious in his quest to save the fair Dulcinea, in that through it she understood and accepted his love, so through His death, Jesus triumphs in His quest to save us, in that through it we see and accept His love.

Jesus didn’t die because of a vengeful God ... or because of the Jews, or because of the Romans.]

Jesus died because of His love for us — all of us. And through His meeting with the Woman at the Well, Jesus shows us just how wide that love is, encompassing traitors, mongrels, heretics, women, homosexuals, lawyers, tax collectors, single mothers, you name it ... and sinners, especially sinners. Now, go break down some barriers of your own today. Take on the system. Tilt at some windmills. Dream the impossible dream. And hope. God is at your side, and with God, all things are possible. Amen.

Sermon for 3rd Sunday in Lent, Cycle A, March 7, 1999
by Most Rev. Dr. Robert M. Bowman
Presiding Bishop, United Catholic Church

Exodus 17: 3-7

Psalm 95: 1-2, 6-9

Romans 5: 1-2, 5-8

John 4: 5-42

CHRIST AND THE WOMAN OF SAMARIA

''Christ and the Woman of Samaria'', by Michelangelo Buonarotti (1475-1564)

About the artwork
Michelangelo Buonarotti (1475-1564), sculptor, painter, draughtsman, architect and poet, was one of the major figures of the Roman High Renaissance. He was acclaimed in his own lifetime as a genius. His working career spanned over 70 years. 'Christ and the Woman of Samaria' was made when he was about 65.

This picture shows the incident told in the Gospel of St John (Chapter IV, verses 5-26) where Christ met the Woman of Samaria drawing water at Jacob's well. Several oil versions of this subject are known, all of which are copies - either from the original by Michelangelo or from the well-known engraving of the picture made by Nicholas Beatrizet.

The choice of this biblical subject for a private devotional image, as this piece is believed to be, is unusual. The Woman of Samaria had already had five husbands and was living with another man who was not her husband. Jews did not normally talk to Samarians. It would seem that Samarians themselves did not normally talk to this woman. By singling her out for attention and making her the physical vehicle for carrying messages to the Samarians, Christ indicated most forcefully that he had come to save all humanity. This incident places particular emphasis upon grace and forgiveness.

A characteristic of Michelangelo's figure style that was much commented by his contemporaries was his so-called 'terribilitià' - a kind of awesome statuesque grandeur. Muscles are often exaggerated - bodies have a burly look and female figures have a proportion similar to those of males.

The picture is drawn in bistre ink onto gesso (plaster) ground. The ground is on a poplar panel and has warped into a curve over time.

This is a perplexing picture, principally because it is still unclear whether or not it is the original by Michelangelo. The Liverpool banker and author, William Roscoe, owned it during the early nineteenth century and believed it to be authentic. However, more recent scholarly opinion tended, until 1978, to regard it as a copy, possibly made from the print. The cleaning of the painting by conservators at the Courtauld Institute in London, revealed it to be of very high quality and it is now believed either to be by Michelangelo or to be the closest of the copies made after the picture.

The original picture is recorded as having been painted for Vittoria Colonna (1490-1547) at some time between 1536/8 and 1542. She was an extremely learned and devout woman from a prominent Roman family who attained an international reputation as a poetess and as a prominent advocate of church reform. She wished, like others, to find a middle way between the Catholic teaching on grace and Lutheran beliefs.

She wrote many sonnets, several in memory of her husband who had been killed at the Battle of Pavia. She was a close friend of Michelangelo and they corresponded with each other. He wrote several courtly sonnets praising both her physical and spiritual beauty, in addition to supplying her with other devotional images. There is a considerable amount of common imagery and ideas in the verse of Michelangelo and Vittoria Colonna. Both wrote in the style of Petrarch and both united Christian and Platonic beliefs.

Among those with whom Vittoria Colonna corresponded was the Marguerite of Angoulême, sister of Francis I, King of France, who also wrote poetry and was a prominent advocate of church reform. Her portrait is also on display at the Walker, or you can see it in our 13th-16th Century gallery online.

THE FAMILY OF GOD

The Communion of Saints

The Church is a family. The Church Militant (on earth), Church Suffering (in Purgatory), and Church Triumphant (in Heaven) are not three divisions of the Catholic Church, but are united in one family in the Communion of Saints. The Communion of Saints is a communion of the living, not of the dead. The Communion of Saints is the Church, CCC 946. The Church, then, is 'The Holy People of GOD', and her members are called 'saints', CCC 823.
(CCC is the Catechism of the Catholic Church)

The Family of GOD was built up by GOD through the covenants He made with man.

The first covenant GOD made with man is the one with Adam. This can be seen as the marital covenant, the first step of a family organization.

The second covenant was made with Noah, and this can be seen as the household covenant, since Noah and his family were the only ones who were saved in the ark.

Next came the covenant with Abraham, or the tribal covenant. Abraham became the patriarch of many families united into one 'tribe'.

Then came the covenant with Moses where the various tribes were united into a national covenant.

After that came the Davidic covenant of the kingdom where there was formed a national kingdom.

Lastly, the new covenant of Jesus Christ, was instituted, where all men are united into one body, the body of Christ in an international world wide family of GOD, the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

"I am the GOD of Abraham, and the GOD of Isaac, and the GOD of Jacob.
I am not the GOD of the dead but of the living." (Matthew 22:32, Mark 12:26-27)

"And behold, two men were talking with Him. And these were Moses and Elias, who, appearing in glory, spoke of His death, which He was about to fulfill in Jerusalem." (Luke 9:30-31).

Not only were these two Saints alive, but they spoke, and they even spoke to Him about future happenings.

"And I tell you that many will come from the east and from the west, and will feast with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven."
(Matthew 8:11)

Does it sound like these three heros of the Old Testament are not alive?

"And the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep arose; and coming forth out of the tombs after His resurrection, they came into the city and appeared to many." (Matthew 27:52-53).

Many who died, and now are alive, moved themselves and appeared to others.

"In which also He went and preached to those spirits that were in prison."(1Peter 3:19).

They were spirits, yet they lived, and He preached to them.

" And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints; and they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on earth."
(Revelation 5:8-10)

"And with the prayers of the saints there went up before GOD from the angels hand the smoke of the incense." (Revelation 8:4).

Clearly, the saints in heaven live.

