Lent: A Personal Journey

It is that time again, when the faithful return to church to get ashes and are told to repent. It is the time when millions of people around the world are told to pray, fast and to give alms for forty-days. Yes, it is the time when networks start showing movies about Jesus and his ministry and how he died on the cross. Its the time of Lent.

I think back of what this all meant and how it changed for me as time went on. As a cradled Catholic I grew up thinking of lent as the prohibition of meat on Fridays and the complete silence during the Tridium Paschal leading to Easter and what seemed as a time of prohibition of fun altogether. All this meant was that I had to find ways to keep myself occupied at home, to refrain from asking to be outdoors and to try to be quiet the best I could. Lent wasn't fun. In fact, when the time approach, I would dread the idea of it. People were not talking to each other, fun wasn't allowed and to top it all I had to confess my misbehavior to a priest!

I remember the day that my conception of Lent started changing. Around the time I could ask questions and not be afraid of being told that the Church knew what was best for me or that I had to do certain things a certain way because the priest or Church said so. Around the age of 12, when I was doing my first-communion and I was immersed in Catechism I would ask, why do we even celebrate Lent? It made little sense to me. Christmas on the other hand was a feast! Everybody likes new born babies and if they're healthy it is a reason to celebrate. That is why we celebrate birthdays! Then it hit me, I was reminded that we also remember the people that left, we also remember our love ones that have died. We celebrate by remembering them. Lent was celebrated for this reason. It all was troubling for me, after all, the concept of celebrating death for a kid is somewhat troublesome or a contradiction almost.

Then, at some point. I was told of the importance of the Liturgical Calendar. In the same way that we all have days that are very important for us and we keep them in mind, graduations, anniversaries, accomplishments, etc. in the same way, the Church celebrates and remembers those days of the life of Christ. At this point, Lent made a little more sense. By now, I was told of the association of the death of Jesus himself for my sins and for my salvation, and so it made more sense to be respectful and mournful during this time. I would still dread the time, but at least now it made sense so I would not complain about it.

Many years later I would have a personal religious experience during my confirmation at Thursday of Passover in the beginning of the Paschal Tridium and once again my understanding and experience of lent would change. At this point, I was a fully grown adult. Now, lent would no longer be something that didn't make sense, but now it was personal. I celebrated it not only because it had to do with the life of Christ, but because it had to do with my life!

Yet, my experience and contemplation at that time would be still incomplete as it is still incomplete now. Many masses and sermons later I kept pushing, trying to make a connection between my personal experience of lent, my personal understanding and the world where I lived. I wanted this all to come together alive in the community of believers. Sure enough, what I was seeking came to be realized yet again. I approached lent once again through understanding, through time and history, through all the people who have celebrated it over centuries, through the culture barriers it breaks. This worldview was pointing at what I would referred to as a mystery beyond time and space for a lack of a better expression. A celestial community that transcends history and time and yet a story that speaks to the very here and now that we experience. Lent was a story about the redemption of human beings, that takes place now. It was about the universal reality that grounds all men to the same fate--death. Yet, lent told me that it doesn't end there. Yes, this was after some philosophy courses had shaped my vocabulary.

Today, I now live lent as the reality that speaks of the redemption of people. In all ways that people can be saved. We are called to enter these wounds, which are the wounds of Christ Himself and in doing so to experience resurrection. The brokenness of the world reminds us of the cross. The lack of charity in our own hearts reminds us of the man who gave it all. We celebrate because these wounds do not define us. We celebrate because we can overcome them. We celebrate because death is not the end. We celebrate because we are together in this journey.





 

A Treatise on War

The Gap: How does this not become #1 issue for Christians?

