Giving Up Control: My Reflection for uCatholic on March 9

This reflection appeared originally on uCatholic.com; I was honored to be asked to participate in the Lenten reflection series. This short piece draws on the readings of March 9 and the life of St. Maximilian Kolbe to explain how God is with us even in the “bare heights” or difficult times of life.

Turn Over The Controls And Become More Free

In the reading from Isaiah we hear of the incredible promises the Lord makes to the people of Israel, that “on every bare height shall their pastures be,” and His reassurance of His love, though they feel “forsaken.”

Like the people of Israel, so many times we feel forsaken in life, faced with situations beyond our control. I think of St. Maximilian Kolbe who traded himself for the freedom of a fellow Auschwitz prisoner who had a family. Left to starve with other prisoners, Kolbe did not despair, but ministered to them until the end. Though his worldly situation was objectively terrible, he praised God, sowed hope and inspired others to faith and joy. He did this by giving himself over to the will of God for him in that specific circumstance of his life, just as Jesus did during His ministry and ultimately, His crucifixion.

The Gospel tells us about Jesus, and the Son’s relationship to the Father, and how the Father has appointed the Son to carry out His work. Yet, Christ says “I cannot do anything on my own… because I do not seek my own will, but the will of the one who sent me.”

When we can’t control things, it is easy to feel alone or like a failure. But even Jesus did not perform acts from His own will; He turned His will over to God, His Father. That is what we are called to do. Paradoxically, in releasing this control, we do not find that we are eviscerated or dispersed, but that we are free and able to become our true and best selves.

When we can let go of frustration at our inabilities, we can accept God’s loving providence, like St. Maximilian Kolbe did. Even on that bare height of a Nazi work camp, he found a pasture of fellowship and love.

Turn Over The Controls And Become More Free

Question: Was there ever a time when you admitted that you weren’t in charge of something difficult? What happened as a result?

Two Reasons Cleaning is Not Below You

Are you a feminist? A modern woman (or man) who knows who you are, who takes yourself seriously, who works hard and expects a lot.

Do you think cleaning is below you? Does folding clothes, dusting, scrubbing a scummy dryer, vacuuming, wiping windows or otherwise performing manual labor in your home bother you?

It does for me sometimes.

But I am also a Christian and a believer in social justice and the truth of the Gospel that Jesus came for everyone, including the poorest of the poor.

And there is something very fishy about finding or believing oneself to be above any sort of manual labor (provided it isn’t inherently unethical…such as mafia hit man).

The truth of Christ is the truth about all men, and it was enshrined in the Declaration of Independence as this: we are “created equal.” This equality does not include all abilities, but includes our value and worth. In the Christian tradition, we say all people are created in the Image of God.

1) To believe that I shouldn’t have to clean my house or do my laundry is to believe that I am better than such activities, but I am not. It is often a subtle expression of a deeper classism, or the idea that I am not the type of person who has to do demeaning work like cleaning toilets. That’s for other (aka lower) people.

But while classism is real, even in America where we pretend it isn’t, classism is never true. That is, it does not describe the true reality. The reality is no group of people are better or worse than others, especially because of such things as race, income, or geographic location or education level. The reality is that we are all interconnected individuals who have gifts and hardships, who are trying to seek the good, regardless of how warped any person’s perception may have become. (The warped search for the good is what sin is).

Many people put air in their own tires; some people do it for a living. This type of technical maintenance is not irrelevant or inconsequential. On the contrary, it is the stuff of life itself; it provides the raw matter which philosophers philosophize about. And it takes care of us, of our family and friends.

To sweep a floor or cook a meal can be a great act of love, of care-taking, of gratitude for the kitchen and home that we have.

To believe ourselves above such work is to take our gifts for granted.

[Caveat: If we pay someone to help clean that house, that may not be bad provided we respect the gift they are providing us, that we pay fairly because we understand that their work is valuable and helps support him or her and their family, and if we acknowledge that we are not above such work even we do not do it ourselves.]