Note that the word "pray" has two meanings:
1. To utter or address a prayer or prayers to GOD...
2. To make a fervent request or an entreaty...

When it is said that Catholics "pray" to the Saints, it is the second meaning.

"And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon you and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you..."" (Luke 1:35).

Here is an example of a heavenly being, archangel Gabriel, speaking to a human being.

"For you are all children of GOD through faith in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:26).

"...but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons, by virtue of which we cry, 'Abba! Father!' The Spirit Himself gives testimony to our spirit that we are sons of GOD." (Romans 8:15-16).

"He predestined us to be adopted through Jesus Christ as His sons, according to the purpose of His will." (Ephesians 1:5).

"But to as many as received Him He gave the power of becoming sons of GOD; to those who believe in His name." (John 1:12).

"For as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, many as they are, form one body (family), so also is it with Christ." (1 Corinthians 12:12).

"Therefore, you are now no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are citizens with the Saints and members of GOD's household: you are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief corner stone. In Him the whole structure is closely fitted together and grows into a temple holy in the Lord; in Him you too are being
built together into a dwelling place for GOD in the Spirit." (Ephesians 2:19-22).

"For in one Spirit we were all Baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether slaves or free; and we were all given to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many." (1 Corinthians 12:13-14).

"So we, the many, are one body in Christ, but severally members one of another." (Romans 12:5).

"That there may be no disunion in the body, but that the members may have care for one another. And if one member suffers anything, all members suffer with it, or of one member glories, all the members rejoice with it."
(1 Corinthians 12:25-26).

"...there will be joy among the angels of GOD over one sinner who repents."
(Luke 15:10).

"Rather are we to practice the truth in love, and to grow up in all things in Him who is the head, Christ." (Ephesians 4:15).

Christ is the head of the body, the family.

"For from the whole body (being closely joined and knit together through every joint of the system according to the functioning in due measure of each single part) derives its increase to the building up of itself in love." (Ephesians 4:16).

"Therefore, you are now no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are citizens with the saints and members of GOD's household; you are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone. In Him the whole structure is closely fitted together and grows into a temple holy in the Lord; in Him you too are being built together into a dwelling place for GOD in the Spirit." (Ephesians 3:19-22).

We are citizens in the family of GOD.

"Now you are the body of Christ, member for member." (1 Corinthians 3:27).

"Be you yourselves as living stones, built thereon into a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to GOD through Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 2:5).

"And GOD indeed has placed some in the Church, first Apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers; after that miracles, then gifts of healing, services of help, power of administration, and the speaking of various tongues. Are all Apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Do all have the gift of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?" (1 Corinthians 12:28-30).

Family members have different skills.

"And He Himself gave some men as Apostles, and some as prophets, others again as evangelists, and others as pastors and teachers, in order to perfect the saints for a work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ." (Ephesians 4:11-12).

"Now the multitude of the believers were of one heart and one soul, and not one of them said that anything he possessed was his own, but they all had things in common." (Acts 4:32).

"...one body and one Spirit, even as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one Baptism; one GOD and Father of all, who is above all, and throughout all, and in us all." (Ephesians 4:4-6, CCC 946-962).

Written by Bob Stanley, September 18, 1998
Updated June 11, 2001

The section regarding covenants is from a talk by Dr. Scott Hahn.

HOW CAN PEOPLE SAY THAT HOMOSEXUALITY ISN'T NATURAL

Many people define what's natural by whatever they feel. If they feel an attraction to something, then they assume it must be good and natural. That's our culture in a nutshell: If it feels good, do it. But, my attractions do not determine the morality of my actions. For example, a husband might be attracted to his secretary, but this "natural" feeing does not make it good to cheat on your wife.

I discussed the morality of homosexual actions in a different question, so let's just look at how "natural" the act is. When I use the term natural, I'm referring to the design that can be found within nature. For example, it's natural for a plant to live in sunlight.

If it's put in the closet, it will probably die, because that is not the natural environment in which it should live. When things are put in their natural place, and follow the design with which they're made, they thrive. When this natural law is violated, things go awry.

To see how this plays out in our sexuality, examine how a man's body works with a woman's in the sexual act.

First of all, consider that a man's body really doesn't make sense without a woman's body. The same goes for her. The two compliment each other. For example, the sperm and the egg serve no purpose in isolation from each other. Yet, everyone on the planet is here because of the union of the two.

To get more technical, a man's sperm is foreign to a woman's reproductive system, and the natural response of her body is to treat them as foreign bodies that should be fought off.

To do this, the woman's body would normally use lymphocytes to attack the foreign body in order to keep the womb healthy. But there's a substance in a man's sperm cells and semen that tell the woman's immune system to not attack.

Also, the alkaline nature of semen buffers and converts the acidic nature of the female reproductive tract, thus allowing the sperm to travel safely to the egg in order to fertilize it. Meanwhile during the marital act, the couple is face to face, and eye to eye.

MORE...

MORTAL SIN / QUICK QUESTIONS

Q:“ Since Judas's betrayal of Jesus likely was a grave sin, why did Jesus give him Communion at the Last Supper? Or had Judas left the table by that point?”

A: If Judas did receive Communion—as Scripture appears to indicate (Lk 22:19-23)—then there may be any number of reasons why Christ allowed it even though he had already been plotting Christ’s betrayal (Lk 22:3-4).

Two possibilities include: Christ may have hoped that the grace of Communion ultimately could save Judas’s soul. Judas did indeed feel remorse for what he did (Mt 27:3-4), although he chose the wrong means to demonstrate that remorse (Mt 27:5).

Or perhaps Christ respected Judas’s free will, just as he respects our free will, and so did not deny Judas Communion even though he apparently did not have faith that it was Christ’s body and blood (Jn 6:66-71).
—Michelle Arnold

Q:“ I receive the Eucharist every Sunday; however, should I do so if I have an unconfessed mortal sin on my conscience? A priest told me as long as I am actively trying to eliminate this sin from my life, the Eucharist is helpful, and I shouldn't deprive myself of the grace present in the Eucharist. He said if I stop trying to eliminate this sin, then don't present myself, but as long as I'm trying, don't deny the Eucharist to myself. Is this good advice?”

A: Three requirements must be met for sin to be mortal: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. Since you say that you are "actively trying to eliminate this sin" from your life, your priest may believe that your action lacks deliberate consent and, therefore, does not qualify as mortal sin. If this is the case, the Eucharist may benefit you greatly. On the other hand, if your sin is indeed mortal sin, then you should not receive the Eucharist without first going to confession.

