Sunday, December 13, 2015

Third Sunday of Advent - John the Baptist and The Epistemology Behind Pope Francis

The crowds asked John the Baptist,
“What should we do?”
He said to them in reply,
“Whoever has two cloaks
should share with the person who has none. 
And whoever has food should do likewise.”
Even tax collectors came to be baptized and they said to him,
“Teacher, what should we do?”
He answered them, 
“Stop collecting more than what is prescribed.”
Soldiers also asked him,
“And what is it that we should do?”
He told them,
“Do not practice extortion, 
do not falsely accuse anyone, 
and be satisfied with your wages.”

Now the people were filled with expectation, 
and all were asking in their hearts 
whether John might be the Christ.
John answered them all, saying, 
“I am baptizing you with water,
but one mightier than I is coming.
I am not worthy to loosen the thongs of his sandals.
He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
His winnowing fan is in his hand to clear his threshing floor
and to gather the wheat into his barn, 
but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
Exhorting them in many other ways, 
he preached good news to the people.
John was sent to proclaim Christ as we are sent. However, he proclaims morality and gives moral advice to all questions asked while creating the anticipation that something new is coming. The “something new” is what he hears of the doings of Christ: the blind see, the deaf hear… the poor have the gospel preached to them. John, the last of the prophets can point Christ out, but he doesn’t know Him. And he said so: “and I did not know him” (Jn. 1, 33). This why he send messengers to Christ when he (John) was in jail to ask: “Are you he who is to come or should we look for another (Luke 7, 23)?” The large point that must be made is John’s need to go through another conversion himself (just like all of us).


 We speak Christ, but we may not have had the encounter. The proof of this in John is his sending the messengers to Christ asking: “Are you he who is to come or should we look for another? Christ answers that the visible proof of his divinity is present, but you (John) still may not recognize Him because you may not live outside yourself – yet. You have yet to go through another conversion to be like Him, and therefore, know him. Truth to tell, you must become Him in order to know Him. Knowing is becoming the other. That conversion is to get out of himself where he measures Christ according to his understanding of morality, where Christ as Creator with the Father and the Spirit, is above and beyond all created morality. His is Trinitarian Life beyond all created measure and measured only by Itself.  This demands another kind of experience and another kind of knowing. I offer Richard Rohr’s succinct rendering of the contrast between the Greek mind and the Trinitarian mind. I submit that they are not contradictory or antithetical but complementary and must be at work together all the time. It behooves us to be aware of this. Particularly now.

[Richard Rohr][1]

“Greek Logic”

                “The way we think and the way intelligent prose works in Western languages is founded on three simple principles of logic that can be founded on three simple principles of logic that can be found already in Greek philosophy. They are sequential and linear:
1)      The Law of Identity: A = A. A thing is the same as itself (and no two things are exactly the same).
2)     The Law of Contradiction: If A = A, then A cannot be B (that which is not A).
3)     The Law of the Excluded Middle or Third:  A cannot be both A and B at the same time.

These principles are at work in all educated Western people, consciously or not: you don’t have to know them consciously to follow them. They served us well in terms of the scientific and industrial revolutions, in terms of measurements and math, and most day-to-day life, but their severe limitations in other areas, such as science, philosophy, theology, and astrophysics – are now becoming apparent. We need a way through and a way beyond this closed system. Of itself, Greek logic cannot lead us to the kind of wisdom we are seeking, as Paul himself warned us in 1 Corinthians 1, 119-31.
                
“In fact, these Greek principles of logic are reductionistic and not always true at all. They lead to what Ken Wilber calls ‘flatland.’ Let’s consider two examples of the shortcomings of such logic. One came from fourth-century Christian theology and the other from recent developments in quantum physics and astro-physics. They all undercut and overcome Greek logic and place us inside of a new frame different from what most of us took as self-evident. They are opening up an entirely different mind, and if religion does not wake up, it will, in the centuries to come, find itself even less able to talk to the world.

Trinity

                “Trinitarian theology was almost made to order to humiliate the logical Greek mind: It said, in effect: the Father is the Father, but the Father is also the Son, and in fact, he is the Father and the Son at the same time, which relationship is, in fact, the Holy Spirit. If actually encountered and meditated on, the doctrine of God as Trinity breaks down the binary system of the mind. For a Christian who lives in a Trinitarian spirituality, it makes either-or thinking totally useless. Perhaps, in addition to everything else, the Trinity is a blessing, to make us patient before Mystery and to humble our dualistic minds. I noted earlier how the unspeakable name of the Jewish God, YHWH, was supposed to have had the same effect.

                “Unfortunately, for the majority of Trinitarian Christians, we believed the doctrine of Trinity as some kind of strange riddle, a mathematical conundrum, but never let it call our addiction to Greek logic into question. The sweet Irish nuns who taught me wisely said, ‘Don’t think about it!’ and held up the shamrock as a rather lovely natural symbol of the three-in-one. Even though the doctrine of the Trinity was at the very center of Christian faith, we did not allow it to change our consciousness. We just believed it to be true, and then shelved it, as we did most doctrines. Only the mystics tended to relate to God in a Trinitarian way, and often passionately so (such as Augustine, Bonaventure, Julian of Norwich, and the Cappadocian Fathers [St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa an St. Gregory Nanzianzen]). I am certain that the future of Christian mysticism will be strongly Trinitarian, which, perhaps surprisingly, also creates a huge opening for interreligious dialogue. Unfortunately, faith became a matter of believing impossible or strange things… instead of an entranceway into a very different way of knowing altogether.