2) Mother Teresa said, “If you want world peace, go home and love your family.”

Johann Goethe said, “Let each man sweep in front of his own front door and the whole world will be clean.”

What these mean is that if we take care of our part, of our tiny slice of the world, of those around who are in need, the whole world would change. So often, we view actions as meaningless because they do not impact the entire global state of affairs. But the opposite is really true. If we do a tiny thing, but do it earnestly and truly, those are the actions that change the world. If we all did our part, all would be healed.

Jesus said, “And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me” (Matthew 25:40).

And he is God! So what we do to those around us is how we respond to God, which is about as big a deal as you could possibly get.

So then, to clean your own house, to do things that seem below you is to express in a small way a gratitude and a type of solidarity with all people who work. There is of course much more to living the Gospel than cleaning one’s house, but it is a small piece, and every piece counts.

So let me rehash this phrase yet again, “If you want social justice, go home and clean your house.”

 

Advent: The Reason The Traditions We Hand Down Matter

My latest article from the Truth and Charity Forum is about Advent and why the traditions we institute with our kids matter so much. It’s not about feeling guilty for not doing a million things; it’s the opposite actually. Sometimes we need to do less but with more heart. Are we teaching consumerism or faith? What do we say Christmas is about? All this has been closer to home than ever for me as my oldest is three years old and fully able to absorb what we teach this year.

“in families, we transmit an understanding of reality, of good and evil, of values and truth. It is so abstract sounding that words often fall short, but it is real. So the arrival of our children and the role of parenthood, which we inherit, are immensely transformative, and they should be for both us and our little ones. As parents, we will build the framework that forms their entire lives, even if we cannot always see it.

“In the new book “The Choice of the Family,” which is an interview with Bishop Jean Laffitte, Secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Family, the interviewer quotes him a passage from Karl Wojtyla’s (who became Pope John Paul II) play The Jeweler Shop:

When they [children] grow up under our eyes, they seem to have become inaccessible, like impermeable soil, but they have already absorbed us. And though outwardly they shut themselves off, inwardly we remain in them and–a frightful thought–their lives somehow test our own creation, our own suffering (p. 167).

“This captures it so well; because children first encounter the world through the lens of their families, it is true that they “absorb” us, in a sense. And their lives then become tests of us. It’s not that the outcome of our children is our fault or responsibility, it’s that the tools and habits we consciously or unconsciously teach them as they grow will come to manifest in their adult lives, just as the lessons from our parents came to manifest in ours. We will have to take responsibility for the tools we transmit, and they will have to reckon with the tools they receive.”

…

And “Advent is the time of preparation, of waiting for the coming of our Lord, of God made flesh who made the world and desires to draw us back to himself. It is this God who bestowed our life, who bestowed the lives of all children, who came into physical reality within a family himself. It is his introduction to this family that we await in Advent. He who authored all families, broken or whole, came like us, into a family himself in order to restore wholeness to us all, who are all at varying levels of brokenness without him. And he encounters us to the extent that we let him, for God forces no one. This is what we believe, and this is what we have the opportunity to joyfully share.”

Full article here.

http://www.truthandcharityforum.org/advent-in-the-family-a-transmission-of-values/

So what do you do with your kids? What did your parents do with you? Did you change the traditions that you grew up with or hand on the same ones?

My essay in America Magazine: A Gospel for the Middle Class?

My first printed article in a pretty big publication was this essay about poverty, having money and being Christian. It sprang from my own ponderings over Christ’s words in the Gospels about giving up material possessions and the conflict I felt with my own middle class life. The full article is available online here.

I’m still not sure I am doing it right, but we are trying. Here’s an excerpt:

“The Gospel is indeed a message of liberation from earthly suffering aimed at all people, especially those who suffer the most. This naturally comes as welcome news for men and women living with the hardships of poverty. In contrast, for those in the middle class this present life may be so good that they see little need to hope for something beyond what this world has to offer. A “good life” can easily become centered on accumulating more goods, which can distract from eternal realities.

