February 14, 2012

A Short History

St. Josemaria Escriva Opens a New Path for Women:

"On February 14, 1930, Escriva went to say Mass in a private chapel. His personal notes record what happened during the Mass. 'Immediately after Communion: the entire women’s branch of the Work [Opus Dei]! I cannot say that I saw, but yes I grasped intellectually, in detail, what the women’s branch of Opus Dei was to be. Later I added other elements, developing the intellectual vision.'

Like the events of October 2, 1928, the foundation of the women’s section of Opus Dei caught Escriva by surprise. Escriva saw in this a sign of God’s providence. “Our Lord manipulated me in such a way as to give an external objective proof that the Work is his. I said, ‘I don’t want women in Opus Dei.’ God said, ‘But I want them.’”

John Coverdale
Uncommon Faith: The Early Years of Opus Dei (1928-1943), page 68

St. Josemaria Escriva and the Priestly Society of the Holy Cross:

"As Opus Dei grew, its need for priests became more urgent. Escriva’s prewar experience with priests who had come into contact with Opus Dei after their ordination convinced him that Opus Dei had to have priests drawn from among its lay members-priests who could convey the spirit of Opus Dei because they had been living it themselves for years before they were ordained.

Escriva was pondering the situation on the morning of February 14, 1943, when he went to the center on Jorge Manrique Street to celebrate Mass for his daughters on the anniversary of the foundation of the women’s branch. In Escriva’s own words, 'I began the Mass searching for the juridical solution that would permit incardinating priests in the Work [Opus Dei]. I had been looking for it for a long time without results. At that day, intra missam [within the Mass], after Holy Communion, our Lord wanted to give it to me: the Priestly Society of the Holy Cross. He even gave me the seal: the sphere of the world with the cross inscribed in it.'

The seal Escriva referred to-the cross in the world…ties into the locution Escriva received on August 7, 1931, in which he understood Christ’s words, 'If I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all things to myself,' to mean that Christ wants to be placed at the summit of all human activities in order to transform the world. Additionally, in the context of what Escriva saw on February 14, 1943, the cross inscribed in the world symbolizes the presence of a group priests nailed to the cross of Christ…”

John Coverdale

The protagonists of the Vocation to Opus Dei are equal but not the same. Men and women are not compatible individuals but opposing, complementary persons. Living in separation that is complete and total - 5,000 kilometers was the slogan of St. Josemaria - the service of the women in Opus Dei is the care and humanization of the centers, the environment therein and therefore the persons.  Every center must be "Casa," home. The service of the men to the women are the priests as ministers to actualize their "common priesthood" by the preaching of the Word, the celebration of Holy Mass and copious availability of the sacrament of Penance. 

   The result to these mutual gifts of self is the "Unum" that is Opus Dei. It is not merely "united" as compatible individuals as Escriva had engraved over the tabernacle door of the oratory of the General Council of the Work: Consummati in Unum. The mission of the Prelate is to be "The Father," who in loving them, generates them to make the self-gift which is the Unum. 

   This  "Unum" is the ground of what became in the Council "the universal call to holiness" in no matter what state in life (Lumen Gentium, Chapter 5, #39-40). The "oneness" of the Church as image of the Trinity derives from the self gift of the irreducible differences of man and woman, and by extension to the two sections or branches of Opus Dei. 

The ground of this reality was the intervention of the Lord on February 14 in the year 1930 and 1944 for the women and priests respectively. 

Uncommon Faith: The Early Years of Opus Dei (1928-1943), pages 366-368

The Year of Faith: The New Evangelization

The New Evangelization: How to Know God.

 

“The Year of Faith” 2012-2013

 

Augustine “Grant, LORD, that I may know myself that I may know Thee.

 

Nietzsche: We are unknown, we knowers, to ourselves… Of necessity we remain strangers to ourselves, we understand ourselves not, in our selves we are bound to be mistaken, for each of us holds good to all eternity the motto, ‘Each is the farthest away from himself’ as far as ourselves are concerned we are not knowers.”

 

The only way we can know ourselves is by exercising ourselves, not in knowing outside of ourselves or by reflecting back on ourselves from within. We experience ourselves by abandoning our own premises and dealing with another.

 

Walker Percy: “(T)he self is literally unspeakable to itself. One cannot speak or hear a word which signifies oneself, as one can speak or hear a word signifying anything else, e.g., apple, Canada, 7-Up.

 

          The self of the sign-user can never be grasped, because, once the self locates itelf at the dead center of its world, there is no signified to which a signifier can be joined to make a sign. The self has not sign of itself. No signifier applies.[1]

 

John Paul II: “The man who wishes to understand himself thoroughly – and not just in accordance with immediate, partial, often superficial, and even illusory standards and measures of his being – he must with his unrest, uncertainty and even his weakness and sinfulness, with his life and death, draw near to Christ. He must, so to speak, enter into Him with all his own self, he must ‘appropriate’ and assimilate the whole of the reality of the Incarnation and Redemption in order to find himself.”[2]

 

This is the real epistemology of realism. It means that the only person I have experience of is myself. And this because I am the only being who can master me. That is, God has made me “the only earthly being… for itself.”[3] That means that I cannot be used by anyone, not even God, for an end beyond myself. I am a self-mastering freedom and my being as a self-determining freedom cannot be exercised by anyone else.  Only I can believe. No one can believe for me. No one can exercise my freedom for me.

          When I exercise my freedom to move my total self, I experience myself for what I am, the image of the divine Persons. Therefore, in experiencing myself as image of God, I experience what it is to be like God. And, therefore, I experience and know God.

   Thus only by knowing myself in the act of believing, I know God. And this is everlasting life as Jn. 17, 3: “This is everlasting life, that they know you the one true God, and him whom you have sent, Jesus Christ.”

