Joseph May Not Have Thought What We Think He Thought

Because this post never gets "old," I like to run it again from time to time, especially when we read the one text in the New Testament that gives us some idea of the perspective of St Joseph when he first found himself caught up in the events we are about to celebrate. Thus once again I present, for your reading (or rereading) consideration, this bloggy "digest" of some of my old undergraduate lecture material, entitled "Joseph May Not Have Thought What We Think He Thought."

___________________________________________

Everyone is familiar with the Gospel reading from yesterday's liturgy for the Fourth Sunday of Advent. It was all about Jesus being conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary... from the perspective of St. Joseph. We think we know what is going on in this passage, but perhaps we assume too much:

"When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the Holy Spirit. Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly. Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, 'Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the Holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins'" (Matthew 1:18-21).

Ah yes, that "touchy" little situation.

Thus we are introduced to St. Joseph, and the testimony of Divine Revelation to this greatest of saints after Mary herself is largely contained in these first two chapters of Matthew (along with some references in Luke 1-2). Indeed, this is one of his most important moments; it is the moment upon which his vocation is founded. What do we learn about him in this passage?

Perhaps it is something a little different from what we initially think. For a person like me, this story might enter into my mind and get mixed around and end up sounding something like this (note well -- the actual words of the Scripture are in bold type; the rest is JJ's imagination coloring in the details):

Joseph her husband, when he realized that Mary must of been... well... unfaithful to their betrothal (which really surprised him since Mary had been so completely, astonishingly, immaculately good up until then) since he was a righteous man, yet [YET?] unwilling to expose her to shame, (in other words he was "righteous" but he wasn't like "crazy righteous" -- the Law said an adulterous wife should be stoned to death [see Deuteronomy 22], but he decided to ignore the Law and let it slide because he was a nice guy,) decided to divorce her quietly. (Mary had this story about an angel and a miracle and the Holy Spirit, but as Joseph himself said in Franco Zeffirelli's movie Jesus of Nazareth [and he must have said it, because we saw it on TV], "That's too much for any man to believe!" But still, he was a nice guy so he was willing to hush things up and break it off quietly.) Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David [why did he call him that?], do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. [PERIOD! That means the angel finishes his sentence here. Then he takes a deep breath and continues with the next sentence...] For (in other words, after have taken his deep breath, the angel proceeds to explain to Joseph what really happened, setting the record straight that Mary was telling the truth after all) it is through the Holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." At which point Joseph goes <FACEPALM> "If I had known, O angel, that Mary was really bearing the Messiah, the Son of God, in her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit, I would never have 'divorced her quietly'! Oh no, I would have taken her into my home and taken upon myself the earthly responsibilities of fatherhood for... you know... God Incarnate...."

Okay, JJ... enough snarkiness. What's the point? Well, the point here is that if I step back and examine what seems to be the common sense interpretation of this text, it starts to raise all sorts of problems. There's not a whole lot of bold type in that long paragraph. I have to make a lot of assumptions, which is not unreasonable since these assumptions are generally made even by theologians (generally, but not universally, and -- as we shall see -- there is good reason for a different reading).

The interpretation fills in details that are precisely not mentioned in the text, but that seem necessary to make sense of it. The thinking is that Joseph is divorcing Mary for infidelity, and he is assuming that her pregnancy is a result of that infidelity (maybe she tried to explain it and he didn't believe her, or maybe she said nothing because of humility, in which case he still must have been somewhat flustered). He is a "just man," so he's not interested in getting revenge against the perpetrator, nor does he want to "press charges" according to the Law, but he also has no intention of covering the whole matter up by taking her in as his wife and presenting himself as the child's father. Then the angel appears to him and tells him not to be afraid to marry Mary because she is innocent and the child has been conceived by a miracle. The child, in fact, is the Savior. Problem solved. The marriage is back on.

Problem solved? On closer inspection, maybe not. Actually we have several problems here. The underlying problem is that we interpret this whole event based on a presupposition that is not in the text. In fact, a closer look at the text reveals that our presupposition (that Joseph is divorcing Mary because he thinks she's pregnant by human agency) is not supported; indeed, the implications lead in another direction entirely.

What I'm presenting here is theological and exegetical opinion, which has been much more precisely expressed by theologians and biblical exegetes (such as, for example, John McHugh, in his fascinating book The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament [1975] and Giorgio Buccellati, longtime professor of Ancient Near Eastern studies at UCLA [see e.g. "The Prophetic Dimension of Joseph," Communio, Spring 2006] -- just so you know that my ramblings here are backed by scholarly heavyweights). Scott Hahn refers to the two opinions on this text as the Suspicion Theory (Joseph thinks Mary committed adultery until the angel reveals otherwise) and the Reverence Theory (which is... well, let's see). Scott himself doesn't "take sides" here, but (to my reading) he also leans in the direction of the latter theory (see The Gospel of Matthew, Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, p. 18).

That will have to suffice for scholarly "apparatus" in what is a decidedly non-scholarly blog post. JJ just wants to outline why he now sees this event in a different light, not only because it makes more sense, but also because St Joseph is his homeboy. (Really, I don't know where I'd be without him.)

Let's take a closer look at this text. Mary "was found with child through the Holy Spirit." What does this mean? Exactly what it says (also in the Greek). Before Joseph took Mary into his home, she was found with child through the Holy Spirit. Once again, note well that does not say that she was "found with child and claimed that the child was conceived by the Holy Spirit." We might assume that the point here is that Mary was "found with child" and that Matthew just adds the Holy Spirit parenthetically. Is this assumption warranted? Let's examine further and see if we really need these invisible parentheses.

Clearly, Mary is with child and Joseph wants to end the relationship. He has no choice but to divorce Mary, since the betrothal is already a binding legal commitment. But he doesn't want to "bring shame" upon her (stoning to death and all that), so he decides to do it "quietly." And all of these assumptions hinge on Joseph being a "just" or "righteous" man, which means that he is a man devoted to the Law (hence divorce) who is simultaneously a man willing to set the Law aside (hence "quietly").

Hmmmm.

The quiet divorce is something of a head-scratcher. Our lectionary translation gives us something that is appropriately bumbling: "Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly." Since? Yet? He was righteous, but...? And while we're at it, let's look at this term that Matthew decides to toss in here: dikaios. This is Greek for the Hebrew saddiq. Such a title is not awarded lightly in the Scriptures. This is a profound and full sense of righteousness, such as is attributed to Noah and Abraham. This is the kind of "justice" out of which radical foundations can be made. Here is Joseph the Righteous.

And Matthew has introduced this term to explain to us (while also confusing us further) the reason why Joseph decided to be kind and merciful to his adulterous wife? Assuming that there's some wiggle room in the Law for this kind of arrangement (and we all assume this, of course), it would seem that a decent man could take this road without much heroic virtue. It hardly requires the righteousness of Noah or Abraham to walk away from an unfaithful spouse, without obligations and with a spotless reputation. The betrothed woman is allowed to live. We assume (again) that the "quiet" will succeed in smoothing over the situation for everybody, whereas in fact it refers only to refraining from filing a public charge. In such circumstances, the woman is still socially disgraced and even cast out of home and family, shamed for the rest of her life. It's not like she can go abroad for a year, have the baby, and then come back with nobody knowing anything about it. This is not the Hamptons. This is a Palestinian village. In 4 b.c. Everybody in the village knows everything. As for Joseph? Not his problem anymore.