“Still, Jesus’ message is for everyone, and everyone includes homeowners and wage earners. As St. John Paul II put it in his encyclical “Centesimus Annus”: “It is not wrong to want to live better; what is wrong is a style of life, which is presumed to be better when it is directed toward ‘having’ rather than ‘being’” (No. 36). To put it another way, having a full refrigerator and dresser is not itself problematic. What ails the Christian life is instead an avaricious desire that places ultimate value in possessions, status and acquiring. Ultimate value stems from God alone.

“Christ teaches us about the proper ordering of values later in the Sermon on the Mount. Directly following the exhortation “Do not worry,” Jesus says: “For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well” (Mt 6:32-34). The key here is in that last sentence. God must come first in our lives, but he knows we need worldly goods, so he provides them as well. Regarding this passage, St. Augustine says in his “Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount” (2.16.53):

When he said that the one is to be sought first, Jesus clearly intimates that the other is to be sought later—not that it is to be sought at a later time but that it is to be sought as a thing of secondary importance.

“Jesus is not saying that we ought not to work to supply our human needs of food, clothing and shelter. That would be irresponsible if we have the means to provide for ourselves and others. What it means is that our efforts to meet our physical needs must be subordinated to our highest good, which, Christ tells us, is to seek God’s kingdom. When that is our primary motivation and ordering principle, everything else will fall into its rightful place.”

-Full article printed in America Magazine, Nov. 9, 2015

Available online here.

Book Review: The Gospel of Happiness by Christopher Kaczor

At times, an unnecessary tension exists between psychological research and Christian faith, but Dr. Christopher Kaczor has now written a helpful book to clear a path through that forest of tension. In “The Gospel of Happiness,” he highlights the many ways that positive psychological research agrees with practices of the faith, yet he manages to keep his distance and not blur any important distinctions, such as to claim that any of this research “proves” Christian doctrine, or make any unkeepable promises such as that becoming or being a Christian will make your life easier or happier. Who among us is perfect at this whole life thing, after all?

Kaczor acknowledges that “Freud’s atheistic materialism, and reduction of theism to a childish desire for a father figure as a savior from helplessness, exemplifies this conflict” (181). Yet this is not the end of the story. He continues: “the full history of psychology and Christian belief is more complicated and interesting” (181).

Overall, the book is worth reading, and it doing some of the exercises in the book did help me appreciate the people and things in my life more. One key is that it can only work if you are willing to let it, as in to actually try it. If you approach it cynically and assume it’s all a load of baloney, it would be hard to appreciate new things.

Without further ado, here are some of the most interesting and useful parts of the book.

For one thing, he gives a fully fleshed out definition of what happiness actually is: and surprise, it goes beyond feelings and possessions. The acronym PERMA sums it up. Yes, P is for positive emotions (joy, gratitude, etc). E is for engagement, actually participating in communities and activities that are inherently rewarding, and having experiences of flow and total engagement. R is for relationships, loving, self-giving relationships. (Love one another as I have loved you -Christ Jesus). M is for meaning, having a purpose, a connection to something higher.

And finally, A is for accomplishments. This one is interesting. It isn’t about social comparison,

Hypocritical Christians Messing with Your Faith? 3 Reasons to Stay Calm

[This post appeared originally on the Truth and Charity Forum as part of my Faith Objections series]

“Fortunately, the Westboro Baptist Church, famous for the “God hates fags” signs, really are outliers. But generally yes, this criticism of the Church is resoundingly true; there are hypocrites among us. Even in smaller settings, I myself and my friends have run into petty bureaucracy and slights in the offices of our own local churches.

So, how can I continue to believe when the lived examples of believers so often fall short? When I myself fall short as well?

….

What are we to do then with this beleaguered institution full of fallible people, especially the Catholic Church which claims infallibility?

Three reasons that undergird my continued Faith are these 1) Jesus came to heal sinners. 2) The Church has both divine and human elements, and we human elements err frequently, but are still guided by the divine. 3) At a basic level, at least we are hypocrites; we fall short, but we have an ideal to aspire to.