 

          The realism becomes unassailable when you consider that the Word of God is only true reality. Benedict XVI: “the Word of God is the foundation of everything, it is the true reality. And to be realistic, we must rely upon this reality. We must change our idea that matter, solid things, things we can touch, are the more solid, the more certain reality. At the end of the Sermon on the Mount the Lord speaks to us about the two possible foundations for building the house of one's life: sand and rock. The one who builds on sand builds only on visible and tangible things, on success, on career, on money. Apparently these are the true realities. But all this one day will pass away. We can see this now with the fall of large banks: this money disappears, it is nothing. And thus all things, which seem to be the true realities we can count on, are only realities of a secondary order. The one who builds his life on these realities, on matter, on success, on appearances, builds upon sand. Only the Word of God is the foundation of all reality, it is as stable as the heavens and more than the heavens, it is reality. Therefore, we must change our concept of realism. The realist is the one who recognizes the Word of God, in this apparently weak reality, as the foundation of all things. Realist is the one who builds his life on this foundation, which is permanent. Thus the first verses of the Psalm invite us to discover what reality is and how to find the foundation of our life, how to build life.”[4]

   Response to Nietzsche: We experience and know ourselves (and therefore God) only by the act of faith. It is the only act in the world whereby we become self-transcendent, and therefore, self-experiential. 

---

[1] Walker Percy “Lost in the Cosmos,” Noonday Press (1983) 106-107.

[2] John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis, 10.

[3] Gaudium et Spes #24 and John Paul II “Love and Responsibility,” Ignatius (1990) 27.

[4] Benedict XVI, Synod on the Word of God, Keynote Address, October 6, 2008.

Archbishop Chaput speaks at Cardinal O’Connor Conference on Life

A Thread for Weaving Joy

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.

Cardinal O’Connor Conference on Life
Jan. 22, 2012
Washington, D.C.