“We Catholics frequently signed our bodies with the Trinitarian sign of the Cross and fully accepted the mental doctrine, but we set it aside as of no practical or real consequence. We did not let the principle of three undo our dualistic principle of two. As Karl Rahner taught, we could drop the doctrine of the Trinity tomorrow, and it would have little or no practical effect on the lives of most Christians. This was a real loss and mistake, especially considering that Jesus himself knew no Greek , and clearly did not think with this kind of logic when it came to matters divine.”
Physics and Astrophysics
               
“Our modern and postmodern world has given our minds any number or recent humiliations, available to all, whether scientists or laypeople, who dare to study atoms, galaxies, and thenature of space and time. One that comes to mind – or better, one that is unable to come to mind – is the discovery that an electron is an impossible mixture of ‘here; and ‘there’ (B). And at the same time! Any intelligent person would think he is showing his intelligence by saying ‘Impossible!’ It looks like it must be some imagic show or an illusionist’s trick; but in fact, the ‘principle of the excluded middle’ shows itself not to be true here either. There is a third something, although we have no idea how to understand it. We only know it indirectly, by its effects. Something like Spirit.
  
              “Quantum physics and astrophysics are filled with similar ‘logical’ impossibilities. Much of the universe seems to feed on paradox and the mysterious – everything from black holes to dark matter to neutrinos, which are invisible and weightless and yet necessary to keep matter and anti-matter from cancelling out one another. They have to be there – things don’t sense otherwise – but no one can prove it, because the scientific method cannot measure it or know it, except by its effects.
   
             “We have all heard how light is both a wave and a particle, and scientists long ago gave up trying to prove it was just one or the other. It is clearly both – and at the same time! Now, how do you deal with facts of that nature, if you are intelligent? This signals that you need a very different kind of intelligence. In both the worlds of religions and science a certain kind of reductionistic Western mind is being forced to reframe itself.
        
        “The irony is that, today, religious people are often much more invested in either-or thinking than most scientists, who now know better. Many in academia have the humility to work with various theories and hypotheses, and move ahead ‘as if’ an idea were true, until more of the mystery can be understood…. Many of us just want to ‘think’ our way to god and be certain every step of the way,, while still calling it faith.”

Blogger: I submit that the Trinitarian mind is the experience  of faith where the believing person is transcends self and experiences the self as different from the sensed world precisely because of the action of self-transcending: “I believe what you tell me because I believe you.” I trust you. I receive what you say into myself because I love you. I can’t prove it [and be “certain”] according to my sensible and conceptual standards but I have the absolute certainty because you say so.
    
            That trust gives me access to myself as an “acting being,” an acting reality that is the only reality that I experience directly because I uniquely determine that act. It is the supreme realism. No one can determine that act for me. This is freedom. That believing “I” is a third something that I experience without the mediation of a sensation or a concept. It is a consciousness that is truth. It is the meaning of “meaning” and the meaning of “conscience.”

This is access to reality that is at work in Francis, and that has been at work from Vatican II through Paul VI, JPII, Benedict and now Francis. This is the realist horizon that the Magisterium of the Church is working in. 



[1] Richard Rohr, “The Naked Now,” Crossroad (2009)149-153.

Friday, December 11, 2015

Pope calls Central African Christians, Muslims to unite against violence



In his address at the mosque, the Pope expressed his gratitude for the work done by Christian and Muslim leaders to re-establish “harmony and fraternity among all.”Bangui, Central African Republic, Nov 30, 2015 
 Christians and Muslims must unite against acts which “disfigure the Face of God” by promoting peace, Pope Francis told Islamic representatives on the final day of his visit the war-torn Central African Republic (CAR).
“Those who claim to believe in God must also be men and women of peace,” the Pope said at the Nov. 30 encounter at the Mosque of Koudoukou in the CAR capital Bangui, recalling the long history of peaceful coexistence among people of different religions.
“Christians, Muslims and members of the traditional religions have lived together in peace for many years,” the pontiff said, adding: “We are well aware that the recent events and acts of violence which have shaken your country were not grounded in properly religious motives.”
Pope Francis arrived Sunday in the CAR, the final stop of his tri-nation visit to Africa. It also marks the pontiff’s first time in an active war zone.
“Christians and Muslims are brothers and sisters. We must therefore consider ourselves and conduct ourselves as such,” he said.
“They ought, therefore, to remain united in working for an end to every act which, from whatever side, disfigures the Face of God and whose ultimate aim is to defend particular interests by any and all means, to the detriment of the common good.”
“Together, we must say no to hatred, to revenge and to violence, particularly that violence which is perpetrated in the name of a religion or of God himself. God is peace, salam.”
The CAR became embroiled in violence in December 2012 when several bands of mainly Muslim rebel groups formed an alliance, taking the name Seleka. They left their strongholds in the north of the country and made their way south, seizing power from then-president Francois Bozize. Since then, some 6,000 people have died in the conflict, with several thousands more displaced.
The country will hold both presidential and parliamentary elections Dec. 27, after they were postponed in October due to violence and instability. Interim President Catherine Samba-Panza, who has so far struggled to keep peace, will not be a candidate.
Pope Francis went forward with the scheduled visit to the Koudoukou mosque despite security concerns. These fears were exacerbated by reports Saturday of three young people being killed in a nearby neighborhood, although it was later announced that no one died, and that the youths had been found.
The pontiff went on to acknowledge the acts of solidarity shown by Christians and Muslims towards persons of other religions by “welcoming them and defending them during this latest crisis in your country, as well as in other parts of the world.”
“We cannot fail to express hope that the forthcoming national consultations will provide the country with leaders capable of bringing Central Africans together, thus becoming symbols of national unity rather than merely representatives of one or another faction.”
The Pope called for the CAR, which is “situated in the heart of Africa,” to be a place of welcome for everyone – regardless of ethnicity, political affiliation, or religion – which in turn will encourage the rest of the continent to follow in its footsteps.
“It will prove a positive influence and help extinguish the smouldering tensions which prevent Africans from benefitting from that development which they deserve and to which they have a right.”
Pope Francis concluded his address by inviting those present to “pray and work for reconciliation, fraternity and solidarity among all people, without forgetting those who have suffered the most as a result of recent events.”