The Code of Canon Law is clear that a person conscious of mortal sin may only receive the Eucharist under grave circumstances:

A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible. (CIC 916)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains, The Lord addresses an invitation to us, urging us to receive him in the sacrament of the Eucharist: "Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience:

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself."

Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of reconciliation before coming to Communion. (CCC 1384-1385)
I recommend that, after engaging in grave matter, you go to confession as soon as possible and then receive the Eucharist as often as possible. "By the same charity that it enkindles in us, the Eucharist preserves us from future mortal sins. The more we share the life of Christ and progress in his friendship, the more difficult it is to break away from him by mortal sin" (CCC 1395).
Jim Blackburn

Q:“ The Code of Canon Law states: "A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess" (CIC 916).


In this canon, what constitutes "grave reason" and what is understood as "no opportunity to confess"?”

A: The New Commentary on the Code of Cannon Law explains what may be considered "grave reason" and "no opportunity to confess":

Grave reasons for going to communion without confessing include danger of death and serious embarrassment if Communion is not taken. Lack of opportunity to confess includes absence of a confessor, inability to approach the confessor at a scheduled time for the sacrament, and the availability only of a confessor who is known personally and who cannot be approached without embarrassment. (1111)

Keep in mind that a person in such a situation must still make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible. Also, understand that "celebrate Mass" is what the priest does; a person who is conscious of grave sin but does not have "grave reason" and "no opportunity to confess" may still attend Mass—in fact, ordinary obligations to attend Mass remain—but must forego receiving the Eucharist.
Jim Blackburn

Q:“ I'm 15 years old. I recently confessed sins of masturbation and perverted thoughts. I have spoken to two priests from different parishes, and they gave me this answer: that because of my age, and because of "raging hormones," I should not worry about it. The Catechism says otherwise. Is masturbation truly a grave sin if you're 15 years old?”

A: Go with the Catechism. It represents what the Church actually teaches. Many teenagers with raging hormones remain chaste. It is quite possible. I suggest that you check out the Pure Love Web site:
Fr. Vincent Serpa

Q:“ Suppose someone committed a mortal sin (meeting all the conditions of grave matter, full knowledge, and free will) and later sincerely and fully repented of it. The person desired to go to confession as soon as possible to be reconciled with God but was killed in an accident before doing so. What would be the state of that person's soul? I know there's a "baptism of desire"; is there such a thing as a "reconciliation of desire"?”

A: In a sense, the Church does indeed recognize a "reconciliation of desire" — perfect contrition. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines contrition as "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again" (CCC 1451).

For contrition to forgive mortal sins it must arise out of our love of God. "When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called ‘perfect’ (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible" (CCC 1452).
Jim Blackburn

Q:“ It is my understanding that we should be cleansed of our sins before we receive the Eucharist because God cannot be in the presence of sin. What happens to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist if someone receives but has not repented or has not gone to confession? Does Christ cease to be present? If he remains present, what happens?”

A: Who says God cannot be in the presence of sin? One need only read Scripture to find Jesus in the presence of sin. Perhaps you’re confusing this notion with "nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21:27).

Receiving Christ in the Eucharist forgives venial sins. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains, "As bodily nourishment restores lost strength, so the Eucharist strengthens our charity, which tends to be weakened in daily life; and this living charity wipes away venial sins" (CCC 1394).

However, the reception of the Eucharist does not forgive mortal sins, so a person who is conscious of mortal sin must go to confession before receiving communion. The Code of Canon Law states,

A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to . . . receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible. (CIC 916)

When a person conscious of mortal sin receives the Eucharist without prior forgiveness he commits another mortal sin and only compounds his desperate situation. Paul tells us, "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27). The Church calls this sacrilege:

Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us. (CCC 2120)
Jim Blackburn

Q:“ I have heard two different things regarding the requirement for yearly confession. One person said that we need to go to confession once a year only if we have committed a mortal sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that one must confess serious sins at least once a year (CCC 1457). One can commit a serious sin without it being a mortal sin. So what is exactly is the requirement?”

A: The Catechism of the Catholic Church statement, "after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year" (CCC 1457), includes a footnote reference to the Code of Canon Law: "After having reached the age of discretion, each member of the faithful is obliged to confess faithfully his or her grave sins at least once a year" (CIC 989).

"Grave sins" here means "mortal sins" so, accordingly, "serious sins" in the Catechism are to be understood as mortal. Keep in mind that for a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be met: grave matter, full knowledge, and complete consent (cf. CCC 1857). A sin of grave matter which lacks either of the other conditions is not a mortal sin. In such a case the matter is grave but the sin is not. The Catechism explains, "One commits venial sin . . . when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent" (CCC 1862).
Jim Blackburn

Q:“ For a while I could not receive Communion as a decision had not yet been made regarding the validity of my previous marriage. I have since
wondered why the Church holds the worst sinners at arm's distance. Is the Eucharist truly the body and blood of Christ (who wants all sinners to come to him) or is it a "symbol" of our membership in this exclusive club called the Catholic Church?”

A: The Church doesn’t hold the worst sinners at arm’s distance: The sinners themselves do. The Church isn’t forcing them to sin. They are doing that quite on their own. The Church does not withhold the Lord’s compassion any more than he did. But he was only compassionate with those who were repentant, and then he warned them not to engage in such activity again.

When you were waiting for an annulment, you could have received Holy Communion if you were not having marital relations with someone with whom you were not validly married. Perhaps you didn’t know that to do so is a grave sin. One cannot profess one’s unconditional love for the Lord while at the same time engaging in sinful activity. The Church wasn’t holding you at arm’s distance. You could have gone to confession and determined to live as brother and sister until you were validly married—and then received Holy Communion. Many do. Unfortunately, priests often fail to tell people this.
Fr. Vincent Serpa

Q:“ Why is skipping Mass such a grievous sin as opposed to murder, which directly harms the life of another person? Skipping Mass affects no one but myself and God.”

A: "Skipping Mass affects no one but myself and God." And God? Since when are human persons more important than God?