But, Matthew tells us, Joseph is not the average man who wants to cut his losses and get out of town. He is saddiq. He is just. He is righteous. The angel in the dream does not rebuke him nor cause some great moral conversion. Joseph is already the quintessential steadfast man. Still, given what we assume to be his understanding, he's not doing anything "wrong." (Or is he being shifty with the Law? Isn't there a better way? Oh gosh what a mixup!)

What's wrong with this picture?

Perhaps we can keep all these human assumptions (as many, but not all, church fathers and many, but not all, interpreters have) and still squeeze it all together and make it fit. It's all a big misunderstanding that the angel clears up, to our great relief, by telling Joseph the truth.

If only Joseph had known from the start that Mary had conceived by the Holy Spirit, then it would have been.... ? What "would it have been"? What if?

Consider this possibility: What if Mary told Joseph about the Annunciation, and Joseph did believe her? What if Joseph, the righteous man, totally, totally believed her?

Here also, we are assuming (or hypothesizing) something that the text doesn't come right out and state. But why do we assume that it didn't happen this way? There is nothing implausible about this communication between these particularly extraordinary betrothed spouses. I would think that Joseph would be the first person she would tell. What we do know of Mary from the Gospels indicates that she was humble and obedient, yes, but not timid. She was also practical.

This was something Joseph needed to know. I see no reason why Mary would not have told him the whole thing, right away.

And how far have we really departed from the text in "assuming" this? Matthew 1:18 says "she was found with child through the Holy Spirit." Matthew is giving us Joseph's perspective here (is any other person mentioned?). So who "found" out that she was "with child"? Joseph. And how did he find out? Mary told him. Is it possible that what Joseph "found" was that Mary was "with child through the Holy Spirit"?

"But, but..." we might say, "if he had known, there wouldn't have been any thought of divorce, right?"

On the contrary. In these circumstances we have precisely what we need to make sense of the "quiet 'divorce' of the 'just man'" -- this is where lots of pieces fall into place in a way that I find compelling. It is precisely at this point that Matthew tells us that Joseph is saddiq, that he is righteous with that sense of awe and wonder at the mystery of God; in fact he is one in a million, the man to whom the Lord had already entrusted His most magnificent creation: the Immaculate Virgin Mary. But what has Mary just told him? She has been "overshadowed" by the Most High and has now become, in a new way, the dwelling place of the Holy One. (When Mary asked the angel, "How?" in Luke 1, she got a very clear answer.) Both Mary and Joseph recognized in these terms the references to the Shekinah, the Glory of God who descended upon the Ark of the Covenant, who dwelt in the Holy of Holies in the temple.

Only those called specifically by God to the Levitical priesthood were allowed to pass beyond the veil and enter the Holy of Holies. But what was this that had happened to Mary? The Glory dwells in her. It is precisely because Joseph is "Just" according to God's own heart that he would never presume that a human betrothal gave him the right to take the New Ark of the Covenant by his own authority into his home. (I know, I'm coordinating Matthew and Luke here, but I'm one of these people who actually believes that, whatever literary genres are being employed in these narratives, their purpose is to convey to us stuff that really happened.)

Joseph learns that Mary is "with child through the Holy Spirit" and that she has received a new, divine vocation. But he has had no revelation from God, no new vocation that corresponds with Mary's. What can he do? He is a "righteous man" and is able to understand that Mary has become a bearer of God's Glory. Surely, the Lord will make His will known for Mary and this extraordinary child. The Lord will assure that Mary is protected, no doubt by someone worthier than Joseph himself. The only role Joseph sees for himself here is to release Mary from the obligations of the betrothal (yes, the word for "divorce" can be understood in this way) to make room for whomever God chooses. Of course, Joseph will do it "quietly," secretly, because it would be manifestly more than unjust to expose Mary to shame. It would be wicked. "Joseph, since he was a righteous man" (1:19) would never do such a thing. He will release her right away, and keep her secret to himself.

For his own part, Joseph is filled with awe and humility. He is full of that eminently righteous gift which is the fear of the Lord. No doubt he wonders about many things, and is probably confused and "afraid" in the emotional sense. But above all, he is surrendering Mary to the mystery and the freedom of God's plan.

This is his intention when the angel appears. And here more things start to make sense. The angel says to him, "Do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home." The "fear" indicated here is the kind that the human person has before the mystery of God. The "Suspicion Theory" has no way to explain this fear. If Joseph thinks Mary's pregnancy is ordinary, it's hard to see what he would be "afraid" of even in a purely human sense. He would be opposed to taking an adulteress into his house, not for any reasons of fear, much less the fear of the presence of God. He would be concerned for her dismal future. He would have no fear about himself; he has done the right thing.

But the angel invokes that fear in the presence of God and relates it directly to Joseph taking Mary into his home. That would make perfect sense if Mary in fact has the presence of God within her in a wholly new and unimaginable way.

But how do we account for the angel giving Joseph the news of Mary's miraculous conception in a way that seems "fresh" if he already knows about it? Isn't there a divinely inspired PERIOD that divides 1:20? "Do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the Holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her." These two sentences do sound like the angel is relieving Joseph's "fear" by informing him that Mary's child is in fact of the Holy Spirit. But we've seen that this fact is the only meaningful reason for Joseph's fear in the first place.

Here's where we must realize the limitations of translation. The New Testament was written in the common Greek of the first century, with no word spacing or punctuation. Many terms that have various possible renderings get standardized by translators for a variety of reasons. Frankly I'm not a New Testament scholar or a Greek scholar. But here I'm relying on John McHugh (see above) who is both. McHugh says that it is legitimate to read this verse in a different way, pulling out the punctuation that isn't there in the first place and using some unwieldy clauses which don't sound great in English but render the sense more accurately.

The result is that the angel's words to Joseph actually emphasize that Joseph's knowledge of the miracle is the cause of his fear. What we should read here goes something like this: Do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home on account of the fact that it is through the Holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. Now that makes sense.

And there is a hint here too of what the angel's real purpose is in this vision: "Joseph, son of David..." he says. It's interesting that this narrative begins at verse 18. The first 17 verses of Matthew's gospel are a genealogy from Abraham through David (the King to whom the promise of God is given) to Jesus. When I see the genealogies in the Scriptures, I am tempted to zone out. I am even tempted to open Matthew's gospel and just start at verse 18. But this genealogy does catch my attention because after all these carefully recorded names we arrive at "Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born" (1:16).

Wait! If Joseph is not Jesus's biological father, then what good is the genealogy? In fact, it's a lot of good, and it sets the stage and indicates the focus of the narrative that follows. Kingly inheritance passes from father to son in the Hebrew tradition. Mary's lineage has no legal significance and it is the legal claim to be a descendant of David that is necessary for Jesus to inherit the Davidic kingship and fulfill the promise.