 Consider Bishop Robert Barron's words for today: 
Be Ready
St. Luke tells us that, “The word of God was spoken to John the son of Zechariah in the desert” (Luke 3:2). The word came not to one of the high and mighty, or one of the lords of society, living in an impressive palace or temple. It came to John in the desert.

And that word tells us that God is about to act. Just as he brought his children home from exile in Babylon, so now he is going to bring them back from an interior, spiritual exile. 

John speaks: “Make ready the way of the Lord, clear for him a straight path. Every valley shall be filled and every mountain and hill shall be leveled. The windings shall be made straight and the rough ways smooth” (Isaiah 40: 3-4). John is saying that his job is to prepare for the mighty coming of the Lord. He is to build the highway that will facilitate his arrival. Change is coming, a revolution is on the way.

So prepare the way of the Lord.

And how should we prepare? Through the baptism of repentance. Baptism—an immersion in water—reminded first century Jews of the Exodus, passing through the Red Sea, leaving their ways of slavery behind. Baptism reminded the people that God would humble the powers of their time as he once humbled Egypt and Babylon.

Repentance (metanoia) means going beyond the mind that you have. How our minds are conditioned by the fallen world! How our expectations are shaped, stunted by what has gone before! It’s time, John is saying, for a new mind, a new set of eyes, a new kind of expectation.

God is about to act! Be ready!

   The mind that we have must be transformed from the Greek mind of "thing" - even "rational thing" - to Person as image and likeness of a Divine Person. See the following:

* * * * * * * * 

A bioethics committee at Houston’s Methodist Hospital has ruled that a patient’s life support treatment should be ended, despite the fact that the patient has consciously expressed the desire to live and continue receiving support. According to Breitbart:
"Dunn is a former sheriff’s deputy and has worked as a Homeland Security officer but had no health insurance when he got sick. He has been in the hospital for eight weeks since a noncancerous mass was found where his small intestine connects to the pancreas."
Dunn’s mother believes that decision was influenced by the fact that Dunn has no health insurance. Texas is one of the few states that allows a panel to determine the life and death of patients when there is disagreement between the patient’s physician and their family or the patients themselves. Under Texas law, if an attending physician refuses to honor a patient’s requests for care or an advance directive, that decision then goes before an ethics or medical committee.
Dunn’s lawer believes that the Texas statute denies a patient all due process rights and is unconstitutional. “A criminal on death row in Texas has more rights than a patient in a Texas hospital" he said.

A Harris County judge has granted two consecutive two-week extensions thus far, but Houston Methodist Hospital has countered these interventions with additional court filings to remove Chris’s mother from the process. His mother, Evelyn, has been vigilant in protecting Chris since he is intermittently sedated.

Questions that have to be asked: Does a Homeland Security Officer not have health insurance? Did the attending physician refuse to attend to him because of this?

Blogger: This is where Christian anthropology must emerge from the penumbra from where it undergirds the entire moral and legal structure of society. This  situation is the same as the parable invented by Christ to teach the human-divine story of the Good Samaritan attending to the injured Jew - unknown to him, and to whom he has no natural ties - while passed by by his co-religionists on their way to obey the Mosaic law in the temple.

Thursday, December 10, 2015

Loreto and St. Josemaria Escriva

Josemaría Escrivá visited Loreto for the first time on January 3 and 4, 1948. But the reason for his feeling especially indebted to Our Lady of Loreto referred to a different visit at a time of grave need. The 1950s were a time of severe suffering for St Josemaría because of misunderstandings and conflicts. Amidst these difficulties he decided to go to Loreto and entrust himself anew to our Lady’s protection. In her book Tiempo de Caminar, Ana Sastre tells the story of that visit.

On August the fourteenth, 1951, Monsignor Escrivá decided to go to Loreto by car to be there on the fifteenth and consecrate Opus Dei to our Blessed Lady. The heat was stifling and they were very thirsty all the way. There was no motorway. The road followed the line of valleys, went steeply up the Apennine Mountains and finally plunged down towards the Adriatic coast.

According to a centuries-old tradition the Holy House of Nazareth has stood on the hill of Loreto since 1294, and a basilica was later built around it. The Holy House is rectangular in shape, and its walls are about four and a half meters high. One of the walls is modern, but the others, which have no foundations, and are blackened by the smoke of candles, are, according to tradition, the walls of the House at Nazareth. The structure of the Holy House, and the materials of which it is built, bear no relation to those of local architecture in olden times, but are exactly similar to houses built in Palestine twenty centuries ago: sandstone blocks with a limestone mortar. The shrine stands on a ridge covered in laurel-trees, from which comes the name ‘Loreto’.

St Josemaria’s party parked in the central square and he got out of the car quickly. For fifteen or twenty minutes he was lost to sight among the people filling the basilica. Finally he emerged, after praying to our Lady, smiling and in good spirits. It was seven-thirty in the evening, and they had to go back to Ancona to spend the night.

The next morning, before the sun was high, they drove back to Loreto. In spite of the early hour, the shrine was already completely full. St Josemaria vested for Mass in the sacristy and came to the altar of the Holy House of Nazareth to say Mass. The small space was packed with people and the heat was stifling.