Jesus Came For Sinners

When the Pharisees take offense at Christ eating meals with tax-collectors, prostitutes and other sinners, He answers them: “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). God sent His Son, Jesus, into the world precisely because we humans had screwed up; Christ is the remedy for the Fall of the human race in Adam and Eve. He came because we do sin, or perform misdeeds or hurtful actions, to use a more modern-friendly term, quite a bit. The entire role of Christ in the Incarnation is to draw us back to God because we can’t do it ourselves, though we do cooperate with our free will.

Hypocritical conduct is scandalous, and it turns people away from the Church, which is a true tragedy. Somehow though, Christ himself knew that sinners would be part of the Church. He taught, that there was a farmer, God, who sowed grain (the Church) in a field,

“Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?” The Reason Christ Is Not Being Rude to His Mother at the Wedding at Cana

I don’t often do biblical commentary posts, but this exchange from the Wedding at Cana had troubled me ever since I read it years and years ago. But this thought came to me recently about explaining it, and my husband said I should write it down, which is saying something. I offer an explanation and then a re-telling that might resonate more with modern listeners.

We all know the story of the Wedding at Cana; it is where Jesus does his first miracle; he famously turns water into wine. But there is a difficulty, on a surface reading, it really seems as though Our Lord is blowing off his mother. “Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?” he asks.

John 2:1-5 reads: On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. 3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” 5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

Jesus response to Mary in this translation sounds like a rhetorical question to our American ears, as though he does not actually mean it. It can seem like Christ is assuming the answer in the question and saying instead: “Your concern has nothing to do with me; it isn’t time for me to reconcile the world yet.”

Such a reading is troubling. Our Lord seems snippish and disrespectful. However, from what we know of the Faith and the rest of the Gospels, there is no good reason to believe that Our Lord is being insincere or rude.

How, then, can we read it in a way that makes sense with the whole of the Faith, a way that is true to the person of Christ Jesus, which is how the Faithful are meant to read Scripture? We can read it instead with the understanding that he truly means each of the words he speaks. On such a reading, he is sincerely asking Mary to explain how her concern affects him; he sees that she is worried, and is sitting there, giving her the space to make a request of him. In short, he is presenting the opportunity for her to intercede because he loves her and sees that she is upset.

Such a reading would mesh well with what we know about Christ’s divine and human knowledge.

Two Pieces on Evangelium Vitae, John Paul’s Great Encyclical at 20 years

I recently did two posts for the Truth and Charity Forum on John Paul II’s 1995 Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, The Gospel of Life. It was an important document that fully explains the Church’s life ethic and applies it to modern times.

1. False Freedom at the Root of Abortion

“Consider that forbidding murder does not make American citizens less free; on the contrary, it makes citizens free to thrive in a peaceful environment. Likewise, a prohibition on abortion does not abridge anyone’s rights or make anyone less free. On the contrary, it recognizes with love the humanity of the growing child and demands help for a struggling mother from the wider human community. Abortion, in contrast, leaves a woman alone and hurting when faced with an unplanned pregnancy.”

More at: http://www.truthandcharityforum.org/evangelium-vitae-false-freedom-at-the-root-of-abortion/

2. Evangelium Vitae and the Church’s consistency on life and Capital Punishment 

“Unfortunately, the sentence of lethal injection gives Tsarnaev drastically less time to reach the much needed sorrow for his crimes that the jury and defense hoped to find. As tragic as the deaths and injuries from the bombing two years ago were, Tsarnaev’s death will not heal any of those wounded or bring back any of those lost. John Paul II calls for the death penalty to be used only in a defensive framework, society defending itself, and therefore to avoid it where possible. The Boston bombing was obviously an emotional blow to the nation; it was home-grown terrorism. Our fears and passions are rightly inflamed, but it would be even more tragic if we fall down to the level of the perpetrators. With the weighty and trying crimes of the bombing on our hearts, we must still cling to truth that makes terrorism wrong in the first place: the value of life.”