But there was no human father! The inheritance can only be handed on if a descendant of David steps in and acts as father to Jesus (we say that Joseph "adopts" Him, but I'm not sure that we have an entirely adequate term to describe the sui generis role that Joseph is called to play).

"She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus" (1:21). Now we know what this angelic visit is all about. The angel is giving Joseph his specific vocation; he is conveying God's authorization (indeed His command) that Joseph enter into a unique service to this new Shekinah, this new presence of God in the world: that he take his wife into his home without fear, because he, Joseph, is the one called by God to take on this responsibility. And he is called to this because he is a "son of David" and he therefore passes on the earthly line of the Messianic king to Mary's son, to whom he gives the name of Jesus.

Personally, I'm convinced. This has gotta be it. Remember that Scott Hahn called this the Reverence Theory, and I think we understand why. It's simple. It makes everything fit together. It's consistent with the details Matthew gives us and fits better into the context. It explains Matthew's statement that from the beginning Mary was "found to be with child through the Holy Spirit." It accounts eminently and in every respect for Joseph's title of saddiq, right in the place where Matthew introduces it (without resorting to casuistry about the Law, or a murky sense of what Joseph was up to or what human problem he was afraid of, or having to posit this odd, tense, and mistrustful beginning of the Holy Family).

The "Reverence Theory" corresponds to the singular sanctity of the man, St. Joseph -- always obedient, always steadfast, always following God's will and trusting in His wisdom. That is the St. Joseph I know, and I have no reason to believe he was ever otherwise.

Frosty Early Morning

This work is called Frosty Early Morning, December 22 (photo-based Digital Art).

The picture really does convey the look and the "feel" of things at 8:00 AM today. It was a sharp cutting cold with ice on car windows.

Agnese Turns 21 Years Old, as Christmas Draws Near

Happy Birthday Agnese Janaro. You're 21 years old now. As you know, I can't resist these "comparison collages" (age 5 on the left) but for parents they give a sweet kind of nostalgia. We're proud of the beautiful person you have grown up to be, and — of course — we're always here for you. We love you, Agnese!❤⭐ In a couple of months you will embark on what we hope will be a very special time of your university life: the Semester in Rome! You have waited a long time to go to a country where (finally) everyone will be able to pronounce your name. It will be worth the wait. The Italians make it sound like poetry!

Readers of this Blog may have noticed that, for the Janaro family, this decade has been about "kids growing up."

I think some of my bios in the publishing and internet world still say that we have "five children"! That status needs to be updated. It needs to say, "We are the parents of five..." or some such thing. Teresa and Jojo are still kids, even though Teresa drives her own Ford Explorer SUV around, and rides and takes care of her own horse. Jojo is certainly in no rush to grow up, and still enjoys being a child. Adolescence is just beginning for her. 

We had five children until pretty recently, like ... you know, 2010? My "most recent" book Never Give Up: My Life and God's Mercy came out at the beginning of this decade (order it here by clicking this link — people do still buy it, read it, and find it helpful; and I'm grateful for that). The reflections in it remain pertinent. My health is, perhaps, a bit better now. One big difference, however, is that "the kids" are no longer aged 12, 11, 9, 7, and 3.

They are now 22, 21, 19, 17, and 13. For the "kids," this decade has been a big one. Which means it has been big for us too. I pray that the Lord will continue to bless and take care of our family and each of its members, and also the generation above us — our parents and the kids' grandparents. For them too, it has been a decade of many new challenges. My father is the first to have completed the journey of this earthly life. He passed away in April, three days shy of his 84th birthday.

Christmas is in a few days. For me it will be the first Christmas ever without Dad. Even the year I lived in Italy, we could talk on the telephone. So this is very different. Mom is recuperating slowly but steadily from her recent broken-bone injury. Temporarily, she has moved to a smaller efficiency apartment at a lovely Assisted Living place in Arlington where she can continue to receive therapy and all the care she needs at her own pace. We have begun the process leading to selling my parents' condo and selling our house, as well as looking at larger houses that would have space for Mom to come live with us.

Very big things will be happening, God willing, in 2020. (A wedding too!!)

But before that, Christmas approaches, and in celebrating it we remember that we are all still children, because we are children of God who has revealed Himself as our loving Father. Indeed, He sent His Son as a child to reveal the simplicity and depth of His love. I pray abundant blessings for all my readers as Christmas draws near. May its celebration bring you joy and peace.

And there's another collage of little Agnese and current Agnese (she's 3 or 4 years old on the left in this one).

Key of David

"O Key of David... Come..." It's December 20th already. The Lord is near. The Christmas Season will soon begin!

We are "Saved in Hope"

"Are you 'saved'?"

When Evangelicals ask this question to faithful, devout, and well-instructed Catholic Christians, the Catholics sometimes feel like they have been "cornered." On the one hand, the question seems intent on probing whether someone who claims to be a Christian is in fact a true disciple of Jesus Christ, a believer whose life is being transformed by the grace of God. On the other hand, the question feels "loaded" (not without reason): the whole doctrinal controversy over sola fide, sola gratiae, etc. seems contained in it.

When confronted with this question — at work, school, or social events, not to mention on the street or at one's front door — Catholic Christians often don't know how to respond. We definitely want to affirm with joy the free grace of God given to us through the Cross of Jesus Christ, who has delivered us from sin and death and made us a new creation. But we also want to avoid any impression that we think the grace of Christ is a "thing" given to us "in a box" that we can stick on a shelf without heeding it further.

We want to avoid presumption; we do not want to discount the importance of free will, or the role of good works and perseverance in attaining the fullness of our promised inheritance in Christ. Not only the Council of Trent and the whole tradition, but also the New Testament require this. The ancient faith handed on from Apostolic times — the faith of the martyrs, the Church Fathers, the great saints over the course of 2000 years — embraces the mystery of salvation with a fullness and richness that correspond to a vision of Christian life as engaging and transforming the whole person. Indeed, our Evangelical brothers and sisters who really pray and meditate on the Scriptures "know" this in their hearts and live it out practically, even if some feel the need to cling to certain polemically-generated theological formulations that oversimplify or fail to do justice to the "mystical depth" (and personal depth) of the whole Christian experience.

I mean no condescension by this last statement; people's articulated adherence to different "faith-traditions" (and the statements and outlook considered essential to their historic raisons d'être) emerges from complex historical events and personal experiences, in which profound truths are often interwoven with expressions, practices, attitudes, etc, of lesser value. As Christians who desire the unity that Jesus wills for all of us, we seek to grow together through prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who continually renews and purifies us in mind and heart.

But to return to the original question: "Are we 'saved'?"

Some Evangelicals assert that "accepting Jesus Christ as my personal Savior" means that I affirm as an intellectual conviction — with absolute subjective certainty, here and now, while I am still living this earthly life, while I still follow Jesus on the arduous "narrow path" of my life's vocation — that I will definitely go to heaven when I die. They claim that what I must believe, without question, is that I am among the final elect — they say that this conviction follows from believing that the omnipotent God, through the blood of Christ, atones for all my sins and constitutes Himself as my righteousness. In their view, to imply that any actions or cooperation might be required of me, that I must "live out my faith" in order to arrive at eternal salvation, indicates something less than total confidence in (and total submission to) the power of God in Christ.