Holy Mass

Under the votive lamps, he wanted to celebrate the sacred liturgy with all possible devotion. But he had not allowed for the fervor of the congregation on this feast day. He wrote later, “When I would kiss the altar in accordance with the rubrics, three or four local women would accompany me. It was distracting, but certainly moving. I also noticed that above the altar in that holy house, which tradition says was the home of Jesus, Mary and Joseph, these words were written: ‘Here the Word was made flesh.’ Here, on a bit of the earth on which we live, in a house built by men, God dwelt” (Christ is Passing By, 12).

During the Mass, without a formula but in words filled with faith, St Josemaria consecrated Opus Dei to our Lady. Afterwards, speaking quietly to the people with him, he repeated it in the name of everyone in Opus Dei. “We consecrate to you our being and our life; everything that is ours: all that we love and all that we are. Our bodies, our hearts and our souls are for you; we are yours. And to make this consecration truly effective and lasting, today at your feet, O Mary, we renew the dedication that we made to God in Opus Dei. Inspire us with a deep love for the Church and the Pope, and make us live in full submission to all their teachings.”

Invoking our Lady
St Josemaria had been noticeably tired when he left Rome. But on the way back he seemed like a new man, as though all the obstacles in God’s path had crumbled into dust. Some weeks before he had suggested a new aspiration to his sons and daughters in Opus Dei, an invocation to the Mother of Jesus for them to repeat constantly: “Most sweet heart of Mary, prepare a safe way!” Our Lady’s loving smile always went ahead along the paths of Opus Dei. Once again, its founder had stepped forward in the parameters of faith. He used the human means, but trusted in a decisive intervention from on high. “God is the same as always. It is men of faith that are needed: and then, there will be a renewal of the wonders we read of in the Gospel. Ecce non est abbreviata manus Domini, – God’s arm, his power, has not grown weaker!” (The Way, 586).

St Josemaria visited the Holy House of Nazareth on six further occasions: November 7, 1953; May 12, 1955; May 8, 1960; April 22, 1969; May 8, 1969, and the last one on April 22, 1971. On December 9, 1973, he said, “I think that all the representations, all the names, all the invocations given by Christians to the Virgin Mary, are wonderful. But in Loreto I am especially indebted to our Lady.”

More Barron: Blogger Comment

Wandering From God
At the beginning of Dante’s Divine Comedy, we find the line: “Midway on the journey of our life, I awoke to find myself alone and lost in a dark wood, having wandered from the straight path.” Again and again, in the spiritual tradition, the good life is described as a walking of the right path. The Prophet Isaiah asks, “Why do you let us wander, O Lord, from your ways?” (Isaiah 63:17).

What this really means is that we are lost. Isn’t it terrible being lost? Think of the last time you were lost—I mean really lost—in your car or walking in a strange town. There is something uniquely sinking about that experience. You know where you wan to go, but you’ve totally lost a sense of how to get there. To be in sin is to have lost the way, lost the direction, lost sight of the stars and the other means of navigation. It is to walk all sorts of paths but not the right one.

In the same passage from Isaiah above, the prophet continues, “Why do you let us harden our hearts so that we fear you not?” (Isaiah 63:17). How often the Bible speaks of the “heart,” which means the core of the self, the deepest center of who we are, that place from which our thoughts and actions arise. God wants to penetrate our heart, so that he is the center of our souls.

Have our hearts become hardened, so that God cannot get in? Is there a deep resistance in us to grace?

When we have wandered from God, off the right path, we are alienated from him and we sense him as a challenge to our freedom and fulfillment.

This Advent, stop your wandering. Open your life to the will and purposes of God.

Blogger comment: You will always be correct and in the presence of God if you pay attention to conscience in the moment, and be generous in making the gift of yourself in that moment. As long as you are out of yourself, you are on the right road, the way.

Wednesday, December 09, 2015

Barron and "The Law of the Gift:" Become Self Only By Gift of Self

ADVENT DAY 11 – IMAGES OF SINFULNESS

by Bishop Robert Barron

We all know that Lent is a penitential season, a time when Christians get in touch with their sins. But Advent, too, has a penitential dimension, and for a very good reason. Advent is the season during which we prepare ourselves for the coming of the Savior. But there is no point in having a Savior unless we are deeply convinced that there is something we need to be saved from.

This kind of awareness is at the core of the twelve-step process for those suffering from addictions—one is helpless, powerless, and has hit bottom.

The prophet Isaiah gives us a great focus for our meditation in Advent, for he offers us a whole series of images and pictures to describe our sinful condition. Remember, the Biblical authors, for the most part, were not systematic thinkers; they were poets and so they use poetic language. Take this wonderful and terrible line: “all our good deeds are like polluted rags; we have all withered like leaves, and our guilt carries us away like the wind” (Isaiah 65:5). When we have become deeply aware of our sin, we know that we can cling to nothing in ourselves, that everything we offer is, to some degree, tainted, impure. We can’t show our cultural, professional, and personal accomplishments to God as though they are enough to save us.

As Isaiah says, we are like withered leaves. God’s grace is the life-force and when we are divorced from it, our lives wither up. We become like the field of dry bones in Ezekiel or the Prodigal Son wandering in a land of famine. Here is where the law of the gift comes into play: when you are lifeless, make of your life a gift, and you will come back to life.

Can you identify with any, some, or all of these images? If so, that means you are moving into the Advent spirit, awaiting a Savior. As our most famous Advent song says, “O come, O come, Emmanuel and ransom captive Israel, that mourns in lonely exile here until the Son of God appear.”

When we are aware that we are waiting for the Son of God, then we are ready for the hope of one last image: “Yet, O Lord, you are our father; we are the clay and you are the potter: we are all the work of your hands.”