There is an infinite difference between measuring God by our standards and measuring ourselves by his. We have to start with God when we look at everything. Since he came first, he comes first. He is not just a bigger version of us. He has commanded us to "Keep holy the Lord’s day," and he has a right to demand this of us. Anything of value in our lives (including human life) has value only because of his infinitely greater value. But Mass is not just a matter of acknowledging his sovereignty, which is what worship is. It is being present at the foot of the cross and giving thanks for the Passion and death that he endured for our benefit.

He loves us so much that he underwent all that suffering to demonstrate his love for us in a way we could somewhat understand. To skip Mass is one of many ways of turning our backs on that love.
Fr. Vincent Serpa

Q:“ What are the standards in regards to the faithful choosing one priest to hear their confession over another? If a person goes to confession, but deliberately does not confess a sin by choice because of fear or anxiety, what should he do? On a similar note, if a person fails to confess a grave sin by accident, what should he do?”

A: People are allowed to avoid any confessor for any personal reason—including the embarrassment over a particular sin. No one is obliged to confess face to face. One is free to go to any parish he chooses for confession.

If one deliberately chooses to withhold a mortal sin in confession, that in itself is a further mortal sin and the whole confession is invalid. If the Lord could suffer such agony on Good Friday to forgive our sins, the least we can do is humbly and honestly confess them. If one forgets to confess a mortal sin, that sin is still forgiven in confession, but the person is required to mention it the next time he goes to confession as an act of sorrow and contrition. It’s the least we can do in the face of God’s love for us.
Fr. Vincent Serpa

1 2 3 4 5 Last »»

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PSYCHOLOGY AND CATHOLICISM

Classical Freudian psychoanalysis is atheistic, and so is most psychotherapy today. Even though the brilliant French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan had some familiarity with Catholicism, religion has no part in his psychoanalysis either. But Lacan can teach Catholics much about psychology.

Jacques Lacan

To put it in a nutshell, Lacanian analysis ultimately shows you that all your identifications with the world are just empty illusions. So you start analysis with your identity like a precious porcelain vase, and you end the analysis as a naked man sitting alone in a pile of broken pottery. So that’s life, you learn, just a pile of illusions. “Go make something of it anyway,” you’re told.

So what does this have to do with Catholicism? Well, read Saint John of the Cross and you will find that his description of spiritual purgation is, in its practical effects, quite a bit like Lacan’s philosophy.

The difference between the two, of course, is Christ. Christ begins where Lacan ends. Lacan leaves us with the stark, bare psychological truth of our broken lives. Christ—and only Christ—can heal the brokenness. And in that gap between Lacan and Christ is precisely where I locate the relation between psychology and religion.

Juan de la Cruz

Psychology cannot heal us, but it can help us recognize just how broken we really are, and it can help us overcome our resistance to total surrender to Christ. Once we make that surrender, our healing begins. And that is precisely what Saint John of the Cross told us.

Stopping Self-fulfilling Prophecies

1. Begin by accepting the fact that, when you were a child, others inflicted their own internal unconscious conflicts on you and that you were not to blame for their hostility.

2. Then you can stop believing that you “deserved it.”

3. Then you can stop hating. You can stop hating others for being so mean to you; you can do this by having compassion for their suffering in their own unhealed emotional pain, and you can forgive them for their blindness and failures. And you can stop hating yourself for being unable to fix things.

4. Then you can stop letting your own emotional resentments unconsciously contribute to the emotional chaos of the world around you. You can say, “From now on, I will do everything I can to seek to understand others, to seek their good, and to help them heal from their emotional pain.”

5. Then you can stop unconsciously wishing to punish yourself.

I DO NOT EXIST....

Satan Does Exist,
Whether You Choose To Believe It Or Not...

And He Is Patiently Waiting To Grab Us All...

Believe it or not, some churches really do teach that satan does not exist. I personally, have had contact with one that teaches this cruelest of all lies. This teaching is right up his alley as he would like us all to think he does not exist. Just think how much easier his job becomes if he can get people to believe it. I cannot imagine how anyone can ignore the fact that such evil does exist.


In order for anyone to teach this blatant heresy, they have to deny many Bible verses, thus by doing so, they call GOD a liar. Here are just a few examples...


But He said to them, "I was watching Satan fall as lightning from heaven." Luke 10:18


Now Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan, and was led by the Spirit about the desert for forty days, being tempted the while by the devil. Luke 4:1-2


And the Lord said, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat." Luke 22:31


But Satan entered into Judas, surnamed Iscariot, one of the twelve. Luke 22:3


But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan tempted thy heart, that thou should lie to the Holy Spirit and by fraud keep back part of the price of the land?" Acts 5:3


Satan is mentioned by that name about 50 times in Holy Scripture, but yet, he has many more names also...

Satan, names of:
Abaddon (place of destruction)......Rev 9:11
Accuser........................................Rev 12:10
Adversary....................................1Pet 5:8
Ancient Serpent............................Rev 20:2
Angel of Light...............................2Cor 11:14
Angel of the Abyss.........................Rev 9:11
Angel of the Bottomless Pit............Rev 9:11
Angel(s) that Sinned......................2Pet 2:4
Apollyon (destroyer).....................Rev 9:11
Asmodeus.....................................Tob 3:8,17
Beelzebub.....................................Lk 11:15
Belial/Beliar.................................2Cor 6:15
Crafty One...................................Sir 11:29
Destroyer.....................................Wis 18:25, 1Cor 10:10
Devil...........................................Rev 12:12
Dragon........................................Rev 20:2
Evil Spirit from the Lord...............1Sam 16:14
Father of Lies..............................Jn 8:44
God of this World.........................2Cor 4:4
King............................................Rev 9:11
Lucifer........................................Isa 14:12, Rev 9:1-2
Lying Spirit.................................1King 22:22
Murderer....................................Jn 8:44
Power of Darkness.......................Lk 22:53, Col 1:13
Prince of Devils...........................Mt 12:24
Prince of the Power of the Air......Eph 2:2
Prince of the Spirit......................Eph 2:2
Prince of this World.....................Jn 12:31,14:30,16:11
Roaring Lion...............................1Pet 5:8
Ruler of Darkness.........................Eph 6:12
Satan...........................................Lk 10:18, Rev 12:9,20:2
Sinner..........................................1Jn 3:8
Star that fell from Heaven.............Rev 9:1
The Beast.....................................Rev 20:4
The Destroyer..............................1Cor 10:10
The Devil.....................................Rev 12:9,20:2
The Enemy...................................Mt 13:28
The Evil One................................1Jn 5:18
The Red Dragon...........................Rev 12:3,9
The Serpent..................................Gen 3:1, 2Cor 11:3, Rev 12:9
The Spirit of Error.......................1Jn 4:6
The Tempter.................................1Thes 3:5
The Wicked One............................Mt 13:19, 1Jn 2:13

Satan, the master imitator of Christ:
The greatest imitator of Jesus Christ is a spiritual being called Lucifer or Satan (Rev. 12:9).