More at:

http://www.truthandcharityforum.org/john-paul-ii-on-the-death-penalty-a-development-of-doctrine/

Reasons Income Inequality Isn’t the Real Problem

[My posts on money seem to be striking a chord (though I surely write it better than I live it), but nonetheless, here is something I’ve been reflecting on in light of the Occupy Wall Street Movement and also from my readings in  A Framework for Understanding Poverty by Ruby K. Payne.]

The Occupy Movement was about righteous indignation at the loads of wealth hoarded by the top 1% of earners (or trust fund recipients) and the resulting disparity between those top haves the bottom 99% of have nots. It’s reasonable, isn’t it, to assert that it is unfair for so few people to have so much when so many people have so little.

The stereotypical (read somewhat satirized) conservative response is that huge wealth earners have legitimately earned their wealth and therefore deserve to keep it, society be damned. And there is something to that, though to ignorance the need of our fellow man is reprehensible.

But reality check time: It’s not really between the 99% and the 1%. It may be, if the stats are accurate, that 1% of people have 99% of America’s wealth, but it is not the case that 99% of America is impoverished or even lower middle class. I’m no sociologist, but there’s an upper 5%, 10% etc etc if we measure by standard of living rather than by percent of money owned.

The point is that wealth, as measured by standard of living or human flourishing, is about a lot more than money. In A Framework for Understanding Poverty, Payne identifies 8 different types of resources, only one of which is financial:

1. Financial Resources – Having the money to purchase goods and services

2. Emotional Resources – Being able to choose and control emotional responses, particularly to negative situations, without engaging in self-destructive behavior. This is an internal resource and shows itself through stamina, perseverance, and choices.

3. Mental Resources – Having the mental abilities and acquired skills (reading, writing, computing) to deal with daily life.

4. Spiritual Resources – Believing in divine purpose and guidance.

5. Physical Resources – Having physical health and mobility

6.  Support Systems – Having friends, family, and back-up resources available to access in times of need. These are external resources.

7. Relationships & Role Models: Having frequent access to adult(s) who are appropriate, who are nurturing to the child, and who do not engage in self-destructive behavior.

8. Knowledge of Hidden Rules: Knowing the unspoken cues and habits of a group. (p. 9)

As becomes immediately obvious when reading this list, wealth is about a lot more than money. The middle and upper classes have a deep internal and social safety net that they can draw on even when money is tight. What Payne goes on to explain in the book is how lacking other resources besides money is a key component that makes breaking out of generational poverty so very difficult. The hard thing about reading this book is that it offers a window through which to view how dire the struggles of the impoverished really are. And there are no easy answers.

But one bright side also shines through: that having a good life is about a lot more than money. In fact, it’s possible to have a dignified, rooted, loving life without a ton of money–provided that we have the other resources around such as emotional resources, mental resources, spiritual, relational, etc.

I think this is a helpful reminder of what really matters. Walter White in Breaking Bad makes a fortune in drug money but squanders his other resources in the process. The result isn’t a good one.

One aspect of the Occupy Wallstreet movement and many of the other social justice statistics out there is the emphasis on where the wealth is, an easily measurable point: what percent of people hold how much. And it won’t be fair until everyone has the exact same amount–sort of like Communism.

And there is something to that. Money matters; it makes things easier; it is a powerful tool towards a decent life. So having a more even spread isn’t a bad idea. But I worry that this approach over emphasizes money at the expense of lifestyle and other resources.

John Paul II said in his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus:

It is not wrong to want to live better; what is wrong is a style of life which is presumed to be better when it is directed towards “having” rather than “being”, and which wants to have more, not in order to be more but in order to spend life in enjoyment as an end in itself.

In short, if we get too caught up in the money alone question, we tend to send the same bad message to both rich and poor people: only the amount of money that you have matters. How you live and how you spend don’t matter.

An article by Gisela Bernardes Solymos asks: “This brings us to the following questions: what promotes the awareness of who we are? How can we experience dignity again? How can we overcome poverty?”

