Brothers in Arms, Part 3

Seeing humanity through the eyes of the angels

01/29/2024

When man was formed form the “dust of the ground” (Gn 2:7), he did not stand erect in a peaceful Paradise, contrary to popular belief. Rather, he found himself on a spiritual Mason-Dixon Line with an angelic civil war raging all around him. Man woke up to war. In a sense, “north” of this cosmic Mason-Dixon Line were ranged the faithful angels, much like the Union Army, fighting for man’s eternal freedom. To the spiritual “south” of this Line stood the fallen angels, like Confederate soldiers, seeking to chain mankind in eternal servitude. Think of humanity as African Americans whose fate hangs in the balance. Scott Hahn concisely characterized this bellicose scene: “Since the time of the primordial fall, humanity has been beset by evil spiritual forces and defended by good spiritual forces. We call this struggle ‘spiritual warfare’” (Angels and Saints, 76-77). With the coming of Christ, however, everything changed, not only in terms of this spiritual combat, but also in the very fabric of the cosmos.

This major turning point in the angelic civil war – the coming of Christ – might be compared to the Battle of Gettysburg, which historians generally consider when the tide turned in favor of the North. Christ’s arrival on earth, in other words, caused a decisive shift in the behavior of angels toward men, as well as gave them a deeper insight into their own angelic self-understanding. How so? Well, as we already observed, the Incarnation, and especially the Ascension of Christ (where Jesus is seated in glory at God's right hand), wrought a profound and permanent role reversal in the chain of being. When God humbled himself and became man he simultaneously raised man to the heights of divinity. That is, man who had originally ranked lower than the angels in the chain of being, now thanks to Christ was raised above the angels, even the eternally burning Seraphim.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes St. Athanasius’ remarkable statement from the fourth century: “For the Son of God became man so that we [men] might become God” (no. 460). He was expanding on St. Peter’s audacious claim that we have “become partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pt 1:4). Did you catch that: man becomes God! Returning to our analogy of the Civil War, we might compare this change in human status vis-à-vis the angels to Abraham Lincoln not only freeing the slaves but making Frederick Douglas – whom you will remember was not only a freed slave, but also brilliant author and distinguished orator – his vice president! As a consequence, the angels were henceforth sworn to protect and serve redeemed humanity for two reasons. First, because it was morally mandated for them to do so, like Union soldiers protected African Americans during the Civil War. But second, because it was ontologically obligatory for them to do so because the Vice President is a Union soldier’s superior. This dramatic shift from being simple slaves to being elevated to the vice presidency explains the marked difference in the angels’ attitude toward humanity from the Old to the New Testament.

No angel had a better front row seat to behold both the “beforemath” and “aftermath” of this turning point in the war than the Archangel Gabriel. Why? Well, in Luke 1 we learn how Gabriel stands, in a sense, with one angelic foot in the Old Testament and the other foot in the New Testament. Even though the Gospel of Luke is clearly a New Testament book, we find in chapter one two people living in two different worlds, and Gabriel visits both of them. One person is the priest Zechariah (cf., Lk 1:5), who, although a Levitical priest, is still shackled in the chains of original sin. He is the quintessential man of the Old Testament. Gabriel deals with him gruffly as a Union soldier might interact with a southern slave. Mary, on the other hand, is a virgin (cf., Lk 1:27) who has been immaculately conceived, and therefore, without any sin thanks to the prevenient grace of Christ. Think of prevenient grace like retroactive grace. That is, Jesus – because he is God and man – can apply the graces of his Cross to people earlier in time, just like he applies it to us later in time. And of course any good son would apply that grace first and foremost to his mother. I know I would, and so would you. Hence, if Zechariah is the epitome of the Old Testament, then Mary stands as the paragon of the New Testament, already redeemed by Christ. Mary is not only a freed slave, she has been chosen as Christ’s vice president. That elevation creates a sharp difference in how Gabriel, a humble Union soldier, must approach her.

Now that we know what’s happening under the surface, let’s step back and survey the entire scene. What first catches the eye of the attentive reader is how Gabriel reacts when both Zechariah and Mary question him. The priest and the virgin both ask reasonable questions when Gabriel announces the births of their sons, John the Baptist and Jesus. Zechariah inquires is Lk 1:18, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.” Mary, for her part, wonders similarly in Lk 1:34, “How will this be, since I do not know man?” Those are eminently rational questions because in both cases only a miracle could overcome such childlessness. One suffered from advanced age, the other from virginity. And what makes Gabriel’s attitude even more astonishing is that Zachariah was offering incense as a priest in the temple (cf., Lk 1:9), and thus practically standing on the top rung of the Jewish social ladder. Mary, on the other hand, an unmarried virgin isn’t even on the ladder. But the archangel’s response to each is not only wildly disproportionate but also highly instructive. Gabriel admonishes Zechariah declaring his sentence: “And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things come to pass” (Lk 1:20). Whereas, with Mary, Gabriel demures and quickly explains how the miracle will occur: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (Lk 1:35). He punishes the priest, and he is humble before “the handmaid of the Lord” (Lk 1:38).

What does this archangelic attitude toward these two characters teach us? First of all, Gabriel’s attitude toward Mary demonstrates that she is in a league all by herself. We see all the power, beauty, holiness, and humility that God’s grace can bestow all poured out upon the Blessed Virgin Mary. This superabundance of grace in Mary – remember Gabriel first saluted her saying, “Hail, full of grace” (Lk 1:28) – is why William Wordsworth called her “Our tainted nature’s solitary boast.” But secondly, Gabriel also indicates our possible future glory, that is, we are to share the throne of God, and to “reign with Christ” as St. Paul taught in 2 Tm 2:12. In other words, Gabriel’s approach toward Mary showcases how all angels will treat every baptized Christian because he or she has been made “partakers the divine nature” (2 Pt 1:4). Angels knew before even Athanasius that "God became man so that men might become God."

A mother who attended a baptismal preparation class I was giving taught me what participating in the divine nature means. I was explaining the importance of the anointing with Sacred Chrism. That special oil signifies that this baby has now become a priest, prophet, and king. How so? Well, in the Old Testament men installed in those three offices were anointed on the crown of the head. But I added that since Jesus is also a good older brother, he gladly shares with us, his little brothers and sisters, his own riches. At that moment, this mother elbowed her oldest son and said, “Did you hear that? Good older brothers share what they have with their little brothers and sisters!” And so it is with Christ. He is not greedy, or jealous, or worried that we might get too much of the glory. Jesus graciously and generously shares with humanity everything he has received from his Father, especially his own divine nature. As St. Paul expressed it in Gal 4:7, “You are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir,” or as I would put it, “a vice president.”

As we proceed through this study of the angels, we might be surprised we are learning not only about the angels, but also about ourselves as human beings redeemed by Christ. In a sense, angels are like the miraculous apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe, where people are reflected in the Virgin’s eyes. In 1979, a renowned ophthalmologist, Dr. Jose Asta Tonsmann, magnified the cornea of Mary’s eyes 2,500 times using digitized high-resolution imaging. He discovered clear reflections of St. Juan Diego and Bishop Zumárraga. The closer we study the angels, therefore, the more we discover about ourselves reflected in their eyes. One rather dramatic discovery is the difference between the Old and the New Testament. In particular the holy angels pivoted after the coming of Christ by treating redeemed humanity as their superiors. We will now have to spend a little time reflecting on how the unholy angels, or demons, also deal with mankind. From Satan’s perspective, however, the coming of Christ only made matters worse, both for the angels, and for us.

Praised be Jesus Christ!

 

Filling Big Shoes

Thanking God for the gift of Immaculate Conception School

01/28/2023

Dt 18:15-20 Moses spoke to all the people, saying: "A prophet like me will the LORD, your God, raise up for you from among your own kin; to him you shall listen. This is exactly what you requested of the LORD, your God, at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, 'Let us not again hear the voice of the LORD, our God, nor see this great fire any more, lest we die.' And the LORD said to me, 'This was well said. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their kin, and will put my words into his mouth; he shall tell them all that I command him. Whoever will not listen to my words which he speaks in my name, I myself will make him answer for it. But if a prophet presumes to speak in my name an oracle that I have not commanded him to speak, or speaks in the name of other gods, he shall die.'"

One goal all of good leaders is being “laser focused” on their succession plan. Have you ever heard of a succession plan? That means that not only do good leaders want their organization to flourish while they are at the helm, they want it to grow even after they are long gone. When I was in college I was also studying in the seminary. When I came home for the summer, Msgr. George Tribou, our high school principal, would invite me to dinner. I was just a clueless, and very hungry, college kid happy to get a free steak dinner.

But I believe Msgr. Tribou was also working on his “succession plan.” He was worried about who would take over as the principal of Catholic High after he was gone. But his shoes were about twenty sizes bigger then my little feet, so I did not become principal. Fortunately, now a more qualified principal runs my alma mater. Like all great leaders, Msgr. Tribou was actively working on his succession plan, and asking himself: who will slip into my shoes as principal some day?

In the first reading today from Deuteronomy, we hear how Moses is also talking about his “succession plan.” We read: “Moses spoke to all the people, saying, ‘A prophet like me will the Lord, your God raise up for you from among your own kin; to him you shall listen.” Imagine how heart-breaking and how bewildering that must have sounded to those Israelites whom Moses guided through the wilderness for 40 years and brought to the very border of the Promised Land.