The great French Jesuit Henri de Lubac once wrote, “Suffering is the thread from which the stuff of joy is woven.  Never will the optimist know joy.”(1) Those seem like strange words, especially for Americans.  We Americans take progress as an article of faith.  And faith in progress demands a spirit of optimism.
But Father De Lubac knew that optimism and hope are very different creatures.  In real life, bad things happen.  Progress is not assured, and things that claim to be “progress” can sometimes be wicked and murderous instead.  We can slip backward as a nation j
As a young bishop I had the privilege of knowing Cardinal John O’Connor as a mentor and friend.  Later I had the great fortune to work closely with His Eminence and Bishop James McHugh as they developed the text of the 1998 U.S. bishops’ pastoral letter, Living the Gospel of Life – which is still, in my view, the best statement of prolife convictions ever released by the Church in the United States.(2)
Throughout our friendship, Cardinal O’Connor was a man of uncommon hope, integrity and kindness.  And these virtues were never more evident than during his final illness.  In the face of all of his suffering, he never lost his sense of joy in the goodness and sanctity of life.  So I’m very grateful to be part of this conference that bears his name.  And I’m very grateful to all of you today for honoring him with your presence and your witness.
I want to talk this morning about the kind of people we’re becoming, and what we can do about it.  Especially what youcan do about it.  But it’s always good to start with a few facts.  So that’s what I’ll do.
A number of my friends have children with disabilities.  Their problems range from cerebral palsy to Turner’s syndrome to Trisomy 18, which is extremely serious.  But I want to focus on one fairly common genetic disability to make my point.  I’m referring to Trisomy 21, or Down syndrome.
Down syndrome is not a disease.  It’s a genetic disorder with a variety of symptoms. Therapy can ease the burden of those symptoms, but Down syndrome is permanent.  There’s no cure.  People with Down syndrome have mild to moderate developmental delays.  They have low to middling cognitive function. They also tend to have a uniquely Down syndrome “look” – a flat facial profile, almond-shaped eyes, a small nose, short neck, thick stature and a small mouth which often causes the tongue to protrude and interferes with clear speech.  People with Down syndrome also tend to have low muscle tone.  This can affect their posture, breathing and speech.
Currently about 5,000 children with Down syndrome are born in the United States each year. They join a national Down syndrome population of about 400,000 persons. But that population may soon dwindle.  And the reason why it may decline illustrates, in a vivid way, a struggle within the American soul.  That struggle will shape the character of our society in the decades to come.
Prenatal testing can now detect up to 95 percent of pregnancies with a strong risk of Down syndrome.  The tests aren’t conclusive.  They can’t give a firm yes or no.  But they’re pretty good.  And the results of those tests are brutally practical.  Studies show that more than 80 percent of unborn babies diagnosed with Down syndrome now get terminated in the womb.  They’re killed because of a flaw in one of their chromosomes – a flaw that’s neither fatal nor contagious, but merely undesirable.
The older a woman gets, the higher her risk of bearing a child with Down syndrome.  And so, in medical offices around the country, pregnant women now hear from doctors or genetic counselors that their baby has “an increased likelihood” of Down syndrome based on one or more prenatal tests. Some doctors deliver this information with sensitivity and great support for the woman.  But, as my friends know from experience, too many others seem more concerned about avoiding lawsuits, or managing costs, or even, in a few ugly cases, cleaning up the gene pool.
In practice, medical professionals can now steer an expectant mother toward abortion simply by hinting at a list of the child’s possible defects.  And the most debased thing about that kind of pressure is that doctors know better than anyone else how vulnerable a woman can be in hearing potentially tragic news about her unborn baby.
I’m not suggesting that doctors should hold back vital knowledge from parents. Nor should they paint an implausibly upbeat picture of life with a child who has a disability. Facts and resources are crucial in helping adult persons prepare themselves for difficult challenges. But doctors, genetic counselors, and medical school professors should have on staff – or at least on speed dial – experts of a different sort.
Parents of children with special needs, special education teachers and therapists, and pediatricians who have treated children with disabilities often have a hugely life-affirming perspective. Unlike prenatal caregivers, these professionals have direct knowledge of persons with special needs. They know their potential.  They’ve seen their accomplishments. They can testify to the benefits – often miraculous – of parental love and faith.  Expectant parents deserve to know that a child with Down syndrome can love, laugh, learn, work, feel hope and excitement, make friends, and create joy for others.  These things are beautiful precisely because they transcend what we expect.  They witness to the truth that every child with special needs has a value that matters eternally.
Raising a child with Down syndrome can be demanding.  It always involves some degree of suffering.  Parents grow up very fast.  None of my friends who has a daughter or son with a serious disability is melodramatic, or self-conscious, or even especially pious about it.  They speak about their special child with an unsentimental realism.  It’s a realism flowing out of love – real love, the kind that forces its way through fear and suffering to a decision, finally, to surround the child with their heart and trust in the goodness of God.  And that decision to trust, of course, demands not just real love, but also real courage.
The real choice in accepting or rejecting a child with special needs is never between some imaginary perfection or imperfection.  None of us is perfect.  No child is perfect.  The real choice in accepting or rejecting a child with special needs is between love and unlove; between courage and cowardice; between trust and fear.  That’s the choice we face when it happens in our personal experience.  And that’s the choice we face as a society in deciding which human lives we will treat as valuable, and which we will not.
Nearly 50 percent of babies with Down syndrome are born with some sort of heart defect.  Most have a lifelong set of health challenges.  Some of them are serious.  Government help is a mixed bag.  Public policy is uneven. Some cities and states provide generous aid to the disabled and their families. In many other jurisdictions, though, a bad economy has forced very damaging budget cuts.  Services for the disabled — who often lack the resources, voting power and lobbyists to defend their interests — have shrunk. In still other places, the law mandates good support and care, but lawmakers neglect their funding obligations, and no one holds them accountable.  The vulgar economic fact about the disabled is that, in purely utilitarian terms, they rarely seem worth the investment.
That’s the bad news.  But there’s also good news.  Ironically, for those persons with Down syndrome who do make it out of the womb, life is better than at any time in our nation’s history. A baby with Down syndrome born in 1944, the year of my own birth, could expect to live about 25 years.  Many spent their entire lives mothballed in public institutions.  Today, people with Down syndrome routinely survive into their 50s and 60s.  Most can enjoy happy, productive lives.  Most live with their families or share group homes with modified supervision and some measure of personal autonomy.  Many hold steady jobs in the workplace.  Some marry.  A few have even attended college.  Federal law mandates a free and appropriate education for children with special needs through the age of 21.  Social Security provides modest monthly support for persons with Down syndrome and other severe disabilities from age 18 throughout their lives.  These are huge blessings.
And, just as some people resent the imperfection, the inconvenience and the expense of persons with disabilities,others see in them an invitation to learn how to love deeply and without counting the cost.