Examine the evidence:


1. Jesus is the "King of Kings": Rev 19:16.
Satan is "king over all the children of pride": Job 41:25.


2. Jesus is the "Angel of the Lord": Gal 4:14.
Satan appears as an "Angel of Light": 2Cor 11:11-14.


3. "God is light," and in Him there is no darkness: 1Jn 1:5.
Satan appears as an "Angel of light": 2Cor 11:14.


4. Jesus is "God manifest in the flesh": 1Tim 3:16.
Satan is the "god" of this world: 2Cor 4:4.


5. Christ has a bride, who is a city: Rev 21:9.
Satan has a bride, who is a city: Rev 17:1-9.


6. Jesus cites the scripture in conflict: Lk 4:1-8.
Satan cites the scripture in conflict: Lk 4:10.


7. Christ preached 42 months: 3 passovers-Lk 3:23, Jn 2:13,5:1,6:4,12:1.
The Beast preached 42 months: Rev 13:5.


8. Christ means Anointed, Christos, Messiah: Act 4:26, Psa 2:2.
Satan is "anointed" as a "christ": Mt 24:5.


9. God desires worship: Jn 4:23-26.
Satan desires worship: Mt 4:8-10.


10. GOD's Church is the House of GOD: Isa 2:3, Heb 10:21
Satan's church is the Synagogue of Satan: Rev 2:9,3:9


11. The Holy Spirit is of the Lord: 1Sam 16:14
The evil spirit from the Lord: 1Sam 16:14


Satan, attributes of (or lack of):


A. He is a "created" creature... This fact is stated twice in the context of Ezekiel's lament Ez 28:13,15. As a creature, created by God, Satan is limited in his operation and ability.


1. Satan is not omniscient. He is limited with regard to wisdom. Satan knows only what God permits him to know.
2. Satan is not omnipresent. He is limited with regard to location. He can function only in the places where God permits.
3. Satan is not omnipotent. He is limited with regard to authority. He has no more power and authority than God allows.
4. Satan is not eternal. He is limited with regard to creation. His longevity is God's provision for His own purposes in grace.
5. Satan is not just. Because of his determined self-centeredness, he is limited with regard to fairness. He will never judge fairly.


B. He was "perfect in beauty"... Ez 28:12 He was not the foolish character ridiculed today, with humanistic tendencies and weaknesses.


C. He was the "anointed" cherub... Satan is not human, he is of the created order of angels, "Cherubim", Ez 1:4-25,10:1-22. As a created creature, he is responsible to serve God.


D. He was "without iniquity"... He was "...perfect in his ways" until he exercised his will contrary to God's will. He chose iniquity, therefore, he is responsible for the consequences.


E. He was created to serve God... Satan was appointed by God to a position at His eternal throne, rule, and government, Isa 2:2,14:13, Joel 3:17. In his rebellion against God, he lost that privilege forever. Concerning Satan's origin, remember, "all things including Satan (as an angel) were created by the Lord Jesus Christ, and for Him..." Col 1:16

Compiled by Bob Stanley, September 9, 1999
Updated May 23, 2000

PURGATORY

Church Fathers

Purgatory is one of the most misunderstood doctrines of the Church, and Catholic apologists should always be prepared to explain and defend the teaching. In virtually all cases it will be necessary to explain what the doctrine of purgatory actually is – as very few non-Catholics truly understand the teaching. The importance of explaining the Catholic teaching on a particular matter is always great, but never more so than with purgatory.

Oh, I believe in THAT!

One of the most significant and important facts about the doctrine of purgatory is that a lot of non-Catholics actually hold to a belief which – when examined – is identical or compatible with the Catholic Church's teaching on purgatory. A number of prominent non-Catholics have also held to beliefs which, when examined, are entirely compatible with the genuine doctrine of purgatory as held by the Church.

But II Maccabees isn't canon!

The staunchest defense of the doctrine of purgatory is found in II Maccabees 12:44-46 where prayers are offered for the dead (and even a collection is taken up to pay for a temple service). Many non-Catholics, however, will reject this Scripture because they do not think it is canon – the Catholic apologist must first show that this book of the Bible is, in fact, canonical .

Other Scriptural support

II Maccabees is not the only book of the Bible that supports the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. It is made very clear in multiple verses that we are to be perfect in order to get into Heaven – Jesus tells us to be perfect in Matthew 5:48 , and Hebrews 12:14 and Revelation 21:27 make it clear that “nothing unclean shall enter Heaven”. James 3:2 makes it clear that we have all sinned, and so that we cannot be considered “perfect”. How, therefore, can we ever see Heaven?

I John 5:16-17 distinguishes between mortal and venial sin , and James 1:14-15 says that “mature” sin leads to death. But what about the sins which do not cause death? Or sins which are forgiven? How are we to be made perfect in order to enter Heaven if we have these lesser sins on our souls?

II Samuel makes it clear that David was punished for sin even though he had been forgiven – a temporal punishment remained which had to be paid. Matthew 5:26 describes how people will not be released “until they have paid the last penny”, and in Matthew 12:36 people will account for every idle word on judgment day. Does “account” mean that it will simply be looked at, we will be judged to be imperfect, but let into Heaven anyway?

I Corinthians 3:15 answers this very clearly for us – this says that we will suffer loss (of our sinfulness) but we will be saved – as through fire. This is purgatory – the idea that our sinfulness will be burnt away and we will be made pure.

Matthew 12:32 says that sins against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this age or the next; what is this next age where sins can be forgiven? Sins are not forgiven in Hell, and do not need to be forgiven in Heaven (as everyone there is perfect) – so there must be a third place where sins can be forgiven. Obviously, a sin against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven as it is so serious – it is clearly a mortal sin .