Who could possibly succeed Moses, the meekest man on earth? That is undoubtedly how some I.C. parishioners must have felt too: who could possibly take Msgr. Galvin’s place after he’s gone? Who could come after Msgr. John O’Donnell stood and preached in this pulpit? Talk about over-sized shoes to fill! But then God sent Joshua to lead God’s people into the Promised Land, something Moses could not do. In other words, it is not just great leaders who worry about their succession plan; so does God, who never fails to provide prophets and priests to lead his people.

Today we happily launch into Catholic Schools Week. How blessed we are with our Immaculate Conception Elementary School built back in 1930 (in the middle of the Depression). That means we are only six years away from our 100th anniversary. And we are still going stronger than ever. You know, of course, how we have high academic achievement. We learn and live Christian values like love of neighbor, and especially the poor, the unborn, and immigrants (like me!) Our students thrive in sports and sportsmanship: how to be humble winners and not sore losers.

But like Moses, Msgr. Tribou, Msgr. Galvin, and Msgr. O’Donnell, we school leaders are also looking at our “succession plan” in the smiling faces of our students. What do I mean? Well, we want them to think about being future teachers and principal and pastor someday, of I.C. And if you go into seminary, I will even take you out for a free steak dinner!

I love that song by Brooks and Dunn called, “Only in America” which, if you listen carefully, is a song also about a succession plan. It begins: “Sun comin’ up over New York City / School bus driver in a traffic jam / Starin’ at the faces in her rearview mirror / Lookin’ at the promise of the promised land. / One kid dreams of fame and fortune / One kid helps pay the rent / One could end up goin’ to prison / One just might be president.” Boys and girls, that is what we wonder when we look at you in class every day. We pray every day that you will be president, and not end up in prison!

By the way, did you hear that one of our I.C. graduates, Madison Marsh, was just chosen as Miss America 2024? What a great honor for her, for her family, and for this whole community, not to mention, I.C. School! In case you don’t know, after Madison graduated from I.C. she attended Trinity, then Southside, and then she was appointed to the Air Force Academy. Today, she studies at the Kennedy School at Harvard University. I believe Madison could be part of anyone’s succession plan. Why? Well, because there are no shoes too big for Madison’s feet, not even the shoes of the president of the United States. And that is what we want every student at I.C. School to believe, too: your feet are big enough to fill any size shoe.

Could I just recognize all our I.C. students here today and ask you to please stand? And would all our students who have graduated from I.C. please stand too? And if Miss America is here at Mass, would you please stand, Madison? A big round of applause for the “promise of the promised land”! Boys and girls, let me give you a little advice from a guy who missed it when it happened to me.

Besides all the wonderful things you want to be when you grow up, there are adults who are looking at you, sometimes through the rearview mirror of a school bus, and hope you will be part of their succession plan. And God may also be calling you to be part of his succession plan for his Church to be a prophet or a priest to serve his people. Just keep that thought in your back pocket and take it out and think about it every now and then. Oh, and by the way, there is no such thing as a “free steak dinner.”

Praised be Jesus Christ!

Brothers in Arms, Part 2

Seeing how angels are soldiers and singers

01/27/2024

History did not commence with the creation of Adam and Eve. Rather, the historical clock first began ticking with the creation of the angels. That is why we are calling them the firstborn of the original or old creation. Thus, angels are our older brothers. St. Augustine saw the creation of the angels described symbolically in the very first lines of Genesis. Scott Hahn summarizes the teaching of St. Augustine, the Doctor of Grace, explaining: "St. Augustine points out that angels appear everywhere in the Scriptures. They make their debut in the Bible’s opening lines: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” By “heavens” the author could not have intended the “skies,” as the creation of the skies comes later in the narrative. St. Augustine also taught that God’s command “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) was actually the decree by which he made the angels – before the sun and the other lights of the material world" (Angels and Saints, 76). In other words, God’s creative juices had been flowing for many millennia before he stooped down to shape the first “man of dust from the ground” (Gn 2:7).

Now, the first thing to note about angels is that both Scripture and Tradition teach that there are nine ranks or choirs of angels. By the way, do you find it odd that the angels are described as both “ranks” – which makes them sound like an army – but also as “choirs” – conjuring up images of the church choir? But there is nothing more natural than for an army to sing as it marches into battle. For example, Arkansas Razorback fans cheer the Hogs singing the Arkansas Fight song: “Hit that line! Hit that line! Keep on going! Move that ball right down the field! Give a cheer, Rah! Rah! Never fear. Rah! Rah! Arkansas will never yield!” We sing as we fight. Every American’s breast swells with pride as he or she sings “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” originally penned by Julia Ward Howe to inspire Union troops during the Civil War. Now, do you think God knew at the beginning of time that angels would need to be not only singers but also soldiers? You betcha. And so he arranged them not only into choirs but also into ranks because war was on the horizon. Incidentally, that is the real reason we should sing at Mass. We accompany the angels in their march against evil, like when we sing the Gloria, the Alleluia, the Holy, Holy, Holy, and the Lamb of God. The holy angels are not just our older brothers, they are our brothers in arms. And therefore we should sing at Mass with no less gusto than we do at sporting events. Indeed, we should sing with a lot more heart because we have a lot more to win and to lose.

How are these soldiers or choir boys organized specifically? At the top of the hierarchy, and hence closest to God, stand and sing the Seraphim. Next in order are the Cherubim. Third in line come the Thrones. In fourth phalanx are the Dominions. In fifth place the Virtues (also called Authorities) are arranged. In sixth rank are the so-called Powers. The seventh choir stalls are occupied by the Principalities (sometimes called Rulers). The last two spots, eighth and ninth, are occupied by the Archangels and simply the Angels. We find the two scriptural witnesses – the locus classicus – to these soldier-choirs in Ep 1:21, and Col 1:16. Ep 1:21 enumerates four choirs, indicating: “Far above all rule and authority and power and dominion and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come” (emphasis added). In Col 1:16, the list is slightly modified: “For in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions, principalities (rulers) or authorities (virtues)” (emphasis mine). Thus, if we combine the two lists in Ephesians and Colossians lists, we see how St. Paul has identified, in just two verses, the middle five ranks of angels, namely, Thrones, Dominions, Virtues, Powers, and Principalities. Bear in mind, however, that these are not five individual angels, but five entire classes of innumerable angels. Rv 5:11 would express it this way: “myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands.”

Now let’s take a closer look at the top two tiers of angels, Seraphim and Cherubim. Isaiah beheld the Seraphim – literally, the fiery or burning ones in Hebrew – when he received his call to be a prophet. Isaiah confesses that he is unfit to be a prophet because he is a man of unclean lips. A seraph angel is dispatched in Is 6:6-7, “Then flew one of the seraphim to me, having in his hand a burning coal which he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth, and said, ‘Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sins forgiven’.” That is, the seraphim are well-named as the fiery ones because their occupation comes closest to God whom Hb 12:29 describes with reverential fear saying: “For our God is a consuming fire.” We find the Cherubim on the second rung first referenced in Gn 3:24, “[God] drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.” Sometimes we foolishly equate the Cherubim with the chubby, child-like angels in art and children’s books. But nothing could be further from the truth. The Cherubim are mighty beings of incalculable intelligence, power, and light and just one rank or choir stall away from the throne of God himself.

Now that we have briefly touched on the top seven tiers of these singing soldiers, we can turn to the bottom two rungs: archangels and angels. There are virtually countless scriptural examples of these two choirs carrying out God’s innumerable commands. One of my favorites is the mission of the Archangel Raphael, who aids young Tobias in finding a wife and fighting off an evil demon named “Asmodeus” (cf. Tb 3:8). Every March 25 on the feast of the Annunciation, the liturgy lauds the gracious work of the Archangel Gabriel who announces the virginal conception of the Messiah. In sum, we divide all angelic activity into two categories. One, the upper seven echelons of angels are concerned with executing God’s cosmic commands. And two, the lowest two ranks – like archangels and angels – reach into the daily lives of God’s people. Scott Hahn neatly describes this celestial division of labor: “The ancient rabbis and the Church Fathers believed the angels also maintained the physical laws of the universe. They kept the stars in their courses, and they swelled the rivers when the time was right. Scripture reveals that individual human beings have guardian angels, and so do nations (see Daniel 10:13, 10:20, and 12:1), and churches (see Revelation 21:8, and 12, for example)” (Angels and Saints, 84). In other words, Galileo was not entirely right. He believed that the Bible teaches us only “how to go to heaven” but not “how the heavens go” because that was the realm of science. But on closer inspection we discover that the Bible instructs us in both through the magnificent ministry of angels.

But one day in heaven it was not “just another day in paradise” because Rv 12:7 recounts, “war arose in heaven.” Again, God has foreseen this – called divine omniscience – and even provided for this by making angels both singers and soldiers. This seismic spiritual earthquake shook all creation and would have made the Big Bang sound like my dog Apollo’s whimper. Consistent with the spiritual exegesis noteworthy of the Church Fathers, St. Augustine perceived this angelic civil war in Gn 1:4, where we read: “And God saw the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.” Scott Hahn explains further: “When Genesis describes the separation of light from darkness (v. 4) it is recounting the rebellion of Satan and the demons (see Revelation 12:4) who chose everlasting darkness” (Angels and Saints, 76). In Rv 12:9, St. John provides more details of this diabolical revolt: “And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world – he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.” Notice how St. John sees the demons as original angels who fell from grace. But why did they fall? Isaiah sheds some light on Satan’s temptation writing poetically: “How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn…You said in your heart ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God…I will make myself like the Most High God’” (Is 14:12, 13, 14).