Your life is not about you. You are being shaped by a higher power for his purposes. You are waiting for the potter to do his work.

Tuesday, December 08, 2015

This astonishing reality: "God created all things, and Mary gave birth to God"

A sermon by St Anselm
O Virgin, by whose blessing all nature is blessed!

Blessed Lady, sky and stars, earth and rivers, day and night – everything that is subject to the power or use of man – rejoice that through you they are in some sense restored to their lost beauty and are endowed with inexpressible new grace. All creatures were dead, as it were, useless for men or for the praise of God, who made them. The world, contrary to its true destiny, was corrupted and tainted by the acts of men who served idols. Now all creation has been restored to life and rejoices that it is controlled and given splendour by men who believe in God.

  The universe rejoices with new and indefinable loveliness. Not only does it feel the unseen presence of God himself, its Creator, it sees him openly, working and making it holy. These great blessings spring from the blessed fruit of Mary’s womb.

  Through the fullness of the grace that was given you, dead things rejoice in their freedom, and those in heaven are glad to be made new. Through the Son who was the glorious fruit of your virgin womb, just souls who died before his life-giving death rejoice as they are freed from captivity, and the angels are glad at the restoration of their shattered domain.

  Lady, full and overflowing with grace, all creation receives new life from your abundance. Virgin, blessed above all creatures, through your blessing all creation is blessed, not only creation from its Creator, but the Creator himself has been blessed by creation.
  To Mary God gave his only-begotten Son, whom he loved as himself. Through Mary God made himself a Son, not different but the same, by nature Son of God and Son of Mary. The whole universe was created by God, and God was born of Mary. God created all things, and Mary gave birth to God. The God who made all things gave himself form through Mary, and thus he made his own creation. He who could create all things from nothing would not remake his ruined creation without Mary.

  God, then, is the Father of the created world and Mary the mother of the re-created world. God is the Father by whom all things were given life, and Mary the mother through whom all things were given new life. For God begot the Son, through whom all things were made, and Mary gave birth to him as the Saviour of the world. Without God’s Son, nothing could exist; without Mary’s Son, nothing could be redeemed.

  Truly the Lord is with you, to whom the Lord granted that all nature should owe as much to you as to himself.

Bishop Robert Barron on the Immaculate Conception

The Immaculate Conception
The Immaculate Conception, not to be confused with the virgin birth of Jesus that we celebrate on Christmas, is the dogma that teaches that even from the first moment of her own conception, Mary was rescued from the power of original sin. Christ, who receives his human flesh from his mother, receives this flesh from a person who, by a singular gift from God, comes into this world without original sin. To understand the significance of this fact, we need to go back to Eve and the original sin.

The Church Fathers often made a connection between Eve, the mother of all the living, and Mary, the Mother of God and Mother of the Church. In fact, they saw Mary as “the new Eve,” the one who undid the damage done by Eve.

Our first parents, Genesis tells us, were given a garden in which to flourish. They were given free rein, permission to enjoy and eat of any tree in the Garden, save one—the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Why the prohibition? Because the very best things are not taken; they are received as gifts. God did not block their access to the tree because he wanted to prevent them from having what he had; he blocked access because he wanted to give them gifts.

Now let's turn to Mary. The angel’s greeting to her is important. He says, “Hail Mary, full of grace.” Mary is greeted as someone who is able to accept gifts. Eve and Adam grasped; Mary is ready to receive.

The angel then explains to Mary: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you…” At the heart of the spiritual life is the conviction that your life is not about you, and this is precisely what Adam and Eve couldn’t tolerate. They grasped at God and tried to seize his gifts. But the real spiritual life is about allowing oneself to be overwhelmed by the one who loves us, to be carried away by the Spirit. 

Mary is someone who is ready to receive the impossible, and this it precisely what makes her the paradigm of Advent faith.

Ten Years Ago: December 8, 2005 - 40th Anniversary of Vatican II Ending


Immaculate Conception, December 8, 2005: 40th Anniversary of the Ending of the Second Vatican Council

The key to the Second Vatican Council was the recovery of the Church as a Subject, a Woman:

 “The Church is not an apparatus, nor a social institution, nor one social institution among many others. It is a person. It is a woman. It is a Mother. It is alive. A Marian understanding of the church is totally opposed to the concept of the Church as a bureaucracy or a simple organization. We cannot make the Church, we must be the Church. We are the Church, the Church is in us only to the extent that our faith more than action forges our being. Only by being Marian, can we become the Church. At its very beginning the Church was not made, but given birth. She existed in the soul of Mary from the moment she uttered her fiat. This is the most profound will of the Council: the Church should be awakened in our souls. Mary shows us the way.”[1]

The Dogma

1.      CCC: 491: “Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, `full of grace’ through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:
“The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”[2]
                Notice that “the Church has become ever more aware.” This means that there is growth in the faith-experience of the Person of Jesus Christ and therefore growth in the consciousness of the meaning of Revelation. Recall Cardinal Ratzinger’s biographical remarks on his once-failed habilitation thesis: “Where there is no one to perceive `revelation,’ no re-vel-ation has occurred, because no veil has been removed. By definition, revelation requires a someone who apprehends it… (I)f Bonaventure is right, then revelation precedes Scripture and becomes deposited in Scripture but is not simply identical with it. This in turn means that revelation is always something greater than what is merely written down. And this again means that there can be no such thing as pure sola scriptura… because an essential element of Scripture is the Church as understanding subject, and with this the fundamental sense of tradition is already given.”[3] Hence, “meaning” is the result of personal experience of the self-giving that is faith.