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 the rich man has compassion for his brothers and is in a place of torment; there is no torment in Heaven and there is no compassion in Hell. This man must be in purgatory – or Jesus is telling a parable which gives us inaccurate information about Heaven or Hell.

Finally, we see that Paul prays for his dead friend in II Timothy 1:16-18 – why would he pray for him if he were in Heaven or Hell? What good would his prayers do? His prayers only make sense if there is purgatory.

Indulgences & Confession

The doctrine of purgatory is intimately connected with the teaching on indulgences and confession- a Catholic apologist should consult the relevant articles.

ATHEISM AND MEANING

Religious belief has traditionally provided human beings with a reason to think that their individual lives have a purpose, and that the existence of humanity as such has a purpose. Atheism, on the contrary, has generally taught that both individual human beings and (eventually) humanity as a whole have no purpose in the universe, and that they will be definitively annihilated in the course of time (human beings after their short spans of life, humanity - at latest - when the earth finally becomes uninhabitable). In the light of this prima facie deeply depressing prospect, the question of life's meaning or purpose within atheism has posed a peculiarly difficult challenge to atheists since the origins of modern atheism in the seventeenth century.

Religious believers have traditionally not been slow to point out that atheism must lead to despair, since it deprives humans of the hope that injustices in this life will be corrected in the next, and frustrates what would appear to be their natural desire to live forever. It also frustrates humans' hope that reality is fundamentally good rather than bad or indifferent with respect to them, and deprives them of any genuine motivation to act in the world.

To these objections atheists have firstly generally responded (quite reasonably) that even if all this were true, these unfortunate consequences would not disprove atheism. However, atheists have differed significantly on the further question of whether it is actually true that these consequences would indeed follow as alleged by their religious objectors.

Some atheists have taken a relatively upbeat attitude to the consequences for meaning and purpose of atheist beliefs. The eighteenth century atheist La Mettrie, for example, proposed that the fear of death arose only from the religious belief in afterlife punishments, and claimed that thoroughly discrediting this idea would free human beings of an exaggerated anxiety about death.[1] Many atheists have also appealed to the (ultimately Epicurean) argument that death has no significance for human beings, since by definition they cannot be there to experience it. D'Holbach, for example, stressed that for these reasons death should not be a cause for anxiety.[2]

There are numerous contemporary defenders of this position. The philosophical atheist Michael Martin, for example, may also be said to share this relative optimism. Martin points out that human beings find individual projects intrinsically meaningful regardless of whether their lives as a whole are meaningful (which the atheist must admit they are not).

Similarly evidence that the sum total of human achievement will be annihilated in the heat death of the universe, as is supposed to be highly probable on current physical predictions, does not make present human cultural achievements meaningless for us now. For so long as we are here they are meaningful. Martin appeals to the fact that there are happy and fulfilled atheists as evidence for this.

Adopting a detached 'God's eye' view on things from where the sum of human activity can be seen to be meaningless is just one perspective humans can take up towards things, but humans are not obliged to adopt this perspective rather than the ordinary (meaningful) one, and they therefore need not become despondent.[3]

However, it is probably fair to say that it has generally been admitted among the majority of thinking atheists that the fear of annihilation could not be so easily set aside. Claude-Adrien Helvetius (1715-1771) and Denis Diderot (1713-84) admitted that the consequences of a consistent atheism were depressing, and they sought comfort in ersatz forms of survival, such as species survival. Diderot, for example, affirmed that the individual perishes, but the species has no end.[4]

One might include Marxist 'scientific atheism', Social Darwinism and reformist secular humanism of a Dawkinsian sort as forms of atheism that attempt to address the problem of meaninglessness by promoting faith in an ersatz form of survival. That is, in the two former cases, species survival and its progressive perfection, albeit to be achieved in quite different ways. In the latter case, the progressive improvement of the human condition would be achieved through the weakening of the influence of religion.

But many atheists - particularly those most preoccupied with the consequences of atheistic belief for individuals as opposed to societies - regarded appeals to such survival substitutes as ultimately a form of self- deception, and sought other solutions to the problem. Étienne de Senancour (1770-1846), for example, regarded the only solution to the problem of mortality in healing humans from the 'illness' of wishing for immortality. According to Senancour, one can only suppress this fear by applying all one's energy to the present life.[5]

De Sade took this idea of immersion in the immediacy of present life a step further. Dismissing the wish for immortality as a contemptible urge, he advocated complete absorption in sensuality, the repeated pleasure of sex, inflicting suffering and even death, as a means of extinguishing the fear of mortality through forgetfulness in the fullness of the senses.[6]

Nietzsche, like De Sade, also suggests a fundamental affirmation of the natural urges (the 'will to power') against Christian 'slave' morality as the proper response to the question of meaning. Nietzsche's affirmation of power and its exercise by the (by our standards) amoral superman creates meaning where it is not previously given. Similarly, existentialists such as Sartre in the twentieth century affirm that human beings find themselves in a meaningless ('absurd') world and need to create meaning and purpose in their lives in absolute freedom, since there is no pre-existent meaning or purpose to life.

Still more depressingly, perhaps, other atheists sought to extinguish the fear of annihilation by stressing the generally miserable nature of human existence and thus encouraging detachment from life and even hopeful anticipation of death as a long awaited rest from the burden of living.

Nicolas de Chamfort (1741-1794), for example, described life as an illness, for which death was the 'medication'. According to this particular eighteenth century atheist, life was a prolonged agony from which death could liberate those unfortunate enough to have been born. Chamford himself acted on his beliefs by finally committing suicide.[7] Nor was Chamford a lone voice: in other respects optimistic atheists such as Diderot, Charles Pinot Duclos (1704-72) and Helvetius also in certain moments stressed the virtues of contemplating the relative wretchedness of existence in order to lessen the fear of annihilation.[8]

In the despairing individualist atheism of Schopenhauer, Stirner and von Hartmann this strategy is taken a step further. Schopenhauer unequivocally describes the wretched nature of human existence and places his hope in the will to annihilation. It would have been better if human beings had never been born, but given that they have come into existence suicide remains a legitimate (or perhaps even desirable) option. In Hartmann's Philosophy of the Unconscious (1869) his profoundly dispiriting atheistic philosophy finishes with a call for the collective suicide of humanity. In his The Self-Destruction of Chrisitanity and the Religion of the Future (1874), Hartman predicts that humanity will come to a collective realisation of the futility of their atheistic fate, and choose to bring about their collective annihilation.[9] As Minois notes, in certain respects these forms of atheism can be regarded as the most complete atheisms, since they allow for no God replacements: nation, race, progress, democracy, etc. Existence is looked in the face and is judged futile.[10]

In the twentieth century the celebrated British atheist Bertrand Russell would also draw something like these depressing conclusions, as does the contemporary atheistic writer John Gray in his influential (and disturbing) Straw Dogs (2002).[11] Up until the present the New Atheists have not engaged at any length with these issues, although it is to be expected that a fuller discussion concerning meaning and purpose will eventually be forthcoming as the controversies develop.