That is, the angels had to undergo a test, a trial, a temptation, just like Adam and Eve would, and just like you and I do every day. The essence of that exam revolved around obedience to God’s commands and humble service of God and neighbor. Satan flunked that test with flying colors, when he said fictionally but truly in Milton’s epic poem Paradise Lost: “Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav’n” (Paradise Lost, I, 236). By the way, this is also why Milton described hell as “Pandemonium” (Paradise Lost, I, 756), which means a raucous uproar, chaos, discord, a lack of all harmony. The fallen angels are still soldiers but they can longer sing in harmony. And that is why they will lose. When Rv 12:4 indicates that the dragon “swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth,” we understand that to mean a third of the holy angels fell, leaving two-thirds faithful to God. This disgraced third of the angels now serve Satan and to try to subvert the rest of creation, especially its pinnacle, man. The two-thirds of the faithful angels retained their firstborn status, not as a badge of honor but as a reminder that, as Jesus taught: “the least shall be the greatest in the kingdom of God” (Mt 19:30). They still stand and sing. That was how the historical stage was set when God created man “in his image and likeness” (Gn 1:27).

Praised be Jesus Christ!

 

Brothers in Arms, Part 1

Relating rightly to angels, the firstborn of the old creation

01/23/2024

There is a humorous saying that a holy pastor wakes up at four o’clock…twice a day. I do not know how other pastors manage to wake up at four a.m., but I ask the assistance of my guardian angel. That is, rather than set an alarm clock before I fall asleep, I sort of set my angel clock to wake me up early the next morning. Honestly, I cannot remember the last time I actually set an alarm clock before bed. I am convinced that my guardian angel rouses me like St. Peter’s guardian angel woke him in Acts 12:7, where we read: “An angel of the Lord…struck Peter on the side and woke him [in prison], saying, ‘Get up quickly’.” Now, many modern scientific people probably scoff at my idea of an angel alarm clock. They would chalk up my earlier raising to deeper circadian rhythms, or sleeping habits formed over time, or to other natural causes. But I disagree. Why?

Well, my belief in the angels follows in the footsteps of countless Christian scholars and saints up and down the ages who were convinced that the citizenry of the cosmos included a vast array of beings, not only those we can see but also those we cannot see, most notably, the angels. Hamlet corrected his close friend, Horatio in the same way he would have corrected modern scientists, observing: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy” (Hamlet, I, v). That is, when those saintly scholars peered at creation through the eyes of faith, they perceived that angels were primarily our older brothers because they were created first. Put differently, angels are the firstborn of creation.

But their faith in the coming of Christ helped them to see even more than that. They understood that the Incarnation and later the Resurrection of Christ had wrought a deep ontological role reversal in the ordering of the cosmos. What does that mean? Well, in the natural, original order, angels are our older brothers, and hence they rank higher than us mere mortals. Therefore, like older siblings, they wield greater intelligence, authority, and power over their younger siblings, meaning the rest of creation. Now, this is hard to appreciate in our modern American culture which tends to deemphasize this sibling hierarchy within families. We pride ourselves on being very democratic; everybody is equal. But my Indian culture highlights this hierarchy. Growing up I learned that out of respect a younger sibling should address an older sibling not by using their first name – much like we address our parents as “mom” or “dad” rather than Raichel or Tony. Instead Indians use the respectful title of “Chetan” which means older brother.

However, when I was ordained a priest, I socially leaped over my older brother Paul, and now I rank higher in the family hierarchy. As a result of this social role reversal, he should no longer address me with my name “John” but with the title “Achen”, which literally means “Father.” Amazingly, I now stand as a “spiritual father” to my older brother. I have always wanted to say to Paul like Zod commanded Superman in the movie: “Kneel before Zod!” But I don’t dare because Paul can still beat me up. In other words, thanks to the death and resurrection of Christ, Jesus became the firstborn of the new creation, and replaced the angels. And when we are baptized we become part of that new creation, as St. Paul taught in 2 Co 5:17, “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.” What ordination did for me within my natural family, Baptism does for Christians within the supernatural family of the cosmos. That is, the old, natural hierarchy has been turned on its head so that now our older brothers and sisters, the angels, serve us, their little brothers and sisters. How so? Well, one way my angel does that is by getting me out of bed every morning.

In this brief essay, we will study the activity of the angels from three different angles. First, we will consider the super-historical events surrounding the angels, that is, before the creation of man as Adam and Eve. Several chapters of created history had been written long before Adam and Eve appeared on the scene. Second, we will survey the scriptural witness to the angels, namely, how our older brothers treated us before and after the coming of Christ. Angelic behavior toward humans is dramatically different in the two Testaments. And third, we will explore the practice of exorcisms, which is also a way we deal with the angels, in this case, fallen angels or demons. Or perhaps it would be more correct to say this is how they deal with us.

But before going any further, we must address a rather stubborn objection to angels, namely, scientism or materialism. Scientism is a modern bias that insists we should only believe in what our five senses can verify. Think of scientism like the blinders we put on horses, so that they are forced to only look forward and not side to side. Scientism only wants us to look at matter, and not let our eyes be distracted by spirit. But what is good for horses is not necessarily good for humans. Why not? Well, because scientism basically throws angels into the same basket as the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus. It confuses faith with fiction and cannot tell them apart. And then it throws the baby (of faith) out with the bathwater (of fiction).

In a sense, scientism tries to make us too smart for our own good. How so? Well, C. S. Lewis took scientism to its logical (even ludicrous) conclusion in his essay on “Miracles”, writing: "If the end of the world appeared in all the literal trappings of the Apocalypse, if the modern materialist saw with his own eyes the heavens rolled up (Rv 6:14) and the great white throne appearing (Rv 22:11), if he had the sensation of being himself hurled into the Lake of Fire (Rv. 19:20; 20:10; 20:14-15; 21:8), he would continue forever, in that lake itself, to regard his experience as an illusion and to find the explanation of it in psycho-analysis, or cerebral pathology” (God in the Dock, 25).

So, in the place of this modern apathy toward angels, I would suggest we throw off these twin blinders of scientism and materialism and see the world with the wide-eyed wonder of children, who have no preconceived prejudices against angels. Jesus promised: “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 18:3). We are in fact alluding to the angels every Sunday when we profess in the Nicean Creed: “I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.” Angels are part of those things that are invisible, but they are very real. I strongly suggest we put our trust in these invisible intercessors when we pray like humble children: “Angel of God, my guardian dear, to whom God’s love commits me here. Ever this day be at my side, to light and guard, rule and guide. And to wake me up at 4 a.m. Amen.”

Praised be Jesus Christ!

The Blessing Bombshell Again

Understanding how blessings are directed by intentions

01/07/2024

One of my personal rules for preaching is never to repeat my old homilies. I may recycle stories or jokes, but not the whole homily. But many years ago I broke that rule. It was Christmas time and I was super busy. The readings at Mass were similar to the same Sunday a year earlier and so in desperation I pulled up the same homily. I figured: “Everyone sleeps through the homily, anyway, and surely no one would remember what I said a whole year later!” Thus, I delivered exactly the same homily a year later. But after Mass one parishioner walked by with a big smile and said, “Father, that homily sure sounded familiar…” I was so embarrassed that even my face turned red.

Well, today I am not going to break that personal rule about preaching but sort of bend it by bringing up the hot-button topic of blessings that the Vatican has permitted for people in irregular situations. Have you heard about this? I would be surprised if you hadn’t. These blessings are so controversial they don’t just have lay people confused and up in arms, but even theologians, bishops, and cardinals have crossed swords over it. The disagreement has become so vehement that some fear it may lead to schism or people leaving the Church. Today is the feast of the Epiphany and the word Epiphany comes from “epiphainen” a Greek verb which means “to shine upon,” or “to manifest,” or “to make known". It seems apropos, therefore, to revisit blessings today because blessings shine God’s grace and goodness on the world, “especially those most in need of Thy mercy” as we pray in the rosary.

Back on December 19, I delivered a homily called “The Blessing Bombshell.” I had read the Vatican declaration on blessings and in that homily I admitted that I did not find anything innovative, controversial, and certainly nothing heretical, about giving a simple blessing when someone spontaneously requests one. In fact, at Mass I even invite people to come forward at Communion to receive a blessing when they cannot receive Communion. When I bestow a blessing upon random people in the Communion line, I do not check their credentials to be able to receive a blessing. Indeed, it is precisely their disqualification from receiving Communion – because of mortal sin, or being non-Catholic, etc. – that fully qualifies them to receive a blessing. In other words, a blessing is exactly what you should get when you should not get Holy Communion. That generosity in bestowing blessings – to shine God’s goodness, epiphainen – upon those who cannot receive Holy Communion, I suggested in that homily, was the true spirit of that Vatican declaration called Fiducia Supplicans.

Even with that homiletic explanation, however, there was still a hole in my homily that I would now like to fill. Critics of the declaration said priests and deacons were being asked in effect to bless sin, especially when it comes to couples who may be divorced and remarried (without an annulment) or even civilly married same-sex couples. I can understand why some people object in this manner, and there is always the risk of scandal which should always be removed. But I believe they overlook a critical part of every blessing and this is far more true of the sacraments, namely, the intention of the priest or deacon. It is the all-important intention of the ordained clergy that directs a blessing to a given target, and not to another target.