Hundreds of families in this country – like my young friends in Denver, Kate and JD Flynn — are now seeking to adopt children with Down syndrome. Many of these families already have, or know, a child with special needs.  They believe in the spirit of these beautiful children, because they’ve seen it firsthand. A Maryland-based organization, Reece’s Rainbow, helps arrange international adoptions of children with Down syndrome.  The late Eunice Shriver spent much of her life working to advance the dignity of children with Down syndrome and other disabilities.  The Anna and John J. Sie Foundation committed $34 million to the University of Colorado to focus on improving the medical conditions faced by those with Down syndrome. And many businesses, all over the country, now welcome workers with Down syndrome. Parents of these special employees say that having a job, however tedious, and earning a pay check, however small, gives their children pride and purpose.  These things are more precious than gold.
I said at the start of my remarks tonight that I wanted to talk about the kind of people we’re becoming, and what we can do about it.  And especially what you can do about it as Catholics who take their faith seriously.
The Nobel Peace Prize winner Albert Schweitzer once wrote that, “A man is truly ethical only when he obeys the compulsion to help all life which he is able to assist, and shrinks from injuring anything that lives.”(3) Every child with Down syndrome, every adult with special needs; in fact, every unwanted unborn child, every person who is poor, weak, abandoned or homeless – each one of these persons is an icon of God’s face and a vessel of his love.  How we treat these persons – whether we revere them and welcome them, or throw them away in distaste – shows what we really believe about human dignity, both as individuals and as a nation.
The American Jesuit scholar Father John Courtney Murray once said that “Anyone who really believes in God must set God, and the truth of God, above all other considerations.” (4)
Here’s what that means.  Catholic public officials who take God seriously cannot support laws that attack human dignity without lying to themselves, misleading others and abusing the faith of their fellow Catholics.  God will demand an accounting.  Catholic doctors who take God seriously cannot do procedures, prescribe drugs or support health policies that attack the sanctity of unborn children or the elderly; or that undermine the dignity of human sexuality and the family. God will demand an accounting.  And Catholic citizens who take God seriously cannot claim to love their Church, and then ignore her counsel on vital public issues that shape our nation’s life.  God will demand an accounting.  As individuals, we can claim to believe whatever we want.  We can posture, and rationalize our choices, and make alibis with each other all day long — but no excuse for our lack of honesty and zeal will work with the God who made us.  God knows our hearts better than we do.  If we don’t conform our hearts and actions to the faith we claim to believe, we’re only fooling ourselves.
We live in a culture where our marketers and entertainment media compulsively mislead us about the sustainability of youth; the indignity of old age; the avoidance of suffering; the denial of death; the nature of real beauty; the impermanence of every human love; the oppressiveness of children and family; the silliness of virtue; and the cynicism of religious faith.  It’s a culture of fantasy, selfishness, sexual confusion and illness that we’ve brought upon ourselves.  And we’ve done it by misusing the freedom that other — and greater — generations than our own worked for, bled for and bequeathed to our safe-keeping.
What have we done with that freedom?  In whose service do we use it now?
John Courtney Murray is most often remembered for his work at Vatican II on the issue of religious liberty, and for his great defense of American democracy in his book, We Hold These Truths.  Murray believed deeply in the ideas and moral principles of the American experiment.  He saw in the roots of the American Revolution the unique conditions for a mature people to exercise their freedom through intelligent public discourse, mutual cooperation and laws inspired by right moral character.  He argued that — at its best — American democracy is not only compatible with the Catholic faith, but congenial to it.
But he had a caveat.  It’s the caveat that George Washington implied in his Farewell Address, and that Charles Carroll – the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence — mentions in his own writings.  In order to work, America depends as a nation on a moral people shaped by theirreligious faith, and in a particular way, by the Christian faith.  Without that living faith, animating its people and informing its public life, America becomes something alien and hostile to the very ideals it was founded on.
This is why the same Father Murray who revered the best ideals of the American experiment could also write that “Our American culture, as it exists, is actually the quintessence of all that is decadent in the culture of the Western Christian world.  It would seem to be erected on the triple denial that has corrupted Western culture at its roots: the denial of metaphysical reality, of the primacy of the spiritual over the material, [and] of the social over the individual . . . Its most striking characteristic is its profound materialism . . . It has given citizens everything to live for and nothing to die for.  And its achievement may be summed up thus:  It has gained a continent and lost its own soul.”(5)
Catholics need to wake up from the illusion that the America we now live in – not the America of our nostalgia or imagination or best ideals, but the real America we live in here and now – is somehow friendly to our faith.  What we’re watching emerge in this country is a new kind of paganism, an atheism with air-conditioning and digital TV.  And it is neither tolerant nor morally neutral.
As the historian Gertrude Himmelfarb observed more than a decade ago, “What was once stigmatized as deviant behavior is now tolerated and even sanctioned; what was once regarded as abnormal has been normalized.”  But even more importantly, she added, “As deviancy is normalized, so what was once normal becomes deviant.  The kind of family that has been regarded for centuries as natural and moral – the ‘bourgeois’ family as it is invidiously called – is now seen as pathological” and exclusionary, concealing the worst forms of psychic and physical oppression.(6)
My point is this:  Evil talks about tolerance only when it’s weak.  When it gains the upper hand, its vanity always requires the destruction of the good and the innocent, because the example of good and innocent lives is an ongoing witness against it.  So it always has been.  So it always will be.  And America has no special immunity to becoming an enemy of its own founding beliefs about human freedom, human dignity, the limited power of the state, and the sovereignty of God.
A friend of mine has a son with Down syndrome, and she calls him a “sniffer of souls.”  I know him, and it’s true.  He is.  He may have an IQ of 47, and he’ll never read The Brothers Karamazov, but he has a piercingly quick sense of the people he meets.  He knows when he’s loved — and he knows when he’s not.  Ultimately, I think we’re all like her son.  We hunger for people to confirm that we have meaning by showing us love.  We need that love.  And we suffer when that love is withheld.
These children with disabilities are not a burden; they’re a priceless gift to all of us.  They’re a doorway to the real meaning of our humanity.  Whatever suffering we endure to welcome, protect and ennoble these special children is worth it because they’re a pathway to real hope and real joy.  Abortion kills a child; it wounds a precious part of a woman’s own dignity and identity; and it steals hope.  That’s why it’s wrong.  That’s why it needs to end.  That’s why we march.
The task you need to take home with you today is this.  Never give up the struggle that the March for Life embodies.  No matter how long it takes; no matter how many times you march – it matters, eternally.  Because of you, some young woman will choose life, and that new life will have the love of God forever.
The great Green Bay Packer theologian, Vince Lombardi, liked to say that real glory consists in getting knocked flat on the ground, again and again and again, and getting back up – just one more time than the other guy.  That’s real glory.  And there’s no better metaphor for the Christian life.  Don’t give up.  Your prolife witness gives glory to God.  Be the bestCatholics you can be.  Pour your love for Jesus Christ into building and struggling for a culture of life.  By your words and by your actions, be an apostle to your friends and colleagues.  Speak up for what you believe.  Love the Church.  Defend her teaching.  Trust in God.  Believe in the Gospel.  And don’t be afraid.  Fear is beneath your dignity as sons and daughters of the God of life.
Changing the course of American culture seems like such a huge task; so far beyond the reach of this gathering today.  But St. Paul felt exactly the same way.  Redeeming and converting a civilization has already been done once.  It can be done again. But we need to understand that God is calling you and me to do it.  He chose us.  He calls us.  He’s waiting, and now we need to answer him.  Thanks, and God bless you.