References
Gray, John. Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals. London: Granta Books, 2002.
Martin, Michael. Atheism : A Philosophical Justification. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990.
Minois, Georges. Histoire de L'atheisme. La Fleche: Fayard, 1998.

Bibliography

Footnotes

[1]↑Georges Minois, Histoire de L'atheisme (La Fleche: Fayard, 1998), 371.
[2]↑ Ibid., 369.
[3]↑ See Michael Martin, Atheism : A Philosophical Justification (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990), 13-23.
[4]↑ Cited in Minois, Histoire, 363.
[5]↑ Ibid., 364.
[6]↑ Ibid., 365.
[7]↑ Ibid., 369.
[8]↑ Ibid., 370.
[9]↑ Ibid., 508.
[10]↑ Ibid.
[11]↑ John Gray, Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals (London: Granta Books, 2002).

LOSING CONTROL GRACEFULLY

A Study of St. Antony's Entombment
by Robert W. Englert

Saint Antony of Egypt
Fra Angelico, Saint Anthony the Abbot tempted by a Lump of Gold
(a.k.a. St. Antony the Great, Saint Antony the Abbott, St. Antony of the Desert))
Image courtesy of ChristusRex

The asceticism of the fourth-century hermit St. Antony of Egypt and the account of his entombment speak to contemporary concern about human control and national security.

IF we are to write of temptation, we must say something of Antony, the Coptic ascetic whose exploits have beguiled Westerners for centuries. Antony's reputation was immortalized by the pen of St. Athanasius, who bequeathed the legendary fellow to Augustine and Jerome. Athanasius's Life of Antony thus furnished a tale of heroic asceticism which others drew upon for centuries.

Later Hieronymous Bosch immortalized Antony's temptations in oil and Gustave Flaubert dramatized his plight in La Tentation de S. Antoine. Always, Antony was portrayed as a Christian Prometheus whose ascetic regimen dazzled the imagination.

The saint lived in Egypt in that great period of seclusion and retreat which accompanied the Roman persecutions. His admirers constantly recall his acumen as an accomplished ascetic, and his bouts with demons are legendary. Athanasius wrote that Antony was physically beaten by demons whose bizarre efforts failed to ruffle his stoic countenance.

Still this solitary figure was not a person unfamiliar with frailty. As much as Athanasius tried to create a hero, his pen did not disguise the agony of a human being, whose temptations all but killed him. If Antony was courageous, he was not unfamiliar with pain, discouragement, and imminent death. In a word, he experienced the full anxiety of being human.

In a most exciting narrative, Athanasius wrote of Antony's encountering sensuous visitors in the night and wrestling with hordes of beasts who violated his repose. Bishop Athanasius thus created an excitement that would fertilize the imaginations of artists for centuries to come. It was a tale of bizarre seduction and spiritual warfare. Such a conflict moved the imaginations of persons like Bosch and Flaubert centuries after Athanasius had written.

In a description such as this, it is difficult to capture the essence of Athanasius's hero. Still, there is one symbolic event which does afford us a clear view of Antony's asceticism. Like those other anchorites and solitaries who would seclude themselves totally from the world for centuries to come, Antony was led by the spirit to "seal himself in a tomb," where, undisturbed, he might pray constantly. He thus embraced the tradition of the hermit, so common to history and so foreign to contemporary understanding.

Like the great Julian of Norwich and our contemporary Thomas Merton, Antony chose to seclude himself in order to attend only to God's love. Thus Athanasius tells us that Antony "sealed himself' in a desert tomb to pray undisturbed, except for occasional deliveries of food. Subsequently Athanasius relates a strange tale of demonic visitation, and we learn that Antony is beaten unconscious by a horde of demons. In a tragic narrative, Bishop Athanasius relates that Antony is found by friends in a comatose state and is carried to a church for a midnight vigil that strongly resembled a wake.

If we can suspend our modern need to wonder about the presence of demons in anyone's life, there is much to be discovered in Athanasius's account. In his account, we soon notice that the hero who began to pray unceasingly found that he could not pray at all. His place of prayer became, in fact, a place of annihilation, and his desire for God was all but extinguished. Unlike those titans who stood against the foe, Antony was banished to sleep with the dead.

Now, if we read further in Athanasius's tale, we discover even greater mysteries. After some hours of "death," Antony "awoke" to return again to his hermitage, greatly strengthened by Jesus! We might say that he had "risen" from helplessness to a life which surpassed ascetical expectations. Here, in Athanasius's description, we discover a new Antony, revitalized by the powers of the risen Christ. In a dramatic fashion, this Antony now repels the onslaught of demons with his new found strength!

LOSING CONTROL

What sense are we to make of this tale which proffers such mythology, leaving us moderns without a ready sense of reference? Now it is only by returning to the great myths that Antony's passage from death to life is rendered comprehensible. Such myths always tell us of sudden rebirths which we are unable to predict with the most practiced eye. Like Aeneas, Dante, and Jesus himself, Antony endured the bowels of the earth before being surprised by unparalleled joy. He lost control of his life before it was returned to him with abundance. Before coming alive, he first did what all mortal heroes hate to do -- he lost control of his fate.

Such losing control is the very stuff of Christian existence -- it is the "falling into the earth" that Jesus described, the diminishment prior to wholeness. Because it represents a coming apart or a disintegration, we mistakenly view it as a terminal point, a point of extinction. We forget that, at some point, losing control allowed us to speak fluently, to walk without effort, to kiss without awkwardness, to speak the truth without fear. All these positive experiences of losing control are forgotten by those forces in us which fear such loss.