Read Article

• Exodus 22:20-26 
•       You shall not oppress the poor or vulnerable.  God will hear their cry.
• Leviticus 19:9-10
          A portion of the harvest is set aside for the poor and the  stranger.
• Job 34:20-28
          The Lord hears the cry of the poor.
• Proverbs 31:8-9 
          Speak out in defense of the poor.
• Sirach 4:1-10 
        Don’t delay giving to those in need.
• Isaiah 25:4-5 
          God is a refuge for the poor.
• Isaiah 58:5-7
          True worship is to work for justice and care for the poor and oppressed.
• Matthew 25:34-40 
          What you do for the least among you, you do  for Jesus.
• Luke 4:16-21 
          Jesus proclaims his mission: to bring good  news to the poor and oppressed.
• Luke 6:20-23 
          Blessed are the poor, theirs is the kingdom of  God.
• 1 John 3:17-18
          How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s good and sees one in need  and refuses to help?

The World's Parish Priest: Restoring the True Authority of the Church

Recent Vatican documents exposed that there were more than 400 priests defrocked under the pontificate of Benedict the XVI due to accusations regarding sexual abuse. While the tone of recent elect Pope Francis hasn't changed, as he encourages the Church to go out and proclaim the gospel among the most vulnerable, the Church again faces the dichotomy of having to justify itself for its lack of transparency while staying true to its authority. The problem seems to be that one correlates directly to the other. The more the Church lacks transparency the more it looses its authority.


Pope Francis however, seems to navigate the true meaning of authority and transparency. It is not through a mirage of moral perfection that he seems to reestablish moral authority and faith in the Church but by giving it a real human expression. It is by restoring the primacy on pastoral sensitivity rather than doctrinal righteousness that the human-face of the Church shines once again. The Church, after all composed by sinful members, is holy--but it is holy because it is sanctified by Christ alone.Pope Francis reminds us that the holiness of the Church does not come from its members but purely by the grace of Christ. He has not changed any teachings in the Church but has said enough in making them the primacy of our journey of faith. Instead of speaking of abortion or gay marriage let us speak of the overflowing grace of God's mercy that pours out to all humanity. By doing this precisely is that the Church reestablishes its authority because it places it in Jesus Himself through His grace and not in its teachings.


Pastoral primacy means nothing more than putting first the everlasting mercy of God. Another recent example of the Pope's approach on pastoral sensitivity is the issue of marriage annulments. While the Church's teachings are clear regarding the issue, the Pope has urged priests and bishops to act with a great deal of 'delicacy and humanity' when approaching these issues. The more sensitive the Church is, (the more human), the more it reflects God's unconditional love and mercy. In other words, not by imposing the teachings upon the faithful forcefully, but by reconciling the sinful to unconditional love of Christ.

The 'World's Parish Priest' as he is becoming to be recognized has made of his pontificate a radical embrace of pastoral primacy. From taking 'selfies' with young visitors in the Vatican, to kissing babies and embracing a disfigured man to sneaking out at night to hang out with homeless, Pope Francis has made it clear that it is this human face that brings back authority to the Church. Not by his own means and efforts, but simply by reminding the Church that it is the grace of God that comes first--not its righteousness and its teachings.

And so what happens when pastoral primacy is placed before doctrinal righteousness? Well, for one issues like having 400 priests defrocked don't scandalized but are seeing through the lens of mercy and hope. Issues like sex abuse in the Church don't have to be hidden and kept away from the faithful but rather approached through prayer and accountability because it shows us that we belong to a church of sinful members. What happens when a priest expends millions of dollars renovating his home in Germany? It reminds us once again that the grace of God's mercy should prevail. In the same way, it reminds us that we are to love our gay brothers and sisters before we are so anxious announcing what is right and wrong. It gives us an empathetic and compassionate heart with the single mother that seeks abortion through desperation and anguish, instead of being quick to expose what the Church teaches regarding the issue.

Here is where I add a personal note. This is the Church I love. This is the Church I find myself a part of. As a sinner and someone that always comes short I rely on the grace and mercy of God to save me and come to my rescue everyday of my life. I don't rely on my own understanding or any other teaching. I only rely on the mercy and love of God and I make of that my First Commandment: To love others as God loves me--unconditionally. Everything else is second. For this reason alone is that pastoral primacy comes first and as a consequence that the Church has true authority in what it proclaims.