(1) Henri de Lubac, S.J., Paradoxes of Faith, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1987; p. 39
(2) Available at http://old.usccb.org/prolife/gospel.shtml
(3) Albert Schweitzer, The Philosophy of Civilization,Prometheus, Buffalo, NY, 1987; pp. 307-29
(4) John Courtney Murray, S.J.,  “The American Proposition,” an interview with “The Catholic Hour,” 1961;http://woodstock.georgetown.edu/library/murray/1961a.htm
(5) Murray, “The Construction of a Christian Culture,” 1940;http://woodstock.
(6) Gertrude Himmelfarb, One Nation, Two Cultures, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1999; p. 28 




Thomas G. Mahala
Managing Director
BNP Paribas Prim

John Courtney Murray on the United States - Talk by Archbishop Chaput

John Courtney Murray is most often remembered for his work at Vatican II on the issue of religious liberty, and for his great defense of American democracy in his book, We Hold These Truths.  Murray believed deeply in the ideas and moral principles of the American experiment.  He saw in the roots of the American Revolution the unique conditions for a mature people to exercise their freedom through intelligent public discourse, mutual cooperation and laws inspired by right moral character.  He argued that — at its best — American democracy is not only compatible with the Catholic faith, but congenial to it.

But he had a caveat.  It’s the caveat that George Washington implied in his Farewell Address, and that Charles Carroll – the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence — mentions in his own writings.  In order to work, America depends as a nation on a moral people shaped by their religious faith, and in a particular way, by the Christian faith.  Without that living faith, animating its people and informing its public life, America becomes something alien and hostile to the very ideals it was founded on.

This is why the same Father Murray who revered the best ideals of the American experiment could also write that “Our American culture, as it exists, is actually the quintessence of all that is decadent in the culture of the Western Christian world.  It would seem to be erected on the triple denial that has corrupted Western culture at its roots: the denial of metaphysical reality, of the primacy of the spiritual over the material, [and] of the social over the individual . . . Its most striking characteristic is its profound materialism . . . It has given citizens everything to live for and nothing to die for.  And its achievement may be summed up thus:  It has gained a continent and lost its own soul.”(5)

Catholics need to wake up from the illusion that the America we now live in – not the America of our nostalgia or imagination or best ideals, but the real America we live in here and now – is somehow friendly to our faith.  What we’re watching emerge in this country is a new kind of paganism, an atheism with air-conditioning and digital TV.  And it is neither tolerant nor morally neutral.

(5) Murray, “The Construction of a Christian Culture,” 1940;http://woodstock.

MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS 
POPE BENEDICT XVI
FOR THE 46th WORLD COMMUNICATIONS DAY

Silence and Word: Path of Evangelization

[Sunday, 20 May 2012]

Dear Brothers and Sisters,


As we draw near to World Communications Day 2012, I would like to share with you some reflections concerning an aspect of the human process of communication which, despite its importance, is often overlooked and which, at the present time, it would seem especially necessary to recall. It concerns the relationship between silence and word: two aspects of communication which need to be kept in balance, to alternate and to be integrated with one another if authentic dialogue and deep closeness between people are to be achieved. When word and silence become mutually exclusive, communication breaks down, either because it gives rise to confusion or because, on the contrary, it creates an atmosphere of coldness; when they complement one another, however, communication acquires value and meaning.


Silence is an integral element of communication; in its absence, words rich in content cannot exist. In silence, we are better able to listen to and understand ourselves; ideas come to birth and acquire depth; we understand with greater clarity what it is we want to say and what we expect from others; and we choose how to express ourselves. By remaining silent we allow the other person to speak, to express him or herself; and we avoid being tied simply to our own words and ideas without them being adequately tested. In this way, space is created for mutual listening, and deeper human relationships become possible. It is often in silence, for example, that we observe the most authentic communication taking place between people who are in love: gestures, facial expressions and body language are signs by which they reveal themselves to each other. Joy, anxiety, and suffering can all be communicated in silence – indeed it provides them with a particularly powerful mode of expression. Silence, then, gives rise to even more active communication, requiring sensitivity and a capacity to listen that often makes manifest the true measure and nature of the relationships involved. When messages and information are plentiful, silence becomes essential if we are to distinguish what is important from what is insignificant or secondary. Deeper reflection helps us to discover the links between events that at first sight seem unconnected, to make evaluations, to analyze messages; this makes it possible to share thoughtful and relevant opinions, giving rise to an authentic body of shared knowledge. For this to happen, it is necessary to develop an appropriate environment, a kind of ‘eco-system’ that maintains a just equilibrium between silence, words, images and sounds.


The process of communication nowadays is largely fuelled by questions in search of answers. Search engines and social networks have become the starting point of communication for many people who are seeking advice, ideas, information and answers. In our time, the internet is becoming ever more a forum for questions and answers – indeed, people today are frequently bombarded with answers to questions they have never asked and to needs of which they were unaware. If we are to recognize and focus upon the truly important questions, then silence is a precious commodity that enables us to exercise proper discernment in the face of the surcharge of stimuli and data that we receive. Amid the complexity and diversity of the world of communications, however, many people find themselves confronted with the ultimate questions of human existence: Who am I? What can I know? What ought I to do? What may I hope? It is important to affirm those who ask these questions, and to open up the possibility of a profound dialogue, by means of words and interchange, but also through the call to silent reflection, something that is often more eloquent than a hasty answer and permits seekers to reach into the depths of their being and open themselves to the path towards knowledge that God has inscribed in human hearts.


Ultimately, this constant flow of questions demonstrates the restlessness of human beings, ceaselessly searching for truths, of greater or lesser import, that can offer meaning and hope to their lives. Men and women cannot rest content with a superficial and unquestioning exchange of skeptical opinions and experiences of life – all of us are in search of truth and we share this profound yearning today more than ever: “When people exchange information, they are already sharing themselves, their view of the world, their hopes, their ideals” (Message for the 2011 World Day of Communications).


Attention should be paid to the various types of websites, applications and social networks which can help people today to find time for reflection and authentic questioning, as well as making space for silence and occasions for prayer, meditation or sharing of the word of God. In concise phrases, often no longer than a verse from the Bible, profound thoughts can be communicated, as long as those taking part in the conversation do not neglect to cultivate their own inner lives. It is hardly surprising that different religious traditions consider solitude and silence as privileged states which help people to rediscover themselves and that Truth which gives meaning to all things. The God of biblical revelation speaks also without words: “As the Cross of Christ demonstrates, God also speaks by his silence. The silence of God, the experience of the distance of the almighty Father, is a decisive stage in the earthly journey of the Son of God, the incarnate Word …. God’s silence prolongs his earlier words. In these moments of darkness, he speaks through the mystery of his silence” (Verbum Domini, 21). The eloquence of God’s love, lived to the point of the supreme gift, speaks in the silence of the Cross. After Christ’s death there is a great silence over the earth, and on Holy Saturday, when “the King sleeps and God slept in the flesh and raised up those who were sleeping from the ages” (cf. Office of Readings, Holy Saturday), God’s voice resounds, filled with love for humanity.
If God speaks to us even in silence, we in turn discover in silence the possibility of speaking with God and about God. “We need that silence which becomes contemplation, which introduces us into God’s silence and brings us to the point where the Word, the redeeming Word, is born” (Homily,Eucharistic Celebration with Members of the International Theological Commission, 6 October 2006). In speaking of God’s grandeur, our language will always prove inadequate and must make space for silent contemplation. Out of such contemplation springs forth, with all its inner power, the urgent sense of mission, the compelling obligation “to communicate that which we have seen and heard” so that all may be in communion with God (1 Jn 1:3). Silent contemplation immerses us in the source of that Love who directs us towards our neighbours so that we may feel their suffering and offer them the light of Christ, his message of life and his saving gift of the fullness of love.