The “Meaning” of Original Sin
It is a failure to respond. It is a silent No! It is disobedience. It is non-relation. It is the turning back on self of a self that was called to go out of self in the act of obedience. Ratzinger is at pains to make clear that original sin is not a fact that is an empirical existence like “Goethe was born on August 28, 1749. Original sin is a `fact,’ a reality of a different type, known only through typology; the basic text, Romans 5, is a typological interpretation of the Old Testament. Original sin became recognizable in the type Adam, and in his recurrence at the turning points of history. Its affirmation rests upon the typological identification of every single man with man as such, with average man, with man from the beginning on. Original sin was not handed on in the tradition (and previously communicated) from the beginning as a fact…. To have missed this truth was perhaps the principal error of the neoscholastic doctrine on original sin [the loss of the gift of integrity whereby right reason controls the passions].”[4]
To clarify this, here is the CCC #386: “To try to understand what sin is, one must first recognize the profound relation of man to God, for only in this relationship is the evil of sin unmasked in its true identity as humanity’s rejection of God and opposition to him, even as it continues to weigh heavy on human life and history.”
John Paul II clarified that this is the meaning of the Holy Spirit “convincing the world of sin.” One cannot convert is he does not know that he has sinned. And sin is a mystery that is revealed in the Cross of Jesus Christ. He says: “It is precisely the Holy Spirit who `searches’ the `depths of God ’and from them draws God’s response to man’s sin.”[5] That response is Christ’s Cross.
      Because of sin, man has forgotten who he is. He has lost the experience of the original solitude and therefore the consciousness of being made in the image of God. The original solitude was the result of the act of obedience to the Creator in the naming of the animals. His identity as “like” God is that relation of obedience. Having broken that relation, there is a loss of self-identity: amnesia. Hence, he must be “convinced” of sin by the Holy Spirit. “Man does not know this dimension – he is absolutely ignorant of it apart from the Cross of Christ. So he cannot be `convinced’ of it except by the Holy Spirit.”[6]
Therefore, the CCC 387 says: “Without the knowledge Revelation gives of God we cannot recognize sin clearly and are tempted to explain it as merely a developmental flaw, a psychological weakness, a mistake, or the necessary consequence of an inadequate social structure, etc. Only in the knowledge of God’s plan for man can we grasp that sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of living him and loving one another.”

The Meaning of the Immaculate Conception
Cardinal Ratzinger: “We may say that original sin is not an assertion about a natural deficiency in or concerning man, but a statement about a relationship that can be meaningfully formulated only in the context of the God-man relation. The essence of sin can only be understood in an anthropology of relation, not by looking at an isolated human being. Such an anthropology is even more essential in the case of grace. We could therefore describe original sin as a statement about God’s evaluation of man’ evaluation not as something external, but as a revealing of the very depths of his interior being. It is the collapse of what man is, both in his origin from God and in himself, the contradiction between the will of the Creator and man’s empirical being.
            This contradiction between God’s `is’ and man’s `is not’ is lacking the case of Mary, and consequently God’s judgment about her is pure `Yes,’ just as she herself stands before him as a pure `Yes.’ This correspondence of God’s `Yes’ with Mary’s being as `Yews’ is the freedom from original sin. Preservation from original sin, therefore, signifies no exceptional proficiency, no exceptional achievement; on the contrary, it signifies that Mary reserves no area of being, life, and will for herself as a private possession: instead, precisely in the total dispossession of self, in giving herself to God, she comes to the true possession of self. Grace as dispossession becomes response as appropriation. Thus from another viewpoint the mystery of barren fruitfulness, the paradox of the barren mother, the mystery of virginity, become s intelligible once more; dispossession as belonging, as the locus of new life.
            Thus the doctrine of the Immaculata reflects ultimately faith’s certitude that there really is a holy Church – as a person and in a person. In this sense it expresses the Church’s certitude of salvation. Included therein is the knowledge that God’s covenant in Israel did not fail but produced a shoot out of which emerged the blossom, the Savior. The doctrine of the Immaculata testifies accordingly that God’s grace was powerful enough to awaken a response, that grace and freedom, grace and being oneself, renunciation and fulfillment are only apparent contradictories; in reality one conditions the other and grants it its very existence.”[7]
Is the Immaculate Conception in Scripture?
1.      John Henry Newman: “The New Eve” According to the earliest Fathers of the Church:
Our Lady as the Second Eve
“What is the great rudimental teaching of Antiquity from its earliest date concerning her” By `rudimental teaching,’ I mean the prima facie view of her person and office, the broad outline laid down of her, the aspect under which she comes to us, in the writings of the Fathers. She is the Second Eve. Now let us consider what this implies. Eve had a definite, essential position in the First Covenant. The fate of the human race lay with Adam; he it was who represented us. It was in Adam that we fell; though Eve had fallen, still, if Adam had stood, we should not have lost those supernatural privileges which were bestowed upon him as our first father. Yet though Eve was not the head of the race, still, even as regards the race, she had a place of her own; for Adam, to whom it was divinely committed the naming of all things, named her `the mother of all the living,’ a name surely expressive, not of a fact only, but of a dignity; but further, as she thus had her own general relation to the human race, so again she had her own special place, as regards its trial and its fall in Adam…. …She listened to the Evil Angel; she offered the fruit to her husband… She cooperated, not as an irresponsible instrument, but intimately and personally in the sin: she brought it about. As the history stands, she was a sine qua non, a positive, active cause of it. And she had her share in its punishment; in the sentence pronounced on her, she was recognized as a real agent in the temptation and its issue, and she suffered accordingly…
“But it was to be a second Adam and a second Eve, and the new Eve was to be the mother of the new Adam: `I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed.’ The Seed of the woman is the Word Incarnate, and the Woman, whose seed or son He is, is His Mother Mary. This interpretation, and the parallelism it involves, seems to me undeniable; but at all events (and this is my point) the parallelism is the doctrine of the Fathers, from the earliest times; and, this being established, we are able, by the position and office of Eve in our fall, to determine the position and office of Mary in our restoration….”
            First, then, St. Justin, Martyr (A.D. 120-165), St. Irenaeus (120-200), and Tertullian (160-240)….
“Now, what is especially noticeable in these three writers is that they do not speak of the Blessed Virgin merely as the physical instrument of Our Lord’s taking flesh, but as the an intelligent, responsible cause of it [and therefore "mother"]; her faith and obedience being the accessories to the Incarnation, and gaining it as her reward. As Eve failed in these virtues, and thereby brought on the fall of the race in Adam, so Mary by means of the same had a part in its restoration…. Not to go beyond the doctrine of the three Fathers, they unanimously declare that she was not a mere instrument in the Incarnation, such as David, or Judah, may be considered; they declare she co-operated in our salvation not merely by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon her body, but by specific holy acts, the effect of the Holy Ghost within her soul [and therefore "co-redemptrix"]; that, as Eve forfeited privileges by sin, so Mary earned privileges by the fruits of grace; that, as Eve was disobedient and unbelieving, so Mary was obedient and believing; that, as Eve was a cause of ruin to all, Mary was a cause of salvation to all; that, as Eve made room for Adam’s fall, so Mary made room for Our Lord’s reparation of it; and thus, whereas the free gift was not as the offence, but much greater, it follows that, as Eve co-operated in effecting a great evil Mary co-operated in effecting a much greater good.”