Hollywood's Lane: 'The Ongoing tale of the American Dream that No Longer Exists'

It is no surprise to find out the usual themes in the Hollywood big screen: money and power. Two of the big films now showing and giving a lot to talk about spin around these themes. American Hustle, a film starting Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence, tell the story of a couple that cons their way to the top starting a loaning business that scams people. Later, the couple will find trouble as one of them is busted and has to cooperate with the FBI in operations to capture mafia members and representatives of congress who are willing to take bribes. All of this, while money and power become the protagonists of the film. The Wolf of Wall Street, starting Leonardo DiCaprio as Jordan Belfort, makes of money and power an emblem in the film. The film tells the story of Belfort, a stockbroker that succeed by mal-practicing creating a firm that overpriced penny stocks for big corporations. Money and power become the central theme in this movie as well, as Belfort moves from one succeeding step to the other, living a hedonistic life until he is caught by the bureau.

The fascination with these stories lies in that they are somewhat true. Hollywood does not produce movies that will sell, but they produce movies that will sell for a reason. The market of everything, including the film industry, is knowing why your product is selling. In this case, the reason behind why these movies sell is that the spectator secretly wants to be one of these con-artists portrayed in the film--of course, with the exception of being caught (which is why must of us don't do it.) These movies feed the so called 'American-Dream,' only with the twist of being able to do it at all cost, even if this means doing it illegally and immorally. These movies not only feed our dirty desires to become wealthy and powerful at all cost but of course first they sell the idea that it is possible by telling us that some people have done so even through wrong means.

The American culture is not only doped with the idea of being successful, wealthy and powerful as part of the American dream, but Hollywood is gushing the idea down our throats. This is no longer an ideal that is no longer possible as class mobility is disappearing in the the United States and the gap between the rich and the poor is getting bigger. The American dream is becoming an unreal and unattainable fantasy, but our sense of entertainment still speaks of a culture that is somewhat fixed on that dream.

For many the bottom line is that Hollywood sells movies that people want to watch. If the spectators want to praise characters like Jordan Belfort or couples like Irving Rosenfeld and Sydney Prosser the story will go on. Of course, there is a clear line between entertainment and reality. Hollywood is an entertainment industry. To take it as anything more than that would be to give it too much credit and importance and too little accountability and responsibility to the watcher. But is this so? After all, entertainment is an essential part of culture and films describe society. For the industry, it is in its best interest to sell people the idea of being able to become successful and rich. If they don't, not only do they detach themselves from American culture but become counter-cultural and as a product of this-- movies will not sell. In other words, if people crave a dream that no longer exists, you can still sell it. Ironically, the theme of both of these films is to create profit no matter what. In this case, Hollywood has embraced the philosophy perfectly.

What does it take to be a Saint

Nov 1st celebrates the feast of All Saints in the Catholic Church. From the men and women who walked along Jesus more than two thousand years ago to the recent deceased who faithfully have lived outstanding lives in the light of the gospel. Peter and Paul, Felicity and Perpetua, Francis of Assissi, Benedict of Nursia, Augustine of Hippo, the Gregory the Great, Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila to Terese of Lisieux, what did all these men and women had in common?

Many people look for greatness when it comes to sainthood, after all, the Catholic Church designates this title as the highest measure of holiness in the Church. It is to no surprise that the ideal of sainthood is misinterpreted and misunderstood as a result. Sainthood is not a highest rank, a medal or an award. In fact, while it has to do with greatness--its relation with it is one that usually is misunderstood by people. We measure greatness in totalitarian terms most of the time. Automatically we designate holiness by the measurement of how effective a person was. How many lives did he or she touched? In how many humanitarian causes was he or she involved in? In other words, how successful was this person? But, what of those saints who lived secluded in monasteries and in the eyes of the world accomplished nothing? What of Jesus Christ whose death at the time was seeing as a total failure?

Sainthood has to do with greatness but not in the way many people understand greatness. What made this people special was the authenticity in which they lived their lives. The standard and values that they had for themselves were not only counter cultural most of the time, but were in fact great, beyond great--they were holy. Sainthood is a declaration of authentic living. To live a life that resembles the highest ideals, in fact, is great.