In silent contemplation, then, the eternal Word, through whom the world was created, becomes ever more powerfully present and we become aware of the plan of salvation that God is accomplishing throughout our history by word and deed. As the Second Vatican Council reminds us, divine revelation is fulfilled by “deeds and words having an inner unity: the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by the words, while the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them” (Dei Verbum, 2).This plan of salvation culminates in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, the mediator and the fullness of all revelation. He has made known to us the true face of God the Father and by his Cross and Resurrection has brought us from the slavery of sin and death to the freedom of the children of God. The fundamental question of the meaning of human existence finds in the mystery of Christ an answer capable of bringing peace to the restless human heart. The Church’s mission springs from this mystery; and it is this mystery which impels Christians to become heralds of hope and salvation, witnesses of that love which promotes human dignity and builds justice and peace.


Word and silence: learning to communicate is learning to listen and contemplate as well as speak. This is especially important for those engaged in the task of evangelization: both silence and word are essential elements, integral to the Church’s work of communication for the sake of a renewed proclamation of Christ in today’s world. To Mary, whose silence “listens to the Word and causes it to blossom” (Private Prayer at the Holy House, Loreto, 1 September 2007), I entrust all the work of evangelization which the Church undertakes through the means of social communication.


From the Vatican, 24 January 2012, Feast of Saint Francis de Sales.

BENEDICTUS XVI

Wedding: Sarah and Tom Krawczyk: 2/11/2012

Readings: 1) Tobit 8, 4-8: On the evening of their marriage, Tobias said to Sarah, "you and I must pray and petition our Lord to win his grace and protection." They began praying for protection, and this was how he began: "You are blessed O God of our fathers; blessed, too, is your name for ever and ever. Let the heavens bless you and all things you have made for evermore. It was you who created Adam, you who created Eve his wife to be his help and support; and from these two the human race was born. It was you who said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make him a helpmate like himself." And so I do not take my sister for any lustful motive; I do it in singleness of heart. Be kind enough to have pity on her and on me and bring us to old age together." And together they said, "Amen, Amen."

2) John 2, 1-11: On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, ² and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding.³ When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”  ⁴ “Woman,^[a] why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”  ⁵ His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”  ⁶ Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.^[b] 7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim.  ⁸ Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”  They did so, ⁹ and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside ¹⁰ and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.  ¹¹ What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

From the first reading we see that Tobias takes Sarah with purity of heart, i.e. for herself not for himself so that he is not “take” but gift. Together they say “Amen. Amen.” Tom and Sarah chose February 11 for the day of marriage, the feast of Our Lady of Lourdes where she declared herself “the Immaculate Conception.” The Gospel reading is the changing of water, filled to the brim (36 gallons) into excellent wine.

            Christian marriage is the changing of complementary opposites into one. It is not forging compatible individuals into a unity. The difference between the man and the woman is such that the ancient Greek Pythagoreans thought that they were different species. Dietrich von Hildebrand wrote that marriage was not the gift of friendship between two compatible persons standing/walking side by side with a common interest, but rather facing each other with an interpenetrating glance giving birth to a mysterious fusion of their souls – making new wine. He wrote further that “the giving of self [is] the specific characteristic of spousal love. “It is not simply a compound of friendship and sensuality”[1] but a unique communication of self gift. This is the meaning of human sexuality and the prayer of Tobias and Sarah to become transformed into excellent wine as one.

           

On the differences between men and women... (Dave Barry)

 Let's say a guy named Roger is
attracted to a woman named Elaine.

He asks her out to a movie; she accepts; they have a pretty good time. A few
nights later he asks her out to dinner, and again they enjoy themselves.
They continue to see each other regularly, and after a while neither one of
them is seeing anybody else. And then, one evening when they're driving
home, a thought occurs to Elaine, and, without really thinking, she  says it
aloud:

"Do you realize that, as of tonight, we've been seeing each other for
exactly six months?" And then there is silence in the car. To Elaine, it
seems like a very loud silence. She thinks to herself: Gee, I wonder if it
bothers him that I said that. Maybe he's been feeling confined by our
relationship; maybe he thinks I'm trying to push him into some kind of
obligation that he doesn't want, or isn't sure of.

And Roger is thinking: Gosh. Six months.

And Elaine is thinking: But, hey, I'm not so sure I want this kind of
relationship, either. Sometimes I wish I had a little more space so I'd have
time to think about whether I really want us to keep going the way we are,
moving steadily toward ... I mean, where are we going? Are we just going to
keep seeing each other at this level of intimacy? Are we heading toward
marriage? Toward children?  Toward a lifetime together?  Am I ready for that level of commitment? Do I really even know this person?

And Roger is thinking: ... so that means it was... let's see.... February
when we started going out, which was right after I had the car at the
dealer's, which means ... lemme check the odometer ... Whoa! I am way
overdue for an oil change here.

And Elaine is thinking: He's upset. I can see it on his face. Maybe I'm
reading this completely wrong. Maybe he wants more from our relationship,
more intimacy, more commitment; maybe he has sensed-even before I sensed it-that I was feeling some reservations. Yes, I bet that's it. That's why
he's so reluctant to say anything about his own feelings. He's afraid of
being rejected….                              

And Roger is thinking: And I'm gonna have them look at the transmission
again.