For example, at Mass we always pour wine into the chalice, but sometimes we leave the cruet (the small glass container) with the rest of the wine on the altar. This happens often at daily Mass without an altar server. Let me ask you: what causes the wine in the chalice to become the Blood of Christ, but not the wine in the cruet? After all, both are sitting on the altar. It is simply and solely the intention of the priest-celebrant that transubstantiates one and not the other. Or, more broadly, why does only the bread on the altar get transubstantiated into the Body of Christ but not all the bread in church, for instance sitting in the sacristy cupboard? Again, it is simply and solely due to the intention of the priest.

Now let’s consider what happens when someone spontaneously seeks a priest’s blessing, and this time involves couples who are divorced and remarried or even same-sex couples. On January 4, the Vatican issued a press-release to try to address that thorny topic. It even provided a sample formula of blessing, in which the priest or deacon might say: “Lord, look at these children of yours, grant them health, work, peace and mutual help. Free them from everything that contradicts your Gospel and allow them to live according to your will. Amen.” Notice in the wording of that suggested blessing how the priest or deacon’s intention is to bless whatever is good in these people’s lives – their health, work, for peace, mutual help. But the priest does not bless whatever is disordered or evil in their lives.

In other words, the intention directs the blessing, like a laser-guided missile, to its precise target, and it never misses. Indeed, it is impossible for a blessing to hit the wrong target. Why? Well because grace and sin are mutually incompatible, like fire and ice. Even if a priest were to intend to bless the same-sex marriage of two men – and some have tried unfortunately – the blessing would be rendered impotent, like a dud torpedo bouncing harmlessly off the side of a ship. At most, there would only be felt the placebo effect, you know, just a good feeling in the minds of those who tried to receive such a blessing but nothing really happened. Put differently, no one can hijack the intention of a priest or deacon who desires to bless only what is good.

As a matter of fact, not even the priest or deacon himself can hijack it if he tried to bless a same-sex couple! Now why is that? Well, the sacraments of the Church, and analogously the blessings offered by ordained clergy, are ultimately actions of Jesus Christ, not the work of a merely human priest. And no one – absolutely no one – can move Christ’s hand to bless what is evil. Changing metaphors for a moment, Jesus is the true musician and the clergy are merely his instruments. When it comes to administering sacraments and blessings, these musical instruments cannot play themselves. Priestly flutes do not play themselves because Jesus the musician must breathe the wind of the Holy Spirit through them. People who think they can manipulate the instruments of God’s grace are like Pilate during Jesus’ trial who asserted foolishly, “Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?” (Jn 19:10). Jesus answered him coolly: “You have no power over me” (Jn 19:11). This feeble and fickle world has no power over the Church because it is the Body of Christ.

Thus, for two reasons – like a redundancy or a fail-safe mechanism preventing the launching of nuclear missiles – Fiducia Supplicans is not granting priests or deacons authorization to bless the marriages of the divorced and remarried nor of same-sex couples. First, because what aims a blessing to its given target is the intention of the clergy who blesses. And second, even if the aim or intention of the priest or deacon is misguided – like it sometimes is today – Christ’s intention will override the priest’s poor judgment and produce nothing more than a dud missile or the placebo effect. On the Feast of the Epiphany may God’s grace shine upon the whole world through the blessings of Christ’s Church. As it says in the Prologue of John’s gospel: “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (Jn 1:5).

Praised be Jesus Christ!

 

The Third Word, Part 3

Pronouncing the third syllable of Pauline Eschatology

01/06/2024

As John Paul II rounds out his reflections on Christ’s third word on the resurrection of the body, he eagerly includes the teaching of St. Paul the Apostle. It is no exaggeration to say that in the New Testament St. Paul stands as “the great, comprehensive theological mind who provides an overarching framework into which the insights and contributions of the other inspired authors can be fit” (A Catholic Introduction to the Bible: The Old Testament, 721). Viewed historically, John Paul carries forward the work of Thomas Aquinas, who in turn built on the labors of Augustine, but all three saints relied on the foundational work of St. Paul and his thirteen New Testament epistles. Remember the children’s game called “telephone”? The children stand in a line shoulder-to-shoulder. Someone whispers a sentence into the first child’s ear at one end of the line. That child turns to his friend and whispers it into his ear, and down the line it goes. By the time you get to the end of the line, the sentence is humorously garbled and unrecognizable. I would suggest that St. Paul, as an inspired author of Sacred Scripture, heard the original whisper of the Resurrected Christ, and all the subsequent saints have been trying to understand and reconstruct that original sentence Paul heard from the lips of Jesus the Teacher.

John Paul II wants to include what St. Paul heard at the front of the line in his theology of the body, and so he interrupts his reflections on Christ’s third word twice: first by delving deeply into St. Paul’s thoughts on the resurrection in 1 Co 15, and secondly by considering Paul’s presentation on celibacy for the kingdom from 1 Co 7. The pope is convinced that we have not yet touched upon everything the Sacred Scriptures have to teach us about Christ’s three words on our Edenic origins, our earthly pilgrimage, and our eternal destiny until we sit at the feet of St. Paul and ask him to tell us what he heard as the first child in line in Jesus’ telephone game. The pope puts it summarily: "In his synthesis, Paul thus reproduces everything Christ had proclaimed when he appealed at three different moments to the “beginning” in the dialogue with the Pharisees (see Mt 19:3-8; Mk 10:2-9); to the human “heart” as a place of struggle with concupiscent desires in man in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:27); and to the resurrection as a reality of the “other world” in the dialogue with the Sadducees (see Mt. 22:30; Mk 12:25; Lk 20:35-36)” (Man and Woman He Created Them, 404). In keeping with our theme of using the adjective “eschatological” – like we did with Eschatological Integrity and Eschatological Virginity – we will call this third syllable “Pauline Eschatology.” I know “eschatology” functions as a noun in that phrase not an adjective. Sorry about that.

First, John Paul interrupts his discussion of Eschatological Integrity – that both souls and bodies enjoy heavenly glory – by examining 1 Co 15:42-46. The pope considers these words “a synthesis of Pauline anthropology concerning the resurrection” (Man and Woman He Created Them, 403), and therefore quotes Paul’s powerful words: "What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised full of power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus, it is written, that the first man, Adam, became a living being, but the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the natural, and then the spiritual” (1 Co 15:42-46).

As a child I sometimes watched the show “The Addams Family”. This macabre family included members like Gomez, Morticia, Wednesday, Pugsley, Uncle Fester, Grandmama, the butler Lurch, Aristotle, a pet octopus, and even a disembodied hand called Thing. They were essentially a bunch of lovable monsters, both endearing and entertaining. In a sense, St. Paul sees all humanity like members of this Addams Family. But then Paul compares and contrasts them to the Family of a New Adam, namely, Jesus. In other words, by birth we become members of the first Addams Family (lovable monsters), but by Baptism we are adopted into the new Adam’s Family, the Family of God, and thus children of God. John Paul helps us understand how St. Paul employs the rhetorical device of “antithesis, “or opposites, elaborating: "By contrasting Adam and (the risen) Christ – or the first Adam and the last Adam – the Apostle in fact shows in some way that the two poles in the mystery of creation and redemption between which man is situated in the cosmos…Between these two poles – between the first and the last Adam – the process unfolds that he expresses in the words ‘Just as we have borne the image of the man of earth, we will bear the image of the heavenly man'" (1 Co 15:49)” (Man and Woman He Created Them, 406). In other words, this antithesis of going from the old Addams Family to the new Adam’s Family is what St. Paul heard when Jesus whispered the original sentence into his ear at the beginning of Jesus’ telephone game.

John Paul interrupts his theology of the body again after discussing Eschatological Virginity. He inserts here a concise but complex examination of virtually all forty verses of 1 Co 7. One way we might unpack John Paul’s tight argumentation is to think of motivating people with either the stick or the carrot. Have you ever used the stick or the carrot, punishment or reward with your children? I remember how students at Catholic High School experienced both the carrot and the stick from our beloved principal, Fr. George Tribou. He treated freshman as a strict father or more like a Marine drill sergeant. Punishment was fast but fair. By our senior year, though, Fr. Tribou had softened up and treated us more like a grandfather. The pope argues that St. Paul was also aware of the carrot and the stick motivations. How so? St. Paul employs “the stick” to motivate people to choose continence for the kingdom of heaven writing: “I say this to you, brothers, the time has grown short” (1 Co 7:29), and later, “for the stage of this world is passing away” (1 Co 7:31). The pope explains Paul’s purpose in these passages: “This statement about the futility of human life and the transitoriness of the temporal world, in some sense the accidental character of everything created, should cause “those who have wives to live as though they had none” (1 Cor 7:29; cf. 7:31), and should prepare the ground for the teaching about continence” (Man and Woman He Created Them, 448). By the way this same stick of how the world is passing away motivated me to consider the priesthood when I left India and felt like I had lost everything. That transitoriness deeply moved me to seek what is not transitory but permanent, namely, God. And later that motivation matured into virginity for the kingdom. I felt like a freshman at Catholic High.