2.      Josef Ratzinger in 1975: Yes! As Israel, and therefore as Church! 

The large picture to keep in mind: the spousal union of Adam and Eve prior to sin is the “type” of the spousal union of the Creator with man. Notice the spouse of God is not a goddess, but believing man in the subjective reality of Israel.[8] The Incarnation – already predestined before the creation of the world (Eph 1, 4) – is the one-flesh union between God and man in Jesus Christ.
       
“For your Maker is your husband, the Lord of hosts is his name, and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; the God of the whole earth he is called. For the Lord has called you like a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit, like a wife of youth when she is cast off, says your God. For a brief moment I forsook you, but with great compassion I will gather you. In overflowing wrath for a moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting love, I will have compassion on you, says the Lord, your Redeemer” (Isaiah 54, 5-8).

      When the Logos becomes flesh as Redeemer, He is revealed as the “Bridegroom” who “loved the Church, and delivered himself up for her, that he might sanctify her” (Eph. 5, 25). The analogy is spousal: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the Church” (Eph. 5, 25). The Church is Israel believing in Mary at the Annunciation: “Fiat.” And so our Lady sums up the whole of Israel as “Daughter Zion” responding “Yes!” to the invitation of the Creator-Bridegroom who calls, “Come!” The one-flesh union is the Incarnation itself taking all the flesh from Mary as His own Body, and the gift of that flesh of His Body back in the Eucharist whereby Bridegroom and Bride become one flesh in the Eucharist forming the whole Christ.

      This is the prototypical reality of all the various types beginning with the communio of Adam and Eve in the garden, the development of Israel as spouse of the Creator, her Husband (Isaiah 54, 5) shown forth in the various women of the Old Testament[9] and culminating in our Lady as the Daughter Zion. In this regard, CCC 489 reads: “Throughout the Old Covenant the mission of many holy women prepared for that of Mary. At the very beginning there was Eve; despite her disobedience, she receives the promise of a posterity that will be victorious over the evil one, as well as the promise that she will be the mother of all the living. By virtue of this promise, Sarah conceives a son in spite of her old age. Against all human expectation God chooses those who were considered powerless and weak to show forth his faithfulness to his promises: Hannah, the mother of Samuel; Deborah; Ruth; Judith and Esther; and many other women. Mary `stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from him. After a long period of waiting the times are fulfilled in her, the exalted Daughter of Sion, and the new plan of salvation is established.”

Ratzinger: “The Epistle to the Ephesians describes the new Israel, the bride, as `holy,’ `immaculate,’ `luminously beautiful,’ `without spot, wrinkle, or the like’ (5, 27). Patristic theology further developed this image of the Ecclesia immaculata in passages of lyrical beauty. Consequently, from the very beginning there is a doctrine about the Immaculata in Scripture and especially in the Fathers, even if it concerns the Ecclesia immaculata. Here the doctrine of the Immaculata, like the whole of later Mariology, is first anticipated as ecclesiology. The image of the Church, virgin and mother, is secondarily transferred to Mary, not vice versa. So if the dogma of the Immaculate Conception transferred to the concrete figure of Mary those assertions which primarily belong to the antithesis new-old Israel, and are in this sense a typologically developed ecclesiology, this means that Mary is presented as the beginning and the personal concreteness of the Church. It entails the conviction that the rebirth of the old Israel into the new Israel, of which the Epistle to the Ephesians spoke, achieves in Mary its concrete accomplishment. It proclaims that this new Israel (which is simultaneously the true old Israel, the holy remnant preserved by the grace of God) is not only an idea but a person. The type, of which the ecclesiology of the New Testament and the Fathers speak, exists as a person.”[10]

Cardinal Ratzinger in 2002: “The Church is not an apparatus, nor a social institution, nor one social institution among many others. It is a person. It is a woman. It is a Mother. It is alive. A Marian understanding of the church is totally opposed to the concept of the Church as a bureaucracy or a simple organization. We cannot make the Church, we must be the Church. We are the Church, the Church is in us only to the extent that our faith more than action forges our being. Only by being Marian, can we become the Church. At its very beginning the Church was not made, but given birth. She existed in the soul of Mary from the moment she uttered her fiat. This is the most profound will of the Council: the Church should be awakened in our souls. Mary shows us the way.”[11][i] 