The implication is that I am not a true Christian — that I do not "really" have faith — unless I am intellectually infallibly convinced that the whole existential drama of my life and freedom is over, that my place is absolutely secure without reference to what kind of a person I might become in the future, as if the perfection of my freedom is of no concern to God and irrelevant to my identity as a child of God. This is what some Evangelicals assert conceptually and debate theologically.

Obviously this is not the Catholic Christian teaching about faith. It is also difficult to see how it can be reconciled with the multitude of exhortations (and warnings) directed at believing Christians throughout the New Testament. Indeed this debate today is carried out quite frequently among Evangelicals themselves, across a spectrum of opinions from Luther and Calvin to Arminius, Wesley, the Pentecostal movement, and other contemporary views.

It is important to realize that Evangelical Protestants argue about these (and many other) points. Being a "Bible Christian" is much more complicated than it may appear to be. What is also important, however, is the observation that sincere, practical, prayerful Evangelicals — whatever theoretical position they may hold on these classical Protestant debates — generally live their lives with a real and vital love for Christ, a passion to follow Him and do His will, a de facto sense that their actions (good or bad, virtuous or sinful) really do matter in the eyes of God, and a healthy inclination to honor those who have served the Lord courageously and faithfully.

One concern that we might identify as a motivation for the "are-you-saved?-question" is the determination to insure that all glory is given to God. The questioner may also be trying to distinguish between someone who is a real believer and a genuine committed disciple of Jesus, and someone who is just an "admirer" of Christ and holds a loose, vague ideal of Christian "humanitarianism." Too many people think that Christianity is about a distant God, a more-or-less "mythical" Christ, and a strict moral code. Evangelicals see that such a mentality betrays the Gospel. They want to propose a vital Christianity in which the saving power of God in Jesus Christ and our total dependence on Him are affirmed without ambiguity and with all the strength they deserve. And to ensure the recognition that God's power is life-changing, that it really "matters" to life right now.

Catholic Christians also want to affirm this. I don't want to pretend there are no real theoretical and practical differences here, but simply to point out that there is much we have in common.

So, ... are we "saved" by grace? Now?

"In hope we were saved. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for what one sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait with endurance" (Romans 8:24-25).

What is St Paul's phrase? We are "saved in hope" — and hope is a gift from God that generates a living adherence in us, the trust engendered within a relationship with Jesus. Our salvation is "within a relationship" that does exist "now." We are also empowered to live our lives within that relationship. God "saves us" by embracing us as real human persons; He embraces our whole personality, which precisely "now" is that of a free-person-living-within-history. Salvation is the work of His grace, but He does not save puppets. He saves persons, and His power is at work "inside" the life of the person, "within" the very freedom itself of the person and within the history in which possibilities for freedom — for self-giving love — continue to unfold.

"Everything is grace..." These are the words of one of Catholic Christianity's greatest witnesses to the Gospel: Saint Thérèse of Lisieux.

Everything really is grace, because our Christian life as it grows through the personal history of our earthly vocation — and all our good works — are the fruit of grace, the grace that is transforming us and enabling us to participate in the life of God. Grace precedes, accompanies, and brings to fulfillment every good action but in a way that makes them also really "our own" acts.

God creates us as free persons, and in Christ He recreates us as redeemed persons in relationship with Himself (a "relationship" with the Trinity as children of the Father through Jesus in the Holy Spirit).

It is a "new life" in the Spirit that begins now. We are certain of Jesus Christ, of His presence in our lives, of His saving love for us. We Catholic Christians need to speak personally about Jesus as the center of life, and look at our own lives and find how this relationship shapes our lives. And if our lives lack that vital interest, that affection for Christ — that adherence that changes the way we see reality, the way we judge things and value things — then we need to ask Him to convert our hearts and open our eyes. Dialogue with non-Catholic Christians can be an occasion to reflect more on how much we really depend — totally — on Jesus.

For me, one of the difficulties with the question "Am I 'saved'?" is that I feel like it puts the emphasis in the wrong place. It implies that in order to have confidence in God, I have to find some kind of absolute certainty inside my own narrow self-understanding, my own convictions about myself, my own subjective attitude which is so often mediated to my consciousness through a jumble of psychological issues, shifting emotions, and so many other limitations involved with being human.

Ultimately the confidence and strength of my life are not drawn from (or dependent on) ideas about myself, impressions, emotions, or any process of self-discovery.

My confidence is in God, because of Jesus Christ.

I know that I belong to Jesus Christ. He died on the Cross for me, He rose from the dead for me, He is my Lord, my Savior, my Redeemer, my Hope. HE is the meaning of my life. I was created to belong to Him, to be His brother, and through Him to be an adopted son of the Father in the Holy Spirit.

I want to look at Jesus, and I pray for the grace to remember Jesus and trust Jesus.

Jesus is here for me and He is ever faithful. I trust in Him. I don't "see" and there is much that I need to "endure with patience," but in hope I look forward to fulfilling my personal vocation in the time — the "history" — that it encompasses in God's plan. My hope is in the working of the Holy Spirit who comes to lead me and empower me — in the whole of my human personal reality — with an awakened and increasing freedom to be conformed to Christ, to love God and other persons through a genuine gift of myself. By this path of faith working through love — a path planned by God, given by God, and enabled and sustained by God as the path of salvation in Jesus Christ for me as a person — I hope to arrive at eternal fulfillment in Him.

I hope in Jesus who is my Salvation. I rejoice in that hope, even as I long to see His face, and I pray and beg Him to remind me again when I forget. I do not seek to be either presumptuous or anxious about myself, but rather to live in relationship with Him, to press onward toward Him, trusting in Him, staying with Him, turning back to Him if I forget and wander off, always depending entirely on Him, Jesus, my Lord, my God who came into the world to save me, and who comes as the Risen One, through the Holy Spirit, into the history of my life to accompany me step by step on the road to the Father's house.

I don't know if my Evangelical interlocutors would regard this as an answer to the question "Are you 'saved'?" I would be glad, however, if they recognized that I am a Christian, and that I am their brother.

[This text is a work "in progress" that will be continued....]

Pope Francis Marks Anniversary and Birthday

In the past week, Pope Francis has celebrated the 50 year anniversary of his ordination and his 83rd birthday.

Sending best wishes and many, many prayers for you, Papa Francisco, as you continue to exercise the ministry the Lord has entrusted to you!

Hong Kong: The Protest Goes On, the Stakes Increase

The struggle in Hong Kong has intensified dramatically since the last time I posted about it. Indeed, it has managed to keep the attention of the Western media, one reason being that it has exacerbated China's "image problem," undermining China's current efforts to present itself as a responsible business and trade partner.

But in the West there is also a combination of growing support, admiration, and astonishment at the perseverance of the protesters. The stubbornness of the Hong Kong government and its masters in Beijing is, by contrast, not surprising. We have begun to wonder, however, why Emperor Xi and his Brave New China have not yet "restored law and order," in classic CCP style. I don't know the Chinese term for "smash them," but it was one of Mao's favorites. Yet there has been no "smashing" in Hong Kong. Yet.