On the other hand, St. Paul knows precisely when to entice with a carrot. St. Paul writes: “The unmarried person is anxious about what is the Lord’s, how to please the Lord” (1 Co 7:32). John Paul notes the supreme significance of this statement: "This statement embraces the whole field of man’s personal relationship with God. “To please God – the expression is found in ancient books of the Bible (see e.g. Deut 13:19) – is a synonym of life in God’s grace and expresses the attitude of the one who seeks God, or who behaves according to his will so as to be pleasing to him" (Man and Woman He Created Them, 449). By the time we were seniors at Catholic High, Fr. Tribou no longer needed to use the stick of punishment and fear. We tried to obey the school rules out of love and admiration because we wanted to please him. We were moved by the carrot of his approbation.

When we understand how motivations like the carrot and the stick operate in the human heart – like we learned at Catholic High – we can discover why St. Paul suggests that virginity is somehow "superior" or "better" than marriage, like when he wrote in 1 Co 7:38, “he who refrains from marriage will do better.” Paul is not speaking pejoratively about marriage but only highlighting how these two motives (carrot and stick) function in virginity, but do not function as frequently or as intensely in marriage. Why not? Well, married couples have too many other things to worry about: raising kids, cooking dinner, and paying the bills! If these two motives were also operative in marriage – which they are in many holy couples – then both vocations would stand on equal footing. The Holy Father adds this helpful explanatory note: “In answering the question addressed to him in this way, [St. Paul] attempts to explain very precisely that the decision about continence or the life of virginity must be voluntary and that only such continence is better than marriage” (Man and Woman He Created Them, 445). Put briefly, what matters is the motivation – present in virginity but ordinarily absent in marriage – otherwise there is nothing “better” or laudatory about continence versus marriage. Merely the motivation makes one “superior” to the other, nothing else.

I personally met Pope St. John Paul II on three occasions. The last time was in 2003 when I attended a private Mass with the Holy Father in his personal chapel with only twenty-four other people present. The pope-saint was confined to a wheelchair and already showed signs of Parkinsons with a shaky left hand. Nonetheless, he was fully vested in priestly garments, and attempted – with enormous difficulty – all the liturgical gestures and movements of the Mass. I vowed that day I would never complain about all the priestly motions of the Mass, but to do each one carefully and with devotion. It was as if John Paul were teaching the final lessons of the theology of the body, saying in effect through his suffering: this is what we have a body for: to worship God, and precisely in that way, “to please God.” Life was all "carrot" for Pope St. John Paul II, as it was for St. Paul, to whom the pope accorded, "the theology of a great expectation, whose fervent spokesman Paul was" (Man and Woman He Created Them, 454). Today, however, Pope St. John Paul II’s body is in no way burdened with illness or old age. Rather, it rests peacefully awaiting the glorious day of the resurrection of the dead. On that last day, the great and eternal Easter, John Paul’s body will be fully and powerfully reintegrated with his soul. And he will again be able to go hiking on his beloved Tatra Mountains in Poland. Heck, he will be able to fly over them.

Praised be Jesus Christ!

 

The Third Word, Part 2

Learning to pronounce Eschatological Virginity

01/04/2023

John Paul terms a second insight (or syllable) of Christ’s third word Eschatological Virginity, which means that earthly marriage will not exist in eternity. But be careful: John Paul II does not mean what we think he means by the word “virginity.” Remember in the movie “The Princess Bride” when Vizzini kept saying “inconceivable,” and Inigo Montoya replied: “I do not think that word means what you think it means.” Similarly, when John Paul uses the term Eschatological Virginity he does not mean what we think he means. Get ready for some high level three-dimensional thinking. What do I mean? Have you ever heard someone exaggerate a difference so much that they accidentally say, “He made a 360 degree change!”? They meant to say, of course, “a 180 degree change”. Think of a compass: “a 180” is the polar opposite (north versus south), while “a 360” returns you back to where you started. Well, at first sight it seems the pope is doing “a 180” talking about virginity, which sounds like the polar opposite of marriage. But on closer inspection, John Paul really does “a 360” and argues virginity in heaven ends up looking a lot like a mystical marriage. This is how the Holy Father starts to enunciate this second syllable of Eschatological Virginity. The whole theology of the body argues, in effect, that regardless of whether you are in Eden, or on earth, or in eternity, men and women are destined to experience some kind of marriage – even virgins do! – but in each state – Eden, earth, or eternity – it is a unique sort of marriage. It is the same but different.

In order to successfully make this 360 degree turn from marriage to virginity and then back to marriage, the pope enlists the help of some additional words of Christ, specifically in Mt 19:11-12. There, Jesus discusses marriage but also adds that some people do not marry because they make themselves “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.” That category of people clearly refers to priests, nuns, and monks because we are essentially “voluntarily eunuchs.” John Paul, therefore, evaluates two key passages simultaneously: he looks primarily at Mt 22:30 where Jesus says “at the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage,” but he glances repeatedly at Mt 19:12, where Jesus acknowledges, “others who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.” In a very subtle but strategic argument the pope will do “a 360” demonstrating that Eschatological Virginity will bear a striking resemblance to marriage, and he does this in three steps. First, he analyzes the large context of Christ’s words in Mt 19:11-12. The context is key. Second, he argues that both marriage and virginity bear fruit, and are similar in that respect. And third, he asserts that the love that motivates both marriage and virginity is spousal, or the love of husband and wife. Again, John Paul invites us to leave behind superficial two-dimensional thinking and attempt three-dimensional thinking that is as high as heaven by learning how to say Eschatological Virginity.

First, John Paul carefully considers the context of Christ’s words about marriage and celibacy in Mt 19:12. The pope explains that Jesus looks at celibacy (or virginity) only as an “exception” and not the rule for earthly life. That is, the Holy Father does not want everyone to become celibate priests and nuns. If everyone did, human history would end because there would be no more people. John Paul insists: “On the basis of the immediate context of the words about continence for the kingdom of heaven in man’s earthly life, one must see in the vocation to such continence a kind of exception to what is, by contrast, a general rule of this life [namely, marriage]. This is what Christ emphasizes above all” (Man and Woman He Created Them, 415). Have you heard the old adage, “the exception proves the rule”? For example, the exception that during the Fridays of Lent we do not eat meat helps to highlight the rule that eating meat is good. How so? Well, when you are eating mac-n-cheese or peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches on Fridays of Lent, you long for a good steak on Friday night. Absence makes the heart grow fonder, as we all know. By considering the larger context, therefore, John Paul shows that Eschatological Virginity is intended to actually highlight the value of marriage. The pope is adamant on this point, stating: “The question of continence for the kingdom of heaven is not set in opposition to marriage, nor is it based on a negative judgment about the importance of marriage” (Man and Woman He Created Them, 413). In a sense, marriage and virginity, properly understood in the context of Christ’s words, are “the same but different,” because they underscore the same great value of marriage but in two different ways, one positively another negatively.

A second step the pope takes to demonstrate the sameness yet difference between marriage and virginity is by speaking of their fruitfulness. Obviously, marriage bears fruit when spouses beget natural children. It takes a little more effort, though, to perceive how virginity also bears fruit because it does so supernaturally and spiritually. Let me use my family as an example. Growing up, in India and later Little Rock, we were not particularly super devout Catholics. We went to Mass on Sunday but that was it: no daily Mass, no confession, no retreats, prayer groups, Scripture study classes, etc. We did the spiritual minimum necessary to get to heaven. But after I was ordained and became a celibate (a virgin) all that dramatically changed. My parents started attending daily Mass. My sister considered the religious life and now works in her church office. My brother teaches Confirmation classes, and my sister-in-law is the youth director of her parish. Did you see what happened? Before I embraced virginity for the kingdom my family did the spiritual minimum. After ordination my family does the spiritual maximum. This spiritual awakening in my family is the fruit of virginity for the kingdom. John Paul is not remotely interested in highlighting how virginity and marriage are different. Rather, he is intensely interested on how they are fundamentally the same. Both bear fruit. This is how you say Eschatological Virginity.

The pope’s third step in doing “a 360” is to demonstrate that both marriage and virginity are fueled by spousal love, the love of husband and wife. Nowadays a growing number of people argue that if we got rid of mandatory celibacy more men would join the ranks of the priesthood. Now, that may be true for others, but it was not for me. As a teenager, I used to look at Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross as an act of tremendous love for me. I believe all Christians do that. I suddenly felt a surge of desire to make a sacrificial act of love for Jesus. And being a celibate priest came to mind. Why didn’t the sacrifice of giving up chocolate for the rest of my life come to mind? God’s grace works in mysterious ways. Can you see how the sacrifice of celibacy propelled me to the priesthood rather than repelled me from it? And that sacrifice was an expression of love. John Paul explains how spousal love lies at the heart of virginity, writing: "In this way, continence “for the kingdom of heaven,” the choice of virginity or celibacy for one’s whole life, has become in the experience of the disciples and followers of Christ the act of a particular response to the love of the Divine Bridegroom, and therefore acquired the meaning of an act of spousal love, that is, of a spousal gift of self with the end of answering in a particular way the Redeemer’s spousal love, a gift of self understood as a renunciation, but realized above all out of love" (Man and Woman He Created Them, 436). That is, the love that underlies both marriage and virginity, are equally examples of the love between a bride and a groom. They are the same but different; “doing a 360” you might say.

What, then, is the pope’s main message about Eschatological Virginity? I think he wants us to grasp how two seemingly contradictory realities on earth – marriage and virginity – will possess profound similarities in the eschaton, in heaven. Therefore everyone will indeed be “virgins” in heaven as Jesus said in Mt 22:30, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage.” Nonetheless, everyone will also enjoy a mystical marriage with Jesus, the Divine Bridegroom. Virginity and marriage are two sides of the same coin: one side of the coin is earthly marriage, the other side of the coin is Eschatological Virginity. John Paul reconciles these apparent opposites by looking at the larger context of Christ’s words, in which the exception proves the rule, at how both marriage and virginity bear fruit (natural and spiritual), and how the love of husband and wife motivates both states of life. If we can see how marriage and virginity at least in these ways are “the same but different” we can start to pronounce Eschatological Virginity.