Conclusion:  We are really different!!

Opposites as Total Gift Not Mere Compatibilities: Roger and Elaine are the image of the divine reality of the One God constituted by the three Persons who are not compatibilities but opposites. The Rather is not the Son, the Son is not the Father (“The Father is greater than I,” Jn. 14, 28; and yet “I and the Father are one,” Jn. 10, 30). In the case of human persons like man and woman, a powerful metaphor is the transformation of water, in jars filled to the brim, into a new and excellent wine. “Filled to the brim” is the involvement of their whole selves.

            The characteristic of marriage is this totality – “to the brim” – which is the gift of oneself, not just talents, time, money, attention, affection. Or even sex. The first one to speak tin these terms, “self-gift” – was Dietrich von Hildebrand in 1929 and it was echoed oby Karol Wojtyla in his “Love and Responsibility” and became the Church’s definition of the human person in the Second Vatican Council where it said that there is a parallel between the union of the Divine Persons and human persons. Concretely, “man, the only earthly being God has loved for itself, finds himself by the sincere gift of self. Wojtyla wrote:

            “Spousal love differs from all other aspects or forms of love…  The essence of spousal love is self-giving, the surrender of one’s ‘I.’ This is something different from and more than attraction, desire or even good will. These are all ways by which one person goes out towards another, but none of them can take him as far in his quest for the good of the other as does spousal love… When spousal love enters into this interpersonal relationship something more than friendship results: two people give themselves to the other.”[2]

You Never Marry the “Right” Person: Marriage is not about the union of compatibiles  and self-fulfillment, but the gift of self: (nuclear fission).

Example: an allegory

"Leaf by Niggle:" (Only by giving it all away do you get it all back +)

          This gift of self could perhaps be best presented by J.R.R.Tolkien –author of “The Lord of the Rings” - in his “Leaf by Niggle” that Sarah seemed to have enjoyed hearing in the retreat two weeks ago.

            Niggle was a painter, an artist. In his studio, he began working on painting a leaf that he saw in his imagination. Soon the leaf became many leaves, then trees, then countryside and finally a whole landscape.

            Next door lived a poor man with a sick wife and child. One rainy day, the neighbor asked Niggle if he had anything that could be used to cover a hole in his roof since the rain was coming in. Niggle had nothing at hand, and the poor man was beside himself with anxiety. Suddenly, he realized that he had one thing: the large canvas on which he was painting his leaves and the landscape, and into which he was pouring his talents and self. Begrudgingly, he brought it next door, climbed the man’s roof and nailed it over the hole.

            Niggle then takes a trip – which is really his death – and he overhears voices speaking sternly about him, the facts of his life and conferring about his fate. He was mean at times and sinful but a skilled artist: “a leaf by Niggle was a great work of art.” Suddenly there is a kind voice that interrupts the somewhat harsh consultation and reminds about the quality of a leaf by Niggle, and that Niggle had made a gift of his master work ot cover a hole in his neighbor’s roof for protection against the rain.

            Niggle is then taken by train, with his neighbor who had also died, out into the county. When the tan stops they both step down and behold an immense countryside with grass nad water and trees all bearing the prized leaves by Niggle. They entered and explored together Niggle’s masterwork now become reality because he gave it away.

            Is such a gift o self possible? Not without Christ, and therefore not without the sacrament in which each of you is the minister. You are uniquely here “priests of your own existence.” The prototype of matrimony is the oneness – identity – of Christ and the Chruch (Eph. 5, 25) for whom He gives all that He is as God-man which is the Mass we are about to offer. And one-flesh union between Christ and the Church is the Eucharist that we are about to receive. Therefore, it takes three to get married. Sarah, Tom and Jesus Christ in the sacrament. My mission is simply to assist you in executing the sacrament as its minister.

           

Finally, the miracle of changing water into wine, which was the raising of marriage to a Christian sacrament, was initiate ad by Our Lady whose feast we celebrate today. May she preside in her humility over the miracle of this union of Sarah and Tom. She is pleased. It snowed.

---

[1] Dietrich von Hildebrand, “Marriage, the Mystery of Human Love,” Sophia Institute Press (1991)19.

[2] K. Wojtyla, “Love and Responsibility,” Ignatius (1990) 96.

Divine Filiation - St. Ambrose

St. Ambrose on Divine Filiation


He who through the Spirit, says S. Paul, mortifies the deeds of the body shall live. Nor is it surprising that he should live, since he who has the Spirit of God, becomes the son of God. Wherefore he is the son of God that he may receive not the spirit of bondage, but the spirit of adoption of sons; to the intent that the Holy Spirit may bear witness with our spirit that we are the children of God. But this is the testimony of the Holy Spirit, that He it is Who cries in our hearts, Abba Father, as it is written to the Galatians. There is also the great testimony that we are the sons of God; namely that we are heirs of God and
joint heirs with Christ. Now he is joint heir with Him, who is glorified together with Him, and he is glorified together with Him who by suffering for Him suffers together with Him.

5. And in order to encourage us to suffer, he adds that all things which we suffer fall far below and are not worthy to be compared with the recompense of our labours, the reward of future good, which shall be revealed in us, when |229 we shall be formed anew after the Image of God, and shall be worthy to behold His Glory face to face.

6. And to exalt the greatness of this future revelation, he adds that the creation also waits for this revelation of the sons of God, which now is made subject to vanity, not willingly, but in hope, because it hopes for the reward of its ministry from Christ, or else because it also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, and received into the glorious liberty of the sons of God, that there may be one liberty of the creation and of the sons of God, when their glory shall have been revealed. But now, so long as this revelation is delayed, the whole creation groans together, looking for the glory of our adoption and redemption, already travailing with that Spirit of salvation, and willing to be delivered from the servitude of vanity.