It's just possible that the mandarins of the Politburo are even more astonished than us. Perhaps they have not acted because they don't know what to do.

It's not as if the Party-state is suffering from "a troubled conscience." Sadly, the Uighurs in western Xinjiang know only too well that New China has no humanitarian scruples. But "The Company" is in the process of negotiating multiple deals all over the world, and Hong Kong is in the global spotlight. That's rather inconvenient for the bosses in Beijing. But it may not be the only thing that perplexes them.

Hong Kong's "Revolution of Our Times" is looking more and more like an unprecedented social upheaval. Though we still try to use them, the old categories for "civil uprisings" are just not adequate to describe all that is happening. The term "police brutality" remains appropriate. As does the term "escalation," although it has a very peculiar dynamic in this case. The heat of events increases slowly (insofar as we can measure) but inexorably. The "non-lethal" force used by the police, along with the refusal of the government to show anything but contempt for the popular movement, are a kind of slow but sustained mass torture of a substantial segment of Hong Kong society. Tear gas is practically becoming part of the atmosphere people breathe every day.

On the other hand, it has become difficult to refer to the vastly diverse but still remarkably cohesive masses of people who have been taking to the streets for the past six months as "protesters" in any ordinary sense of the term. Still, I can't think of any other word for them. There are still many classical protests (such as the recent six month anniversary march that brought out nearly a million people). More and more, however, we see groups resorting to the use of force, not only in self-defense but also — in cases of vandalism and large-scale property damage — as a way to send a message to their pro-Beijing adversaries.

"Non-violence" has long ceased to define the movement. The use of force, however, is controlled and purposeful. People are not targets, and casualties (outside of rare rogue actions) are unintentional and infrequent. The "petrol bombs" are certainly dangerous but they are used primarily to block police advances. Property damage and spray-paint sloganeering are dramatic in their appearance (they are intended to be) but they are relatively restrained.

If these were rioters, they would be burning things down deliberately, causing maximum indiscriminate destruction, and looting on a large scale. Hong Kong people aren't doing any of these things, as far as I know. We have had plenty of riots in the West. We know what riots look like. Hong Kong's street protesters are not rioters. They look like something different. They look like guerrilla warriors with a new style, new strategies, new tactics, a sense of restraint, and a basic respect for human life.

This is a new kind of social movement. Its actions don't correspond to any of the standard classifications.

Still, we can't endorse all their methods. In addition to questions of particular justice, the intensification of force — indeed one could call it "militant" action — without a leadership that can claim political legitimacy will inevitably fragment the movement, coarsen its participants, and engender in them a poisonous hatred of their enemies. Such has been the sad experience of human history.

I am nothing more than a Western intellectual, an interdisciplinary scholar, and a fascinated (but decidedly amateur and poorly informed) "China watcher."  What I am doing here is recording my impressions and ruminating on the news reports. I don't know what's going on, and I don't know what direction it will take. I still STAND WITH HONG KONG. As someone who has no power and who can be nothing other than an observer, however, I can't help but ruminate and worry.

One thing has been made clear. Hong Kong's protest movement is a truly popular movement — it has consistent and proven support among the people of the city. I'm not sure what this support means, or whether it approaches anything like a foundation or beginning of something that might develop into a political mandate. But the most remarkable of the recent events in Hong Kong was the stunning political triumph of pro-democracy candidates in the District Council elections of November 24.

The District Councils are made up of local officials with little real political power. It is precisely for this reason that they are the only officials chosen entirely by popular vote. Understandably, these elections have never generated much interest, with candidates often running unopposed for positions that allow them to participate in decisions like where to put a bus stop in a neighborhood.

But these 452 seemingly insignificant offices took on a powerful symbolism in November of 2019. Pro-democracy forces had been planning for two years to change the complexion of the District Councils, and candidates were lined up to run against the normally uncontested establishment. The elections came after five months of the protest movement. The people of Hong Kong were given this opportunity to make their voices heard at this point. They did more than speak. They roared.

It was the largest election in Hong Kong history, with an unprecedented voter turnout of nearly three million people. There were long lines all day at the polling places all over the territory. The pro-democracy candidates won 388 seats, and 17 out of 18 overall districts. It was a landslide, beyond anyone's dreams. The message of these results is clear:

Source: Wikipedia

Beijing and their minions appear to have been caught entirely off guard. It would have been easy enough to call off these elections, citing the dangers posed by all the "rioters" (the elections, in fact, were entirely peaceful). But they never expected to suffer such a humiliating defeat. Maybe the Chinese Communist Party has actually started to believe its own propaganda. Maybe they expected a hitherto "silent majority" to come out and rally behind the government and the police.

They got a big surprise. It's difficult to predict what they will make of it.

Meanwhile, the protest goes on. We are watching history unfold.

Saint John of the Cross

Juan de la Cruz died 428 years ago today, at the age of 49.

Like so many genuine reformers, he never imagined how great the fruit of his labors and sufferings would be for the whole Church. His entire focus was on following Jesus and being faithful to the mysterious transforming love of God.

For Christmas: More Thoughts on Music, Creativity, and Media

As the Christmas season approaches, people increasingly "fill their homes" with special music that helps them prepare for and celebrate the joy of Christ's birth and that stirs up the aspirations of human benevolence embodied in various family and cultural traditions of the season.

I hope that this time of year (and other times too) allows us to experience music in its most intimate, personal form (wherein is also found its most powerful capacity to build bonds with others): what I am referring to, of course, is SINGING, and in particular singing together. We should make the most of the upcoming opportunities to sing with our own voices (as best we can) in our churches and at other holiday gatherings. Singing together can be done with great simplicity, if we listen to one another even as we contribute our own vocal resonance. We give and receive within a multi-sensory communal experience that expresses a profound symbol of the whole dynamic of living-together in community.

So don't be shy. We all have music in our souls. Sing!

In common singing, whether as a congregation or in an informal gathering, there are "rules" we follow together, given by the songs themselves, by those who are serving as leaders, and the particular circumstances of the gathering. We should also remember that communal singing is not a contest. It's not the time for individuals to show off their special talents or vie to see who can sing the loudest. As we sing, we ought to be able to listen to the voices of those next to us.

This kind of singing together is not something we do for the sake of "performance," and no one should feel intimidated by a lack of technical skill. Everyone has something they can contribute, something that originates in the heart and soul and emerges as resonant sound from the primordial, multifaceted "musical instrument" that is the human body. If someone doesn't know the words to a song, they can hum softly; if they don't know the tune, they can listen and then perhaps hum the first note of each verse, or even just follow the rhythm softly with a shoe or (depending on the song and the context) clapping hands. There is a personal value to "joining in" to the music in whatever way we can (without disrupting or hindering others in the group).

I do think it's a good thing for everyone to have a "basic musical education" along with the standard educational objectives of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Music and song are akin to language, and in some respects surpass it. In any case they are basic to the enrichment of the human experience.

It's hard to imagine Christmas without music and song.

Of course, most of us enjoy listening to music, and there are many wonderful live concerts this time of year. And throughout the season many of us listen to "Christmas music" that is prerecorded by professional singers and musicians. We like to turn to music that has been developed and presented as a fine art, in various styles, genres, and levels of proficiency. It's natural to appreciate the art of music and the artists who make music, but this appreciation is also an aptitude that can be more deeply engaged by being broadened, cultivated, and educated. This is more important than ever in today's world, where music is crafted and made available to us in unprecedented ways.