Praised be Jesus Christ!

 

The Third Word, Part 1

Pronouncing Christ’s word about the resurrection of the body

01/02/2024

When I read a book I have the bad habit of jumping ahead to the end and reading the last few pages. Do you do that? I can’t wait to know who lives or dies and how the story will end. I love it whenever someone says, “Spoiler alert!” Well, these three homilies on Pope St. John Paul II’s theology of the body should come with a “spoiler alert” because we are skipping ahead to the end, the end of time. You will recall the first part (or first half) of the pope’s book was a rigorous treatment of Christ’s three key words: first, on our Edenic origins, second, on our earthly pilgrimage, and third on our eternal destiny. We have already spent some time on Christ’s first word, but now we will leap-frog over his second word and try to learn to enunciate his third word. We should note, however, the pope spends the least amount of time on this third word, a mere eighty-three pages (pp. 379-462). Compare that to the ninety-two pages he wrote about Christ’s first word (pp. 131-223), and the lion’s share of one hundred and fifty-three pages he committed to Christ’s second word (pp. 225-378). But don’t be fooled by its relative brevity: “there’s gold in them thar hills!” even if they are just foothills.

But before we explore Christ’s third word, I should familiarize you with a rather unfamiliar word, namely, eschaton or eschatology. In the seminary we learned that eschatology is a branch of theology that concerns the end times, especially heaven and the resurrection of the body. Just like we did with Christ’s first word calling each insight (or syllable for us) “original” – like Original Solitude, Original Unity, and Original Nakedness – so too with Christ’s third word, we will use the adjective “eschatological,” meaning end times or heavenly. The Holy Father explains his overall strategy:

The dialogue that we propose to analyze now is, I would say, the third component of the triptych of Christ’s own statements, the triptych of words that are essential and constitutive for the theology of the body. In this dialogue, Jesus appeals to the resurrection, thereby revealing a completely new dimension of the mystery of man” (Man and Woman He Created Them, 380).

By the way, did you catch how John Paul wants us to avoid superficial two-dimensional thinking but rather urges us – really just repeating Christ’s own invitation – to vertical, three-dimensional thinking when he says “a completely new dimension of the mystery of man”? That is, Christ’s first word plunged us lower or deeper into our Edenic origins as we strolled in the world of Genesis 1-2 and beheld our bodies before the Fall. Now, Christ’s third word will carry higher into heaven, to our eternal destiny, as we stroll on the streets paved with gold (Rv 21:21) and behold our bodies after the resurrection of the dead. And by the way, Exhibit A in heaven is Jesus’ own resurrected body, and we might add that Exhibit B is the body of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is why we celebrate Jesus’ Ascension forty days after Easter and Mary’s Assumption on August 15. The Church is liturgically underscoring the importance of their bodies being in heaven. I have a Greek Orthodox friend who insists that the bodies of Enoch (Gn 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kgs 2:11) from the Old Testament are also in heaven. But I’m not buying it because I’m Catholic and not Orthodox.

John Paul’s first insight – or syllable – is “Eschatological Integrity” by which the pope reiterates the Christian belief in the resurrection of the body and not merely of the soul. Now, that may not sound like breaking news to us. After all, every Sunday we Catholics say in the Creed: “I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.” But too many Roman Catholics lull ourselves into thinking that after death the soul goes to heaven but the body just decomposes in the ground. Have you ever thought that? Well, stop thinking that! Why? Well, that is not the authentic Catholic faith, but rather, shallow two-dimensional thinking. This was the mistaken view of Plato, the ancient Greek philosopher, which the pope corrects, stating: "In fact, the truth about the resurrection clearly affirms that man’s eschatological perfection and happiness cannot be understood as a state of the soul alone, separated (according to Plato, liberated) from the body, but must be understood as the definitive and perfectly “integrated” state of man brought about by such a union of the soul with the body that it definitively qualifies and assures this perfect integrity (Man and Woman He Created Them, 390). That is, just like Jesus’ body (and not just his spirit) was raised from the dead on the first Easter Sunday, so too our bodies (and not just our souls) will be raised from the dead on the last Easter Sunday, that is, at the Eschaton.

Now, where does the pope find proof for this article of faith about our resurrection and reunion of body and soul? Does he just pull it out of thin air? No. He points to Jesus’s resurrection, saying: “We find the confirmation of this new state of the body in Christ’s resurrection” (Man and Woman He Created Them, 388). Put simply: our souls united with our bodies will become glorious as Christ’s own body was after his resurrection. Remember how Jesus told Thomas to put his finger into his hand and his hand into his side in Jn 20:27, or how Jesus’ risen body was able to eat fish with the disciples in Jn 21:13? The saints, therefore, whose souls alone are in heaven at this moment are incomplete without their bodies, and so they are not one hundred percent happy. That is, the saints – and hopefully one day you and me – will only enjoy total glory and endless beatitude at the resurrection of the dead, when their bodies are reunited with their souls in glory. This is how we start to say “Eschatological Integrity.”

But wait that’s not all (like that knife commercial)! The pope adds that this reunion of body and soul at the resurrection will reach a new peak of intensity and vitality, something John Paul calls “spiritualization.” The pope elaborates: “’Spiritualization’ signifies not only that the spirit will master the body, but, I would say, that it will also fully permeate the body and the powers of the spirit will permeate the energies of the body” (Man and Woman He Created Them, 391, pope’s emphasis). In 2020 Scott Hahn wrote a book about the resurrection of the body called Hope to Die. Hahn loves double entendres. He describes this spiritualization with stunning examples, saying: "Basically, our [resurrected] bodies will do whatever we want them to do, and they will do it perfectly: they will dunk basketballs, do pirouettes, leap tall buildings, and fly through the air…If you want to stand in a green meadow in heaven, all you will have to do is think that thought, and you’ll be there. If you want to see your great-great-great grandpa in heaven, you will…instantaneously, as soon as you want to see him. Essentially, your body will travel at the speed of your thoughts… (Hope to Die, 96, 97). But then Hahn mentions this important caveat: “None of these movements of the glorified body, however, will be dictated by our whims. Every movement we make will be inspired by divine wisdom and ordered to knowing and loving God better” (Hope to Die, 97). In other words, we are not going to be running around like resurrected chickens with our heads cut off. Our movements will be purposeful, even providential.

But again, wait, that’s not all! Besides spiritualization, the resurrected body will also enjoy “divinization.” The pope writes: “Participation in the divine nature, participation in the inner life of God himself, penetration and permeation of what is essentially human by what is essentially divine, will then reach its peak, so that the life of the human spirit will reach a fullness that was absolutely inaccessible to it before” (Man and Woman He Created Them, 392). The way I understand that dense and difficult passage is to compare it to the moment of receiving Holy Communion. On the natural, biological level, when we eat something we absorb that food into ourselves. We joke: "A minute on the lips but a lifetime on the hips.” But on the supernatural and theological level, when we receive Holy Communion, we are absorbed into Christ. It is truer to say that at Communion we don’t receive Jesus into us as much as Jesus receives us into him. Today on earth this divinization occurs incrementally and sacramentally, whereas in heaven at the eschaton (in the end) divinization will happen instantaneously and gloriously.

Just to wrap up: we are learning how to pronounce the first syllable of the third word of Christ on the resurrection of the body, namely, Eschatological Integrity. And John Paul has taught us that syllable includes three aspects, we might say “three letters”: (1) the seamless reintegration of body and soul, (2) a spiritualization where we will enjoy “another ‘system of powers’ within man” (Man and Woman He Created Them, 389), and (3) a divinization where, as St. Paul says “that God may be everything to every one” (1 Co 15:28).

Praised be Jesus Christ!

 

The First Word, Part 4

Learning to pronounce Original Nakedness

01/01/2024

The pope calls the third insight (or “syllable” as we are considering them) in his analysis of Christ’s first word “Original Nakedness”, which he takes from Gn 2:25. There we read: “The man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame.” Original Nakedness, then, is the third and last syllable of Christ’s first word about our origins. But John Paul II spills more ink on this third syllable than he did on the first and second syllables combined. Whereas the Holy Father dedicated about ten pages on Original Solitude (pp. 146-56), and approximately thirteen pages on Original Unity (pp. 156-69), he now spends a whopping thirty-five pages (pp. 169-204) on Original Nakedness. Clearly, this third syllable is significant for John Paul II. Christopher West understood this significance well which is why he named his cassette-tapes on the theology of the body “Naked Without Shame.”

John Paul explained this unusual emphasis: "In fact, Genesis 2:25 presents one of the key elements of the original revelation, just as decisive as the other elements of the text (Gen 2:20, 23) that have already allowed us to determine the meaning of man’s original solitude and original unity. To these we must add, as a third element, the meaning of original nakedness, which is clearly highlighted in the context; in the first biblical sketch of anthropology, it is not something accidental. On the contrary, it is precisely the key for understanding it fully and completely” (Man and Woman He Created Them, 170). In other words, we cannot fully understand Original Solitude and Original Unity until we grasp Original Nakedness, the crown of these three original experiences. Speaking grammatically, Original Nakedness is the syllable where you put the accent mark on Christ’s first word.