Antony's experience in the tomb is thus clearly intended by Athanasius to parallel the experience of him whose diminishment and resurrection inspire the history of the West. What is so clear to us is that Athanasius has fashioned, not a stoic, but a resilient lover who follows the rhythm of life and death. The experience of losing control is thus placed in a favorable light in Western tradition. It is an experience exemplified by Jesus who passed through death to eternal life on behalf of us all. He "let go of everything" in the most graceful fashion in order "to gain everything."

Now Jesus and Antony (his follower) both lost control of their fate. Neither was certain of anything, including the duration of his life. Both were subject to diminishment, pain, uncertainty, and the threat of annihilation.

Yet both trusted the rhythm of life; both trusted themselves to life's process of diminishment and growth. In some way, both also trusted themselves, or they never would have survived the ordeal of entombment. They never could have gone into the earth with such trust. If they believed in God, they also believed in their ability to survive the earth's rigors.

Entombment is a process over which the human person has little control. Once the tomb is sealed, there is little hope of returning under our own power. Moreover, there is no way to avoid whatever terror ensues within. The tomb is thus an ultimate horror of claustration, from which there is no exit. The notion of voluntary entombment thus becomes a statement of the most total trust.

For Antony, it entailed the trust that God would deliver him from every evil. Such a trust reached its apex when Antony allowed the tomb to close around him. For each of us, trust is only complete when the tomb does close around us. Moreover, it is because the tomb must someday close, that every other act of trust in some way anticipates this one.

The finality of Antony's enclosure was not lessened by the periodic deliveries of food, which a friend tendered. For all purposes, Antony had severed connections with the familiar world and entered the realm of unknown forces, over which he had no dominion. In entering the earth, Antony opened himself to the onslaught of the unconscious without recourse to escape.

The lesson of entombment is direct enough. Holiness entails a complete abandonment to divine providence! It involves a total trust in God which our fear of extinction finds repugnant.

Today we must admit that no generation has ever experienced itself to be more "in control" of nature than ours. Thus we have great difficulty with figures who "lose control" of their destiny. The gesture of voluntary entombment is a strange one in an age that seeks to avoid death by producing life-support systems, armaments, and fall-out shelters. Entombment is the polar opposite of control. It is a vulnerable gesture which exposes itself to life's rhythm rather than hording our resources to avoid diminishment. In a sense, the attitude of the anchorite rejects the ersatz control of the systems analyst. It says that there is no security in ultimate design, no wisdom in ultimate planning. If systems are to serve us, they must assist us to lose control gracefully.

If we are to be grounded in anything, Athanasius tells us that it is in Christ rather than in our own designs. Deftly he associates Pauline teaching with Antony's vulnerability. Antony is heard to exclaim again and again: "It is not I who live, but Christ who lives in me." This is the Christ who lives through dying. Antony is thus grounded in a wonderful love which rejects mortal fear in quest of a constant joy. Such a joy arises when mastery and power are no longer one's primary concern.

REJECTING FEAR

Going into the tomb thus rejects the need "to protect ourselves." It involves the choice of a dark void, free of any program to deter demons, real or imaginary. In Castañeda's now famous expression, the anchorite "stops the world" with a refusal to endorse its fear of losing control. Asceticism is thus a refusal to accept fear as the final state of our being. It is the deliberate choice to live without those fears which afford a certain security by offering us an obsession that is at least familiar. The refusal to fear is the rejection of the lie that we are at our best when groveling in a familiar baseness.

Although written in the fourth century, Athanasius's account of the ascetic ordeal of Antony with its voluntary entombment reminds us that fear is not our truest companion. It tells us that asceticism and anxiety are at odds. As the Johannine author suggested, "love casts out fear" and it impels us to enter the earth as Jesus did. Neurosis is thus the antithesis of resurrection, and basic human angst pales before the risk-taking attitude of anchorites.

The Christian is not to be "insecure" but to live without security -- or to discover a treasure that cannot be priced. Here in the tale of the anchorite we discover the imagination of the "reign of God" which defies the subtleties of discouragement and despair. The Christian thus lives beyond the world's understanding and meets demons that the world would avoid through routines of unimaginative compromise.

Now nations treasure security over insecurity even when this security emerges from systems of terror. On the contrary, the anchorite embraces weakness as the way through which he or she is touched by a dawning compassion. Such persons choose diminishment rather than control.

All of us fear the cross of diminishment. We want to know how things will turn out -- and we simply cannot abide the prospect of placing the future in God's hands. The example of the "birds of the air" eludes our sensibilities.

On the contrary, the anchorite does not know where the spirit-wind will blow. He or she has no assurances, no guarantees of the future. Even the consolation of "being righteous" is foreign to entombment, since it promises one a security that the loneliness of the tomb shakes to its core.

The tomb isolates us from all that is familiar, forcing us toward the unfamiliar in a most stark manner. It is in the unfamiliar land that our fears grow, in the desert that our demons emerge. Still it is toward the alien, unfamiliar desert that the Spirit leads us. We are thus asked to trust what had been alien, to "pass over" into a new experience of being reconciled to what was "foreign." The "foreign" is thus essential to our experience of wholeness.

TRANSCENDING NEEDS

Now the anchoritic journey is largely such a "passing over into alien lands," a pilgrimage into the "unknown" or "unfamiliar." It is the unfamiliar, elusive presence that we really seek after to fill out our life, and we cannot have its fullness if we bind ourselves to familiar paths. The experience of the cross is thus an experience of passing over, of transcending "needs" in quest of hidden "values" that are apparently "alien."

What begins as a burial in the earth thus becomes a passing over to new birth. It is a rebirth because it involves reconciliation with our unknown origins. The fullness of the anchorite is not a denial but a reconciliation with the unfamiliar. It is a matter of meeting strangers and lepers, the poor and unwanted, the unknown, "sinful" parts of ourselves. The anchorite thus forsakes the familiar because it is in the stranger that we rediscover our own lost possibility and our God.

The final attitude of the anchorite thus becomes an attitude of full trust. A once distant mystery is then able to become the light which illumines the tomb, and the emptiness of the earth is altered by joys that could not be anticipated. What was begun as a task of foreboding denial thus comes to be an experience of wonderful joy. After an onslaught of demons, it is not surprising that Antony is greeted by a dazzling light!

Dr. Englert is a graduate of Fordham University. He is a teacher and therapist in New York City, where he is chairperson of the religion department of Malloy St. Ann's School. His articles have appeared in Review for Religious, Contemplative Review, and Spiritual Life.