1.  John Henry Newman: “The New Eve” According to the earliest Fathers of the Church:
Our Lady as the Second Eve

“What is the great rudimental teaching of Antiquity from its earliest date concerning her” By `rudimental teaching,’ I mean the prima facie view of her person and office, the broad outline laid down of her, the aspect under which she comes to us, in the writings of the Fathers. She is the Second Eve. Now let us consider what this implies. Eve had a definite, essential position in the First Covenant. The fate of the human race lay with Adam; he it was who represented us. It was in Adam that we fell; though Eve had fallen, still, if Adam had stood, we should not have lost those supernatural privileges which were bestowed upon him as our first father. Yet though Eve was not the head of the race, still, even as regards the race, she had a place of her own; for Adam, to whom it was divinely committed the naming of all things, named her `the mother of all the living,’ a name surely expressive, not of a fact only, but of a dignity; but further, as she thus had her own general relation to the human race, so again she had her own special place, as regards its trial and its fall in Adam….As the history stands, she was a sine qua non, a positive, active cause of it… but it was to be a second Adam and a second Eve, and the new Eve was to be the mother of the new Adam: `I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed.’ The Seed of the woman is the Word Incarnate, and the Woman, whose seed or son He is, is His Mother Mary. This interpretation, and the parallelism it involves, seems to me undeniable; but at all events (and this is my point) the parallelism is the doctrine of the Fathers, from the earliest times; and, this being established, we are able, by the position and office of Eve in our fall, to determine the position and office of Mary in our restoration….
            First, then, St. Justin, Martyr (A.D. 120-165), St. Irenaeus (120-200), and Tertullian (160-240)….
“Now, what is especially noticeable in these three writers is that they do not speak of the Blessed Virgin merely as the physical instrument of Our Lord’s taking flesh, but as the an intelligent, responsible cause of it; her faith and obedience being the accessories to the Incarnation, and gaining it as her reward. As Eve failed in these virtues, and thereby brought on the fall of the race in Adam, so Mary by means of the same had a part in its restoration…. Not to go beyond the doctrine of the three Fathers, they unanimously declare that she was not a mere instrument in the Incarnation, such as David, or Judah, may be considered; they declare she co-operated in our salvation not merely by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon her body, but by specific holy acts, the effect of the Holy Ghost within her soul; that, as Eve forfeited privileges by sin, so Mary earned privileges by the fruits of grace; that, as Eve was disobedient and unbelieving, so Mary was obedient and believing; that, as Eve was a cause of ruin to all, Mary was a cause of salvation to all; that, as Eve made room for Adam’s fall, so Mary made room for Our Lord’s reparation of it; and thus, whereas the free gift was not as the offence, but much greater, it follows that, as Eve co-operated in effecting a great evil Mary co-operated in effecting a much greater good.”











[1] J. Ratzinger, The Ecclesiology of Vatican II, L’Osservatore Romano N. 4 – 23 January 2002, 7.

[2] Pius IX Ineffabilis Deus, 1854,: DS 2803,
[3] J. Ratzinger, Milestones… (1997) 108.
[4] J. Ratzinger, Daughter of Zion. op. cit. 66-67.
[5] John Paul II, Dominum et vivificantem #32.
[6] Ibid.
[7] J. Ratzinger, Daughter of Zion, op. cit.
[8] “In all this the Jews sharply distinguished themselves and their God from other people and their gods; indeed, the myriad distinctions enjoined by the Torah – between different kinds of animals and different kinds of food, different periods of time, different forms of clothing and utensils – may have been not just ceremonial rubrics or practices useful for preserving health and public order; they may have served as a training for the Jews in the very habit of seeing that this and not that, so that hey would be all the more able to realize that `they,’ the other nations, are not `us,’ because their `gods’ are not Yahweh;” Robert Sokolowski, Eucharistic Presence CUA (1944)  145.
[9] Our Lady is preceded by the great women of the Old Testament who, instead of being fertile in the order of nature, are infertile – thus disclosing the supernatural character of God’s intervention. Ratzinger calls this “the remarkable reversal:” “In the history of the patriarchs, Sarah-Hagar, Rachel-Leah, and Hannah-Penina are those pairs of women in whom the extraordinary element in the path of the promises stands out. In each case the fertile and the infertile stand opposite each other, and in the process a remarkable reversal in values is reached. In archaic modes of thought, fertility is a blessing, infertility is a curse. Yet here all is reversed: the infertile on e ultimately turns out to be the truly blessed, while the fertile on e recedes into the ordinary or even has to struggle against the curse of repudiation, of being unloved…. “(A) theology of grace was developed from this reversal of values in the song of Hannah, which is echoed in Mary’s Magnificat: the Lord raises the humble from the dust, he lifts the poor forum the ashes (1 Sam. 2, 8). God bends down to the humble, the powerless, the rejected, and in this condescension the love of God, which truly saves, shines forth both for Hannah and for Mary, in the remarkable phenomenon of unblessed-blessed women. The mystery of the last place (Lk. 14, 10), the exchange between the first and the last place (Mk 10, 31), the reversal of values in the Sermon on the Mount, the reversal of earthly values founded upon hybris, all of this is intimated. Here also the theology of virginity fins its first, still hidden formulation: infertility becomes true fertility…” Daughter Zion

[10] Josef Ratzinger, Daughter Zion Ignatius (1983) 67-68.
[11] J. Ratzinger, The Ecclesiology of Vatican II, L’Osservatore Romano N. 4 – 23 January 2002, 7.