The pope subjects this phrase “naked without shame” in Gn 2:25 to an in-depth analysis. He believes this phrase hides deep and eternal truths, that is, more three-dimensional thinking instead of our conventional, shallow two-dimensional thinking. First, John Paul contrasts our ordinary experience of shame with Adam and Eve’s original experience of shame. We might say that the experience of sexual shame serves as a “bridge” allowing us to cross back over into the Garden of Eden because we find shame firmly planted on both sides. The pope writes: "We observed earlier that, by appealing ‘to the beginning’ (which we are here submitting to a series of contextual analyses), Christ indirectly established the idea of continuity and connection between the two states, thereby allowing us to go back, as it were, from the threshold of man’s ‘historical’ sinfulness to his original innocence. (Man and Woman He Created Them, 172). That is, sexual shame allows fallen man (you and me) to peek into the Garden of prelapsarian man (Adam and Eve) so that we can examine shame on both sides of the Fall: before and after Original Sin.

Now, you and I normally experience sexual shame when someone else sees our naked body. Again, notice how John Paul is preoccupied with the experience of shame, and uses phenomenology to shed light on our faith. Imagine you are taking a shower, and someone accidentally barges into the bathroom. What would you do? We automatically cover our sexual organs, and feel a keen sense of shame. The pope describes the underlying dynamic of sexual shame, stating: "In the experience of shame, the human being experiences fear in the face of the ‘second I’ (thus, for example, woman before man), and this is substantially fear for one’s own ‘I.’ With shame, the human being manifests ‘instinctively,’ as it were, the need for the affirmation and acceptance of this ‘I’ according to its proper value” (Man and Woman He Created Them, 173). According to the pope, therefore, below the experience of shame lies a deep and abiding fear of being threatened another person. Hence, I cover my sexual organs, “my family jewels” as we say, in order to defend my dignity and, in a sense, even to protect my progeny.

By contrast, Adam and Eve were “naked without shame” because they felt no fear or threat from each other. Indeed, they felt exactly the opposite. They enjoyed mutual acceptance and love to such a degree that they were essentially “a gift” to each other. This love and acceptance is what John Paul calls “the hermeneutic of the gift” (Man and Woman He Created Them, 179). Don’t be scared by the big word “hermeneutic.” It simply means “interpretation” or “understanding”, a way of explaining something, a key to unlock a door. In other words, being a gift explains or unravels the mystery of the phrase “naked without shame.” How so? Well, when you are a gift to another person, you “strike a pose” (as Madonna sang) of unconditional love towards another person. And this pose of unconditional love absolutely excludes using that person.

Now here is the critical point about being a gift for John Paul II, and it will again surprise us. The pope insists that the opposite of love is not hate. That old dichotomy between love and hate is another symptom of our two-dimensional thinking, like when we chanted back in the sixties, “Make love not war!” That is, love as opposed to hate. But for John Paul, the opposite of love is to use someone, like when we lust after someone and use them for our selfish pleasure. By the way, this is precisely what makes the pornography industry so sinister. Producers of pornography use people’s beautiful bodies for profit and convince consumers (you and me) that looking lustfully at people is acceptable, just another “consumer product.” Have you heard people in the porn industry referred to as “sex workers”? That is an attempt to dignify this degradation of the children of God. Pornography reduces these poor men and women to objects of sexual pleasure.

Now let’s go back to shame on the two sides of the Fall. The reason we cover our sexual organs today when someone accidentally barges into the bathroom and sees us naked is because we do not want them to lust after us. We don’t want to be used like someone in the porn industry. Sexual shame strongly suggests the worst thing about lust, namely, I am reduced to an object instead of respected as a person. But before the Fall, the pope insists, genuine love absolutely excluded the possibility of using another person because Adam and Eve were a gift to each other. The words “gift” and “love” are interchangeable in the lexicon of the theology of the body. Indeed, the Holy Father would go another step and maintain that Adam and Eve saw each other like God saw them. He explains:

"This reciprocal vision of each other is not only a share in the ‘exterior’ perception of the world, but also has an inner dimension of a share in the vision of the Creator himself – in that vision about which the account of Genesis 1 speaks several times, ‘God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good’ (Gen 1:31). Nakedness signifies the original good of the divine vision” (Man and Woman He Created Them, 177). In other words, when we see another person’s naked body like God sees it, we understand Original Nakedness. Think of how a father or mother would look at the naked body of their baby – even if that baby were thirty years old. They would not feel an ounce of lust but only overwhelming love. And God sees us with infinitely more love than our parents.

In my church office hangs a large painting of the “Last Judgment” by the Renaissance master Michaelangelo, which effectively covers the entire back wall of the Sistine Chapel. On April 8, 1994, Pope St. John Paul II celebrated Mass in the newly restored chapel with its stunning and brilliant frescoes. In that homily John Paul complimented Michaelangelo’s genius stating: "It seems that Michaelangelo, in his own way, allowed himself to be guided by the evocative words of the Book of Genesis which, as regards the creation of the human being, male and female, reveals, ‘The man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame’ (Gn 2:25). The Sistine Chapel is precisely – if one may say so – the sanctuary of the theology of the human body” (Homily, no. 6). You probably know that most of the human figures in that painting are naked, like Adam and Eve were, and the pope invites us to see them, and indeed all people, through the eyes of God, that is, “naked without shame.”

There is a delightfully humorous controversy that erupted when Michaelangelo decided to paint nude figures. The pope’s Master of Ceremonies, Biagio de Cesena, objected vigorously, criticizing: “It was most disgraceful that in so sacred a place there should have been depicted all those nude figures, exposing themselves so shamefully, and that it was no work for a papal chapel but rather for the public baths and taverns.” But Michaelangelo got the last laugh because he painted Cesena’s face on the figure of Minos, the judge of the underworld, and a snake coiling around his body, and the snake’s head devouring his “you guess it”! In other words, in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were “naked without shame” whereas in hell people are clothed with snakes instead of fig leaves. That is, this is the consequence of not learning to pronounce the third syllable of “Original Nakedness.”

In summary, Pope St. John Paul II has assiduously studied Christ’s first word about our origins in the Garden of Eden. In his theology of the body, he taught us that Christ’s first word had three syllables: Original Solitude, Original Unity, and Original Nakedness. We must agree whole-heartedly with the pope-saint when he reflects in awe: “We were able to realize how vast was the context of a sentence, or even a word, spoken by Christ” (Man and Woman He Created Them, 226). But thus far we have only learned how to pronounce Christ’s first word about our origins in Eden. We must still consider his third word about our destiny in heaven, and then return to explore Christ’s second word about our earthly pilgrimage.

Praised be Jesus Christ!

 

Breakfast in Nazareth

Seeing the great value of family dinners

12/31/2023

Sir 3:2-6, 12-14 God sets a father in honor over his children; a mother’s authority he confirms over her sons. Whoever honors his father atones for sins, and preserves himself from them. When he prays, he is heard; he stores up riches who reveres his mother. Whoever honors his father is gladdened by children, and, when he prays, is heard. Whoever reveres his father will live a long life; he who obeys his father brings comfort to his mother. My son, take care of your father when he is old; grieve him not as long as he lives. Even if his mind fail, be considerate of him; revile him not all the days of his life; kindness to a father will not be forgotten, firmly planted against the debt of your sins—a house raised in justice to you.

I was talking with a funeral director last week as we were riding back from the cemetery. He said, “I’ve got a joke you might be able to use in a sermon.” I replied, “Okay, lay it on me.” He started: “A man and his family, and his in-laws, took a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. During their visit to Jerusalem, the man’s mother-in-law became seriously sick, and suddenly died. The man went to the local funeral home to talk about what he should do with her body. The funeral director said, ‘Well, you’ve got two options. You can fly her body back home to be buried in the U.S. for $5,000. Or, you can have a service and bury her here for $150.’

The man thought about it for a moment and answered, ‘I think we will have her body sent back home for burial.’ Surprised, the funeral director asked, ‘Why would you pay $5,000 to send her back to the U.S. rather than pay $150 to bury her here in the Holy Land?’ The man replied, ‘You know, I have heard about a guy that was buried here 2,000 years ago and three days later he came back to life. I just can’t take that chance’.” I get my best homily material from funeral home directors. They are pretty smart.

I mention that joke because today is the Solemnity of the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, the ideal model of a family. In other words, St. Joseph would have happily buried his mother-in-law, St. Anne, in the Holy Land instead of flying her body to the United States. I’m joking of course, but the Holy Family teaches us a lot more than that. So, let me ask you a million-dollar question on everyone’s mind: what most contributes to family harmony and holiness, happiness and health? Well, there are many things, like praying together, going on vacations as a family, and even doing chores around the house so everyone takes ownership for the home.

But I am convinced that nothing helps a family to be happy, healthy, and even holy, more than sharing a meal together. For example, can you imagine breakfast every morning in Nazareth for the Holy Family? Poor St. Joseph comes downstairs still groggy, half-awake, and maybe a little grump before his morning coffee. And he looks across the table and there sits Mary, smiling sweetly as the Immaculate Conception, and next to her little Jesus, dutifully eating his cereal, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. Joseph must have thought: “Man, I’ve got to up my game if I’m going to hang with these two!” And that is exactly what family dinners do: they help us to “up our game” because family members lift us up to become the best version of ourselves.