We take for granted all the complex media technology that brings music to us on the radio, digital streaming, recordings, and videos. There are many possibilities for enrichment in these media. But there is the danger that so much "thoughtless" access to "easy music" might render dull and superficial our musical sensibility. When music is exclusively defined and commodified as "entertainment," a cycle of degeneration ensues: listeners become less active appreciators and more passive spectacle-seekers, and artists tend to abandon their creative intuition in order to conform to the (profit-driven) constraints of making a fashionable and trendy (but more ephemeral) "show."

The banality of so much popular music has as much to do with our laziness as listeners as it does with the manipulative habits of a music "industry" dominated by superficial trends.

No doubt this has always more-or-less been true about music, given the perennially ambivalent tendencies of being human. But the explosion of technological power has "expanded" the scope of everything that involves human interaction with the material world (some would say "overstretched," but I don't think this is always or necessarily the case — my ongoing analysis of these issues is outlined in other articles and posts). What is remarkable is that, in the midst of all the pressures, real musical creativity finds ways of prevailing and surprising us with new expressions of beauty.

If you've read this far, you might feel like you're being forced to overthink your favorite Christmas playlists or CDs. Haha, you should have known better!😉

I have in fact moved a bit beyond the immediate topic. But since the universally evocative and participatory nature of music is particularly evident at Christmas, I feel that it is appropriate to make a few notes about the broader questions as I continue to probe (in a plodding fashion) the significance of communications media as well as the complex aesthetics of music. (Click HERE to read "Part 1" in this ongoing series wherein I sketch out various musicological ideas.🎶)

There is something fascinating about the various ways music can "come to be" as an intentionally crafted entity, a "work of art." Unlike a painting or sculpture, a musical composition is presented again and again through a distinct artistic activity which is music performance. Even if the composer is also the performer, these are distinct aspects of artistic creativity. Media technology has served to highlight these distinctions, and to develop new aspects of the creative process which can be appreciated in their own right but which also need to be continually refined and incorporated within the musical craft, so that they enhance (rather than cheapen) the artistic quality of the music.

For thousands of years, the live performance itself was the only "artifact" that the instrumentalist or singer "made" — and it existed as an audible reality only when it was performed. Styles of playing and sometimes even a repertoire of musical "works" were passed on person-to-person, through listening and acquiring the craft of performing.

The development of written musical notation expanded the possibilities of sharing music in larger circles, with the potential for a greater "distance" between composers and performers. Music sheets could be hand copied and distributed, and certain songs or forms of music were standardized over regions or within institutions.

Then, there was a technological explosion in media, which in some ways remains the most revolutionary event in the history of communications. The multiplication of human communication (including the content of musical composition) became, at least in principle, limitless. An invention appeared that caused a massive expansion in human power. It came suddenly, and with implications no one could have imagined at the time. It changed the world.

The invention was the printing press.

(Just look at how much we take for granted, everybody!)

The Print Revolution is a topic for another paper, but suffice it to say that for music it became the vehicle for the rise of the composer as a distinctive artist, who could print and distribute his own original music to multiple ensembles of music performers in faraway places, and this distribution could continue long after the composer's death. The composition became an art form, and eventually its complexity and originality blossomed in many directions.

Thus began the novelty that we call, ironically, "Classical Music"!

During the past one hundred and fifty or so years we have had a lot more technological expansion. We have had a blizzard of technological expansion. It has had an enormous impact on music, and the task of fashioning beauty (not to mention the new kinds of artists who participate in the process) is still in an early and rather chaotic stage of development. (This is one reason why I "cut lots of slack" for the efforts of musicians — another reason being that, as a musician myself, I have personal experience in the difficult struggles of this project).

One rather well-established development is certainly worthy of note. Recording technology has opened a whole new dimension of music as an art form. It has given a much-deserved new focus to music performers (distinct from composers) as artists in their own right. It has now become possible for performers to make an "audible thing" that has an "accessibility" and a "permanence" analogous to a painting or sculpture. At the same time, it has expanded the possibilities for the composer to distribute audio performances of his or her work.

Then there are the "technicians" whose responsibility is to perfect the transmission of music to the recording. In the beginning, most of them were focused on the science, the practical engineering involved in making the product. Yet it became increasingly clear that aesthetic sensibility was also crucial to appreciating the finer points of how the recording should "sound." As recording production became more sophisticated, the producer began to be more distinguished as an artist who collaborates in the project of making this distinctive work of art: recorded music. 

Digital technology has continued to expand this role, so that today there are certain types of music constructed entirely of electronically generated sounds that can be arranged and recorded by a single person. Some have practiced this technologically demiurgic musical solitude, but it has already proven to be a lonely burden. Music is diffusive. The work of making music involves an urge to be shared. Thus it's not surprising that digital technology in music is being used to generate new possibilities for all kinds of collective activity, bringing diverse new players from all over the world together in a process which, as I said before, can be chaotic.

The CD is still provides the highest quality for listening 

As we keep an "ear" on what emerges from all this creative ferment, it's important to acknowledge that the art of recorded music today can achieve an unprecedented level of superiority that not only contributes to the accessibility of music but even has a "beauty" of its own. Like all forms of excellence, it is not common, but it can be found.

Just to bring these reflections to an end, let us note that your favorite Christmas recording — even when it is commercially attributed to one artist — is a collaborative achievement of many artists who each contribute their own creativity and skill.

Perhaps we all should become more attentive and appreciative listeners.

And whether or not all this technology dissipates and fractures musical art or opens new integrated and cooperative possibilities for it depends in part on our ability to listen to the music that is created and discern the beauty of the whole (in its various forms, and diverse "levels" of analogical coherence). Learning to express music ourselves is one way to deepen our capacity to listen. That expression still begins in a fundamental human place, the human body.

So go ahead and sing this Christmas. Or tap, or hum, or participate — somehow — in the music. You won't regret it!

Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe

Today is the beautiful day, December 12, the 488th anniversary of the wonderful, inexplicable image appearing on the tilma of an indigenous Mexican man - an image intended to mediate the special, intimate presence of our loving and merciful Mother Mary.

Our Lady of Guadalupe is with us above all to draw us into her tenderness. She wants us to give her our burdens and sorrows and to listen to her so as to discover in a new way that each of us is loved, personally, intimately, by her Son Jesus.

Each one of us matters. Each one of us has a purpose. Above all, each one of us is the child of a good God who will not fail us in time of need.

Our Merciful Mother gives us Jesus her Son and our brother. And she knows and cherishes each of us as his brothers and sisters, as her own children, and she attends us with great compassion throughout our lives.

In Spanish / En Español:

Hoy es el hermoso día, el 12 de diciembre, el 488 aniversario de la maravillosa e inexplicable imagen que aparece en la tilma de un hombre indígena mexicano, una imagen destinada a mediar la presencia especial e íntima de nuestra amorosa y misericordiosa Madre María.

Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe está con nosotros sobre todo para atraernos a su ternura. Ella quiere que le demos nuestras cargas y penas y que la escuchemos para descubrir de una nueva manera que cada uno de nosotros es amado, personalmente, íntimamente, por su Hijo Jesús.

Cada uno de nosotros importa. Cada uno de nosotros tiene un propósito. Sobre todo, cada uno de nosotros es hijo de un Dios bueno que no nos fallará en tiempos de necesidad.

Nuestra Madre Misericordiosa nos da a Jesús su Hijo y nuestro hermano. Y ella nos conoce y valora a cada uno de nosotros como sus hermanos y hermanas, como sus propios hijos, y nos atiende con gran compasión durante toda nuestra vida.

Christina Grimmie is a Bright Beautiful Light for the Future

A decade is coming to an end in a few weeks.

For the last three and a half years, I have turned my attention nearly every month to remembering Christina Grimmie.

Again and again I find myself rediscovering her vitality, her creativity, her innocence and joy, her passionate dedication, her magnificent voice, her irrepressible music, her strength, vulnerability, humor, and gentleness, her greatness of soul — all these gifts of herself that she shared with people all over the world, that have left an indelible mark on the past ten years.

Christina's bright, innovative, resourceful personality reflects much that is good and promising in the younger generation who will be the protagonists of our future, the "kids" who grew up in the 2010s (among whom are my own son and four daughters). Her remarkable resilience has reminded me not to underestimate this generation.

I'm glad for that, because the path forward into the 2020s and beyond is far from obvious. The 2010s have been a traumatic decade. Communications technology has exploded in ways no one had previously imagined. This has engendered a wealth of new and interesting social media connections among millions of people and across vast distances. But the result can become a dizzying and often directionless interaction that only aggravates the deeper loneliness that people endure amidst a bewildering multiplication of superficial information and options for distraction. Meanwhile, the harshness of events and the proliferation of violence have too often shattered the foundations upon which people thought they stood in their relationships with one another. And so we find it harder to work together, to understand one another, to trust one another. Our families and our communities are more fragmented than ever.

Our awareness of our dignity and responsibility as human persons has not grown in proportion to our power to manipulate the material elements of the world. As a result, our capacity for destructiveness in earthly and human environments has become more ominous and threatening.

Still, when I look at the face and listen to the voice of Christina Grimmie, I find reasons for hope. This may appear ironic, given that her own life story can easily be interpreted as an illustration of the increasing danger and fragility of trying to live a generous and self-giving human life in today's world. I have written elsewhere why I don't think this is an adequate understanding of her story. At the center of her life was (is) a much greater Reality that remains a source of renewal in ways that are mysterious but also undeniably human.

Even though she will not accompany us into the next decade on the plane of earthly history, Christina is a seed sown deep into the life of our time and the experience of many representatives of the young generation. Her legacy is not only a foundation for the future, it will bear fruit in special ways, in new forms of maturity, responsibility, and open-heartedness among those who remember her and cherish the gift she has given of herself.

I am confident that she will be remembered and cherished by many, and discovered by many more in the years to come.

Mary "Bumps" Juan Diego Off the Calendar This Year?

Hey, it's December 9... the day we honor Saint Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin (his Nahua name - "Singing Eagle" - is pronounced, to the best of my knowledge, as "Kwat-LA-twat-zin").

Anyway, Happy Feast of... wait, what?

Ah well, at least in the USA, the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary was moved to today (because yesterday was the Second Sunday of Advent) but without the usual obligations [so don't panic, ok?😉]; which means that my home boy Juan Diego gets "bumped" from his feast day AGAIN. (I don't think he minds it a bit😊).

In any case, the Guadalupe Days have begun once again, to culminate on December 12, when we commemorate the gift of Mary's image to the world, and in a particular way to the lands and peoples of the continents we call "America."

It's time to begin pointing out that the 500th Anniversary of Guadalupe is in 2031. God willing, and with Our Lady's help, I will be there with family and friends (for once, we all need to go together). Between now and then, a dozen years of adventures await.

Some of us may be called home before that day, but she will bring them near to those who remain in the world, and there will be a special closeness through our being all together with her.

Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe can heal the wounds of our hemisphere and bring reconciliation and solidarity to our peoples. If we ask her, she will do it ... but she will make us her collaborators and we will have to work hard and be patient.

Just ask Juan Diego about that! 

God's Mercy Empowers Us to "Hasten" Toward Him

Even though the first week of Advent is already over, I have been meaning to share this brief but rich and moving Collect Prayer from the week's liturgy:

O Lord, I really need this.

Your power, your mighty strength, you, O God our Creator and our Father — you love us! You are "on our side" in the struggle of existence; radically, not only by sustaining us in being, but also — even when we are divided against ourselves — you are "for us" by the grace of your mercy.

My sins impede me from attaining the fulfillment for which you created me; but in your mercy you want not only to remove this impediment, but to hasten me forward.

Your mercy wants to recreate me, turn me around, and draw me toward the fullness of my personal destiny in Christ — that adopted sonship that you have fashioned for me in your wisdom and love. I don't comprehend how this "place" in your Kingdom is really for me — that it's the true "home" I'm seeking, which I have glimpsed and tasted obscurely, by faith, in my family life, in these mountains, in the hospitality of friends, in every beautiful thing.

I really need this prayer. We all do. O Lord, come to our help with mighty strength.

In this Advent season we cry out to our Father, we show him our weakness, but we trust in his power and goodness. So we pray "that what our sins impede, the grace of your mercy may hasten through our Lord Jesus Christ..."

Stir up you power, O Lord. Wake up and stir up my heart, so that I will remember that I have been made for you, so that I will hasten to seek you and rejoice to find you!

Teresa Turns Seventeen!

Our dear fourth child and third daughter Teresa had her seventeenth birthday yesterday.

She is growing up to be an amazing person (as anyone who knows her will acknowledge). She's already a budding entrepreneur, horse owner (and rider), karate black belt, soccer player, barista, and so many other things. Now she's looking to buy a car (or, maybe, a truck?) with her own money.

Yes, we are proud of her. She is above all a lovely young person.

When I was very young, I was known as "Walter's Brother." More and more these days, I'm known as "Teresa's Dad," which is a happy thing for me.

Yesterday, Facebook took me back through the decade in its "memories" segment, showing me various posts (with various pictures) about Teresa's birthday and "how big she's getting, etc." I decided to string them together, first just for me and Eileen, but I thought it would be fun to share too.

This is what a decade looks like.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TERESA! 

Here Comes Saint... Ummm.... Y'know!😊

Here's the scoop for this day of the year (and, yes, we still do it!😉). But wait, the Dad is confused...

"Saint What's-His-Name"? It's not that I didn't know who he was, of course.

Anyway, the shoes did go out, not only Jojo's but EVERYBODY'S shoes. The kids themselves (even the ones in university) make sure this happens, and of course the Mom, who gets the candy.

All in honor of ... ummm .... hmmm .... THIS GUY:

Saint Nicholas. Awesome!

Hope you all are having a Happy Saint Nicholas Day!⭐

"We humbly implore your mercy, Lord:
protect us in all dangers
through the prayers of the Bishop Saint Nicholas,
that the way of salvation may lie open before us.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you 
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever" (Collect, Roman Liturgy).