The Church reminds us that we are all called to be saints, not to greatness in the standard of how many people understand greatness, but in the standards of the gospel. The correlation here is that to live an authentic life, one must be fully oneself, and to do just that--one must get rid of the false self which alienates us from living the gospel fully. Ironically, when we are ourselves fully--is that we are must successful. After all, a preacher in Galilee was able to start a movement in the billions with twelve men not having ever to write a single word. Francis of Assisi, Ignatius of Loyola, Augustine of Hippo and Benedict of Nursia started movements now in the hundreds of thousands by first simply living a life of complete prayer and devotion. Terese of Lisieux became patroness of all missioners without ever having to leave the convent herself.
All these men and lived their lives radically. They accepted fully the true self within them. A true self that they knew most of the time was not in agreement with the world. A true self that demanded to strive for great ideals--those of the gospel and they accepted living this type of life.

Authenticity then is the mark of greatness, is the mark of sainthood. As I walk in twenty-first century Chicago  I am still amazed and perplexed to see so many people living authentic lives. Many will never be ever recognize in a public forum or have a text written about them, least be officially recognized by the Church as saints, but I know that they participate in the greatness of this tradition of living the gospel of Jesus Christ. I know that they partake in the body of Christ and that they share in the communion of saints.

"It's Far More Than Just Celibacy...''

I have been in formation for the priesthood for two years now and I have never heard in a homily the process religious or consecrated people undergo when they find themselves struggling with affection for another person. Many times I have heard of the examples of many who left the seminary or consecrated life to marry, but never of the process of remaining in consecrated life while letting go of a crucial aspect of being human--of developing a loving and romantic relationship with another person. Many issues are around this topic. A crucial question that has come up recently is the possible option for religious to marry for example, but the question is far greater than a stand on celibacy in consecrated life. As a seminarian, I find myself questioning the integrity of the office and of my vocation. It is quite simple for the Church to call it a 'gift' but what it lacks to explain and fully reconcile is the counterpart that the gift comes with. It is to no interest for me to make this a theological discussion because while these two years in formation has lack a human side to the vulnerability of consecrated people when they find themselves struggling with infatuation, it has been very informative in all the theological reasons for the office of the priesthood to be a celibate one, and so there is no need to go over those. Also, there are those who talk about the office in technical or practical purposes. Stating over again that the office spins around the idea of being completely flexible and unattached to be effective in the practice of the ministerial service. Without further argument, this view does not only equate vocation with work, but it reduces celibacy to practicality.

Perhaps one of the best talks I have heard in the topic was by a priest who once said that love was a decision. In a society where we often think of love as a sentiment, feeling or even ecstatic experience--commitment is erased from the equation. While I have come to find much truth in this, the dilemma remains. To the consecrated or religious, love is professed and expressed to a community, binding in intimate love the unity between an individual and a group or community. The problem in the office exists in the counterpart of this expression of love in which it can also be said that because an individual is committed to the community--he or she is not fully committed to any particular individual. This is a reality religious people face everyday. While priests for instance have many friends and countless acquaintances, they are not committed fully to one particular relationship because of the nature of the very office that tells them to be committed to all people. Here, I not only find problems in that a person might go all his life living a delusion sentiment of commitment in his vocation by choosing to love his congregation, parishioners or people he serves, as a group, while at the same time failing to be truly intimate with any particular individual. That is, being passive and transitory in people's lives. In most ministerial works in fact, priests see people at their birth, first communion, matrimony and death, and rarely in the 'in-between's, and so when we say that they are committed to a group, are we saying only during certain highlights of their life? Instead of commitment, the word practical or useful comes to mind. 

The questions are many. Can a consecrated person be committed to a group and at the same time in a very personal way to an individual? Can a consecrated person be committed to a community despite the transitory nature of his or her vocation? Does accepting the gift of a consecrated life deprive religious of a certain aspect of their humanity?