This past week the Arkansas Catholic newspaper ran an article about the benefits of family dinners. Let me share with you 15 different ways family dinners impact each person in the family, based on serious research and proven data: (1) better academic performance because you talk about school at the table; (2) higher self-esteem because your parents tell you they love you; (3) greater sense of resilience and self-confidence as you talk about your mistakes and are still accepted unconditionally; (4) lower risk of substance abuse, like alcohol, drugs, or vaping;

(5) lower risk of teen pregnancy because you’re not looking for love in all the wrong places because you found love in the right place, at home; (6) lower rates of depression (things like cutting); (7) lower likelihood of developing eating disorders (like bulimia, eating and throwing up); ( lower rates of obesity because you learn to make good choices; (9) better cardiovascular health in teens, (10) bigger vocabulary in preschoolers because they learn from the older siblings; (11) healthier eating patterns in young adults, who carry these lessons to college.

Now, these last four are specific to adults: (12) better nutrition with more fruits and vegetables and less fast food; (13) less dieting; (14) increased self-esteem, and less mid-life crises; and (15) lower risks of depression. In other words, nothing contributes to better health, happiness, and even holiness than sitting down and sharing a meal together as a family. Why? Because you share more than supper, you share your struggles and set-backs, your crosses and losses. That is, when you share your story, you find the strength to become the best version of yourself.

Folks, I know it is hard – maybe it feels impossible – to eat together as a family. When I visit families at home for supper, I see first-hand how school and sports, friends and phones, boyfriends and girlfriends, two parents working and single parent families are all enormous challenges. And the first thing that gets sacrificed on the altar of survival and efficiency is the family dinner. And I know we are all doing the best we can with the limited resources we have. Nonetheless, nothing else contributes more to family wholeness than sharing dinner every night.

Oh, by the way, here is some surplus spiritual benefit to eating dinner as a family. It will help you to come to Mass more often. Why is that? Well, because grace builds on nature. And if you can appreciate family suppers – which don’t always feel like a rock concert, or going to the symphony, or attending an IMAX movie, but is simply family sharing supper and sharing stories - then you will see exactly the value of the Mass, which is simply family sharing supper and sharing stories, and yes, corny jokes. In other words, what began as breakfast in Nazareth would one day become Supper in Jerusalem (the Last Supper), where the apostles – and one day you and I – would sit across the table from Jesus and Mary, and they would inspire us to “up our game” and become the best version of ourselves.

My friends, since this is New Year’s Eve, may I suggest a New Year’s Resolution? Eat together as a family. I guarantee you will see positive changes in your children and in yourself by December 31, 2024. Incidentally, my dog Apollo and I have made this our New Year’s Resolution. We will eat at the same time, so he doesn’t get jealous of my food, and I don’t get jealous of his food. In that way, even Apollo and I will have to “up our game.” Why? Because family dinners inspire us to become the best version of ourselves, like it did for St. Joseph at breakfast in Nazareth.

Praised be Jesus Christ!

 

The First Word, Part 3

Pronouncing the second syllable of Original Unity

12/29/2023

John Paul II finds a second piercing insight – which we are calling a second “syllable” – meditating on the first word of Christ where Jesus returns to Genesis 1 and 2, namely, Original Unity. Even though we are still struggling to properly pronounce the first syllable called Original Solitude let us add the second syllable of Original Unity. Like Original Solitude, the true meaning of this second syllable will also surprise us. In order to present the full richness of Original Unity, the pope combines two Genesis texts. First, he considers Gn 1:27 which reads: “So God created man in his image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” But John Paul finds Original Unity also expressed in Gn 2:24, which states: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” In other words, the pope insists that “the image of God” expressed in Gn 1:27 chiefly resides in the “one flesh” union of husband and wife described in Gn 2:24.

John Paul explains why he combines these texts, and sounds out this second syllable: "Man becomes an image of God not so much in the moment of solitude as in the moment of communion. He is, in fact, ‘from the beginning’ not only an image in the solitude of one Person…but also and essentially, the image of an inscrutable divine communion of Persons. In this way, the second account [Gn 2:24] could also prepare for understanding the trinitarian concept of the ‘image of God,’ even if ‘image’ appears only in the first account [Gn 1:27]” (Man and Woman He Created Them, 163-64).

Now, we Christians do not believe that God is a solitary Loner, like some Lone Ranger galloping through eternity, but rather a loving communion of three divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Human beings become, therefore, an “image of God” not primarily when we stand alone, but when we “come together,” as the Beatles sang. But we become this divine mirror never more perfectly than when husband and wife unite in sexual intimacy. The pope states this explicitly: “The unity about which Genesis 2:24 speaks (‘and the two shall become one flesh’) is without doubt the unity that is expressed and realized in the conjugal act” (Man and Woman He Created Them, 167). Scott Hahn once quipped that the two become one, and the one is so real that nine months later you have to give it a name. You have a baby! The two become three.

By the way, can you see how the pope is already laying the philosophical and theological groundwork to refute the modern arguments in favor of contraception? The Holy Father is like the brilliant lawyer Atticus Finch in Harper Lee’s classic To Kill A Mockingbird. How so? Well, with these three words of Christ – so far we have only learned two syllables of Christ’s first word – John Paul is slowly building his case, and in the final section of the theology of the body, he unveils his “closing arguments” against contraception. John Paul even provides this foreshadowing: “This unity through the body (‘and the two will be one flesh’) possesses a multiform dimension: an ethical dimension, as is confirmed by Christ’s response to the Pharisees in Matthew 19 (see also Mk 10), and also a sacramental dimension” (Man and Woman He Created Them, 165). That is, when you understand human sexuality as a reflection of God’s love – where two become three – some options like contraception suddenly sounds odious. Not just immoral, but blasphemous.

Let me draw out two practical implications of this second syllable of Original Unity and hear what it sounds like when we say it out-loud. I have recently been reading Schuyler Bailar’s book called He/She/They. Schuyler was born female and underwent a sex-change in order to present herself now as a male. Schuyler wrote about some of her childhood challenges: "When I was in kindergarten, each of my classmates and I were paired with what the school called a ‘buddy’…Your buddy was supposed to be the same gender as you. So because I was not out as trangender at the time, my buddy was a girl. I was fairly disappointed when I learned this – there was nothing wrong with my buddy, but I didn’t understand why I had to be paired with someone based on gender. But it quickly became apparent to me that gender was one of the most important categories in life – at least to those around me” (He/She/They, 25).

The pope would certainly be one of those people “around” who believed gender is “one of the most important categories in life.” The pope, however, does not believe gender is merely a “category” but rather it is “constitutive” of being human; part of our human core. He writes: “Precisely the function of sex [that is, being male or female], which in some way is ‘constitutive for the person’ (not only ‘an attribute of the person’), shows how deeply man, with all his solitude, with the uniqueness and unrepeatability proper to the person, is constituted by the body as ‘he’ or ‘she’” (Man and Woman He Created Them, 166), not “he/she/they.” That is, femaleness or maleness determines the impervious psychosomatic structure of each human person, whose complementarity as male and female forms the basis of Original Unity, which, when the two become one and thus three, marvelously mirrors the Holy Trinity. This is how you say “Original Unity.”

At one point in Schuyler Bailar’s book, she almost agrees with Pope John Paul II! Unexpectedly, she explains why she chose not to have her uterus and ovaries removed, euphemistically termed “middle surgery.” She admits candidly: “So I have not discarded the prospect of having children with my own body and would need these organs in order to do so. Though many trans men might feel a disconnect with their internal reproductive organs, I feel the opposite. My uterus and surrounding parts are symbolic of where I came from, and I cherish this” (He/She/They, 57). When I was growing up in Little Rock, there was a Mexican restaurant down the street called El Chico. At the time not speaking Spanish, I just figured El Chico was some random name for a restaurant. Later, when I learned Spanish I discovered that “el chico” means “the small boy.” In other words, I was saying words I did not fully understand. So, too, Schuyler Bailar, by keeping her reproductive organs, is saying “Original Unity,” although she does not know what this syllable means yet. But one day she will learn this language. In a sense, Schuyler gets the right answer but for the wrong reasons. John Paul II, on the other hand, gives the right reasons for keeping reproductive organs.

In a veritable ode to motherhood, the pope-saint exclaims: "The whole exterior constitution of woman’s body, its particular look, the qualities that stand, with the power of perennial attraction…are in strict union with motherhood. With the simplicity characteristic to it, the Bible (and the liturgy following it) honors and praises throughout the centuries ‘the womb that bore you and the breasts from which you sucked milk’ (Lk 11:17). These words are a eulogy of motherhood, of femininity, of the feminine body in its typical expression of creative love" (Man and Woman He Created Them, 212, emphasis in original). When I meet with engaged couples for marriage preparation I tell them that a woman’s body is “a walking miracle” (that always puts a big smile on the girl's face) because in the woman's womb is the cradle of life. Every human life is a miracle, the miracle of potentially being a mirror of the Most Holy Trinity. Each in their own way, Pope Saint John Paul II and Schuyler Bailer appreciate the depth of the meaning of the female body, but only the pope understands why.

By his penetrating analysis of these two Genesis texts, 1:27 and 2:24, the Holy Father takes us far below the level of earthly existence and reveals new and glorious truths. Following the pope’s contemplation of both the Bible and the body, we have learned to articulate now two syllables of the first word of Christ, namely, Original Solitude and Original Unity.

Praised be Jesus Christ!