Of course there are the "gold" coins. But dark chocolate too. And Stollen Bread?!! Really?!! You rock, Saint Nicholas.

Now I'll remember you. Next year I'll say, "Saint... ummm.... y'know The-One-Who-Brings-Stollen-Bread!"😜

Advent is a Time of Expectation

This episode of My Front Porch comes to you from... the dining room table! I take on more of a "lecture style" here (maybe it was the table?) so it's a bit like a combination of theology and exhortation.

But never mind the peculiarities and quirks of the messenger. What matters is that we live these days with an awareness of our hearts' longing for Christ, and his coming to be with us.

The Challenge to Live For God Each Day

What a marvel it is to awaken to a new day!

God holds us, and offers us this splendid gift which is "today." It is a fragile but also tenacious gift, never to be "taken for granted" as though our existence came from nowhere and depended on nothing for its sustenance.

This year, I have had to face death in a way that I never have before. Faith and prayer do bring great and sustaining consolations when a loved one dies, but they do not simply remove the psychological shock, the emotional disorientation, the sense of loss, or the clumsy and strange unfolding of the path of grief.

I can’t even imagine the experience of losing a parent while being a child or a young adult or while raising my own family with small children. Both my parents played such important roles in all those stages of my life, and I thank God for that. But there’s no easy time to lose your own father or mother. All those years of having them with us lead to a different scope and very particular sense of loss. Still, faith brings some consolation and a more profound hope even within these spaces of pain.

One peculiarity of this for me, as I approach the age of 57 (and it may be due in part to my own excessive self-consciousness) is that my experience of the death of my father - and now the increasing neediness of my mother - has stirred up in me some vivid anxiety over my own mortality.

This is in many ways a salutary thing. No one "knows the day nor the hour," and we must “stay awake” and ready for the Lord when he comes. But beyond that, I feel more and more the weight of years of chronic health problems, even if I have reached a certain level of “stability” (in the management of what remains an unpredictable, unstable condition).

And then there are the usual “risk factors” of this season in my life. I can only do my best with the appropriate self-care and the use of available medical resources. All the more reason for me to check disproportionate levels of emotional anxiety, obsessive worries, and the many other possible new tricks my brain may try to play on me.

Nevertheless, even in the proper mode of human reflection, I find that I cannot evade the fear of death. Indeed, I am afraid of death: its inevitability, its uncertainty-as-to-WHEN, its radical finality and darkness in relation to all I have ever known before.

The remedy, of course, is to live in hope of the salvation promised by Jesus to those who follow him. I try to be faithful and to walk in the vitality of an active hope and love. And I also "tremble" (rightly) at the judgment that will come with death.

Judgment is inherent within God's loving gaze upon me when my life is OVER. I will be measured according to the truth, in light of what my freedom could have actually achieved through grace, in response to God's calling - to the unique personal vocation that he gave to me.

If I died today, God would not pretend that my response to his invitation to a liberating and transforming communion with him - offered and empowered by the superabundance of his love - has been anything but paltry, timid, and half-baked.

From my present vantage point, I can only surmise that I have made a rather poor job out of living my Christian vocation, with all the wasted moments of life, the distraction, the laziness, the vanity, the self-indulgence.

For an old sinner like me, "purgatory" can seem in some ways a consoling thing. But I cannot be presumptuous even about that. Today, here and now, I am called and challenged to live. While I still live, and for what still remains my part, I cannot for a moment be content to "settle for" some level of mediocrity in my relationship with God. A slothful quietism very quickly degenerates into worldliness, cynicism, and a destructive envy of those who continue to move forward.

Here I have found sober and useful reflections to help me prepare for the sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation, which can be specially fruitful during this Advent season. Here too I find important resolutions for whatever remains of my earthly journey. While I live, I shall continue to pray, and ask the Holy Spirit to sustain in me the struggle to refrain from evil, to be attentive, to do good, to be open to the Spirit's grace and inspirations that here and now call me to draw closer to him. Even at the 11th hour, "time" calls me to "labor in the vinyard" of my own heart, and in service to others.

Every breath of this life contains the possibility (and the challenge) to pray, to hope, to do our best, to try to grow in the love of God, and to wrestle with all that still hinders us - all the while trusting in Jesus and abandoning everything to the Father's infinite mercy and goodness.

Emmanuel

It's Advent 2019. Emmanuel. God comes to be with us.

Advent: Finding Jesus in My Life

Advent anticipates and prepares for the celebration of the "epiphany of God" in history through a man named Jesus, born in Bethlehem of Judea 2000 years ago. Advent also is a reminder to prepare for the final coming of Jesus Christ in glory at the end of history, as its fulfillment.

Finally, Advent is a special time to focus on making our hearts ready for that crucial and often neglected (or undervalued) "coming of Jesus" that happens for each one of us...right now, in this moment - indeed, in every moment of our lives.

Jesus is always coming, because Jesus is the center of my life.

That is not a "pious statement." It is, simply, a fact. It is the truth. It is the truth about my life and about the life of every human being.

When I say this, I'm not just trying to "look at my life from a Christian point of view." It is not a remark expressing the boundaries of my "cultural outlook" or my "Traditional Catholic Ideas" or my "theology." It is not a reference to a "symbol" for a system of moral values.

"Jesus is the center of my life." This is a statement of faith. And faith is an affirmation of reality. It is a way of adhering to the truth. Ultimately, the truth is a Person, and He has come into the world to invite us to a more profound relationship with Him. Jesus is here, and I believe in Him.

My faith is not an exercise in trying to "apply my theories about Jesus" to my peculiar circumstances in life, or to measure my life by the paradigm of an abstract Jesus or a mythological Jesus. My life is living with Jesus, really. That is the truth about my actual life, whatever my theories or imaginings may be.

This does not mean I live like a saint. For me, actually living with Jesus means ignoring Him much of the time, or else trying to hide from Him, bargain with him, manipulate Him, use Him to my own advantage, and also trying to love Him, and succeeding in really loving Him a little (too little, and certainly never enough). If this relationship depended on my innate affective coherence, it would be utterly pathetic.

The good news is that it doesn't depend on my power or my measure. Jesus takes the initiative. He comes, and He changes me and shapes my life. I am continually rediscovering again and again that He is really here, now, that He loves me, and that He is the One who is in charge... of everything.

A living faith means "bumping into" Him again and again, finding Him in reality, finding Him shedding light on things, and bringing joy and strength. If this faith has any vitality at all, it comes from Him. He manifests Himself and draws us to Him by His grace which works mysteriously within our freedom, empowering us to recognize Him and follow Him.

This faith means finding Him also in desperation and misery and pain, finding Him with us in our suffering.

I know that it means sometimes feeling like I can't find Him, but still knowing that He is with me in the darkness.

He is with us. He has come to make His dwelling with us, to share with us His inexhaustible life with the Father and the Holy Spirit, the life of the One God who is Infinite Love.

He wants to be with us, to stay with us, to love us. The Advent season reminds us of His coming, and gives us the opportunity to grow in our capacity to welcome Him.