Overcoming poverty is going to be about a lot more than money. It’s going to mean engagement on an individual, personal, emotional level. It’s going to mean offering those other, non-monetary resources to people who don’t have them. Helping people in need requires more than writing a check, more than a numbers comparison, it’s about seeing ourselves on the same plane as just humans in need of different things. Sometimes money can blind us to that human equality. I’m pretty sure that’s why Jesus talks about money so much– “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matt. 19:24). He tells us to love our neighbors, who he defines pretty widely in the story of the Good Samaritan; He wants us to love one another as human beings no matter who has more or less earthly belongings or status.

I know I fall short here–a lot. I need a good deal of grace. But there is a converse to this that I do relate to and which I think needs to be emphasized as a counterpoint to Occupy type of reasoning: we don’t have to hate or blame rich people. We shouldn’t even be jealous of them. A person with a lot of money is just a person with different struggles. Money is money; people are people.

Are there moral pitfalls of a wealthy lifestyle? Undoubtedly. But a wealthy person can indeed help steward his or her wealth well for the sake of the betterment of the community; he or she might very well be poor-in-spirit and quite virtuous. And here I’ll turn to Downton Abbey, always a *classy* show, but it has a bit of serious content. One of the most endearing facets of Lord Grantham, the earl of the estate, is his genuine concern for his staff, his farmers and the townsfolk in general. He pays for his cook to have an eye operation she can’t afford. One of the biggest developments between Lord Grantham and Tom Branson, the left-leaning driver turned to son-in-law, is Tom’s gradual learning that all this wealth and estate aren’t mere unjust waste–Lord Grantham actually serves to steward the property and household for the sake of the very people who work it, not just for himself and his high-class daughters. Only someone who has a lot of resources is in a position to offer those resources to others.

Now, certainly not all wealthy people meet such a standard, but it is possible. As I’ve said elsewhere, it is possible and actually good for people to be equal and not be the same. We don’t have to all have the same things and live the same way or have the same amount of money in order to be equal or to live dignified, decent lives. The farmer and the Earl of Downton Abbey can both flourish in a meaningful way. My three-bedroom, one-story house is a lot less than some of my friends have and a lot more than some of them have. This needn’t be cause for awkwardness or embarrassment. Sometimes I need help; sometimes I can offer help.

So meeting the needs of the truly impoverished is about helping them get all their human needs met and bringing more factors into play than the checkbook alone. It’s a big task to help propel another soul up to the level of dignity and decency with so many complex structures in place; but at the same time, dignity and decency matter in a way that reminds us of our shared humanity, and if we can get everyone to that point, differences between country clubs and community parks fade into the background. (For instance, if we really saw each other as equally valuable, maybe the country club members might open it up to those who can’t afford it…)

Seeds of the Gospel: NYC’s Soda Ban – People know morality means discipling our desires

No longer available in “venti”

Mayor Bloomberg’s proposed ban on the selling of soda in sizes greater than 16 oz. has been pretty controversial and has been widely publicized on the internet. If you haven’t heard, here’s an article about it.

Before you think I’m endorsing it (based on the title) see my take at the bottom. But it’s interesting isn’t it? The goal is to help people live healthy lives by limiting the amount of damage they can do to themselves.

It makes sense, sort of. But the reason I listed it as a seed of the Gospel (or good news), is that classically, morality as been understood as the willful discipline of human desires that are disordered–that is, which don’t contribute to our overall well-being.

One obvious type of this is food. It’s pretty easy to desire a large pizza, soda, cheese fries, etc, etc when what we really need is veggies and lean protein. Of course there is also the flip side of being so focused on body-image that we don’t eat enough. Both inclinations have problems (hence they are disordered). It’s virtue that moderates between them.

So here’s part of what I think about the NYC soda ban, the mayor and people in general understand this concept of virtue-driven morality deep down inside. And they want desperately to live good, healthy (that is, moral) lives.

But the catch is