7. And to this the Apostle has conjoined the groans of the saints, who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, for they groan also. Of their own merits they are indeed secure, but since the redemption of the whole body of the Church is still future, they suffer together with it. For seeing that the members of this our body still suffer, shall not the other members, although higher, sympathize with the suffering members of one and the same body?

8. And this, I suppose, is why the Apostle has said that the Son Himself shall be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, for they who still labour are not yet subject, and in these perhaps Christ still thirsts, in these is still hungry, in these is still naked, in that they do not fulfil the word of God, nor put on Christ, Who is the Garment of believers, and the Robe of the faithful. They also in whom He is sick still need medicine, and therefore are not yet subdued, for this subjection is of strength not of weakness : again, in those who are strong and obey the commands of God, the Son of God is subject. But now His travail is greater in those who do not succour those who are toiling, than in those who still require aid themselves. And this is the pious and true meaning of the subjection of the Lord Jesus, Who will subject Himself, to the intent that God might be all in all.

9. We have received the Apostle's meaning, let us now |230 consider who are they that have the first-fruits of the Spirit. With this view let us inquire what is intended under the name of first-fruits or of beginning, Thou shalt not delay, it is said, to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors; further on, The first of the first-fruits of thy lands thou shalt bring into the house of the Lord thy God. First-fruits and tenths are different, first-fruits are of greater merit, an act of pious consecration. And on this account Abel pleased God, for he delayed not to offer his gift, but offered of the first-fruits of his flock. Although some suppose that there is a difference between 14 first-fruits and first-born15, in that on gathering in the crops, the beginning, so to speak, of all kinds in the threshing floor are offered, while the first reaping of the harvest is offered to the Lord; but of this we will speak in another place. But by the offering of the first-fruits, the whole harvest appears to be sanctified, but the first-fruits themselves are the most holy.

10. In like manner the saints are the first-fruits of the Lord, and the chief are the Apostles, for God hath set in the Church first Apostles, who have prophesied many things and preached the Lord Jesus, for they first received Him. Simeon too received Him, and the prophet Zacharias, John his son, Nathanael, in whom there was no guile, who rested under the fig tree, Joseph also who was called just, who buried Him. These are the first-fruits of our faith, nevertheless the nature of other seeds is the same as that of the first-fruits, although in some there is less grace, for God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.

11. You have an example in the Lord Jesus Himself. In the resurrection of the dead He is called the first-born from the dead. The Apostle also has called Him the first-fruits; In Christ shall all be made alive, but every man in his own order, Christ the first-fruits, afterward they that are Christ's, who have believed in His coming. His body is as truly a body as our own, nevertheless He is called the first-born from the dead, because He rose first; and He is called the first-fruits because He is holier than all the other fruits, and they by union with Him are hallowed , also. He also asthe Image of the invisible God is the |231 Head of those found after that Image; in Him according to His Divinity there is nothing corporeal, nothing temporary; for He is the brightness of His Father's glory, and the express Image of His Person. But in our desire to explain the meaning of first-fruits we have greatly extended the length of our letter.

12. Now the Apostles are our first-fruits, chosen from all the first-fruits of that time; to them it is said, And greater things than these shall ye do,for the Grace of God hath poured itself into them. These, I say, groaned, waiting for the redemption of the whole body, and they still groan, because many are still toiling, who are yet tossing on the sea. Just as, if a man is reaching the higher shore, but the waves still dash up to his middle, he groans and is in travail until he be wholly out of danger. Verily he groans, who still says to us, Who is weak, and I am not weak?

13. We need not then to be perplexed by the words, We, which have the first-fruits of the Spirit, groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit the redemption of our body, for the sense is plain, forasmuch as they, having the first-fruits of the Spirit, groan, waiting for the adoption of sons. This adoption of sons is the redemption of the whole body, when he who is to be the son of God by adoption shall see face to face that Divine and Eternal Good; for there is the adoption of sons in the Church of God, when the Spirit cries, Abba, Father, as it is written to the Galatians. But this will be perfected when all shall rise again in incorruption power and glory who are counted worthy to see the Face of God, for then the human race will judge itself to be truly redeemed. And so the Apostle boasts, saying, For we are saved by hope. For hope saves, as also faith, whereof it is said, Thy faith hath saved thee.

14. Therefore the creature which is made subject to vanity not willingly but in hope, is saved by hope; just as Paul too, knowing that to die was gain to him, that he might be freed from the body and be with Christ, remained in the flesh for their sakes whom he wished to win to Christ. Now what is hope but the expectation of things future? Wherefore he says, But the hope that is seen is not hope. |232
For it is not what is seen but what is unseen that is eternal, for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? The things that we see we seem to possess, how then can we hope for that which we already possess? Thus none of those things which we hope for can we see; eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, the things that God hath prepared for them that love Him.

15. Wherefore, if that which is seen cannot be hoped for, it is not well to read as some do, 'for 16 because any one sees a thing he also hopes for it;' unless it may be understood thus, 'for that which any one sees, why does he also hope for or expect it?' For most true it is that we hope for that which we see not, and therefore, although it seem to be absent from us, we still look for it in patience; I waited patiently for the Lord, and He inclined unto me. And we wait patiently, because the Lord is good unto them that wait for Him. And it seems to agree with this, that through patience He has given it back to us. We wait for the things which we hope for, but see not. For he does much who hopes and looks for those things which are not seen, and endures because he directs his mind to that which is.

16. Now it is well said that hope that is seen is not hope, referring to the power and honour and riches of this world. You may see a man distinguished by his retinue and equipages, but he has not hope in his equipages which are seen. Nor is hope in the firmament of heaven, but in the Lord of heaven. The Chaldaean has not hope in the stars which he watches; nor the rich man in his possessions or the avaricious man in usury; but he hath hope who places his hope in Him Whom he sees not, that is, in the Lord Jesus, Who stands in the midst of us, yet is not seen. Finally, eye hath not seen, nor ear heard the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him. |233