Immaculate Conception and Theology of the Body

By: Christopher West

mary & jesus icon

December 8 is one of my favorite feast days.   Why?   Because Mary’s Immaculate Conception (the solemn feast day celebrated in the Church on this day commemorating Mary’s being conceived without sin) is the certainty that what Christ did on the Cross worked.   It is the living hope of humanity’s redemption.   For redemption to be complete, it not only has to be perfectly given, it also has to be perfectly received.   It has been perfectly given in Christ, and perfectly received in Mary, who, through “a singular grace and privilege” was “redeemed from the moment of her conception” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 491).

The Connection Between the Cross & Immaculate Conception  

Volumes could be written about the connection between this feast and the “great mystery” unfolded in John Paul II’s Theology of the Body (TOB).   For starters, it’s no mere coincidence that John Paul II began writing his TOB on this marvelous feast day — the handwritten date on page one of his original manuscript says December 8, 1974.   And above that he wrote this dedication: Tota Pulchra es Maria — “You are all beautiful, Mary” — a clear adaptation of the bridegroom’s words in the Song of Songs, “You are all beautiful, my love, there is no blemish in you” (Song 4:7).  It’s a long held tradition of the Church to recognize Mary as the “unblemished” bride spoken of in the Song of Songs.   As the perfect model of the Church, Mary represents the mystical bride for whom Christ “gave himself up … that he might sanctify her” that she might be “without spot or wrinkle … holy and without blemish” (Eph 5:25-27).

Of course, it may seem odd to speak of Mary in some way representing Christ’s “bride.”   Bishop Fulton Sheen explained it this way: “Now we’ve always thought, and rightly so, of Christ the Son on the cross and the mother beneath him. But that’s not the complete picture. That’s not the deep understanding. Who is our Lord on the cross? He’s the new Adam. Where’s the new Eve? At the foot of the cross. … And so the bridegroom looks down at the bride. He looks at his beloved. Christ looks at his Church. There is here the birth of the Church” (Through the Year with Bishop Fulton Sheen, Ignatius Press 2003).

The work of redemption was consummated on the Cross.   And so, in a very real way, Mary was immaculately conceived — that is, she perfectly received the gift of redemption — not only in her mother’s womb, but also at the foot of the Cross.   In fact, the event that took place in Saint Anne’s womb is inexplicable without the event that took place at the Cross.   As John Paul II once observed, “Spouses are … the permanent reminder to the Church of what happened on the Cross” (Familiaris Consortio 11).   Perhaps the spouses that reveal this most clearly are Saints Joachim and Anne.

Anne & Joachim: Parents of the Virgin Mary

In the art of the East, the icon of the Immaculate Conception is actually an image of Joachim and Anne embracing.   Behind them is their marriage bed, and behind that sacred mystery we see the gates into the holy city of Jerusalem.   Through this “all holy” image (the Fathers of the Eastern tradition call Mary “the All-Holy”), we are led to contemplate a spousal love that not only cooperated with God in his power to create  human life, but also cooperated with God in his power to redeem it.   In this holy embrace of Joachim and Anne, we can truly speak of a love that was not only “pro-creative” but also, at the very same time, “pro-redemptive.”

As we learn in John Paul II’s TOB, authentic spousal love draws its deepest essence from the very mystery of creation and redemption.   It’s not only meant to bring new life into the world, it’s meant to save us from sin and prepare us for heaven.   Who by his own strength can live this divine kind of love? Only the grace of salvation makes it possible.   It’s not something we can muster up.   It’s only something we can receive.   And this is precisely what we celebrate on this grand feast of the Immaculate Conception — the receptivity of the human heart (Mary’s) to the saving love of God.

Mary, in all the joys and trials of life, teach us how to open our hearts to so great a love!

Sexual Redemption

By: Christopher West

cross & sun

You may remember an article I wrote that began to explore the difference between sexual “repression” and sexual “redemption.”   It was in response to a former Catholic priest who had announced on the Oprah Winfrey show that “repression” of desire is the only choice for a person who remains celibate.   Because the question What is the human person capable of in light of our fallen nature? is so important, I wanted to expound on the issue of sexual redemption a bit more, especially in light of the insights of Pope John Paul II and his Theology of the Body.

Sexual Redemption & Freedom from Sin

It is abundantly clear from both Catholic teaching and human experience that, so long as we are on earth, we will always have to battle with concupiscence — that disordering of our passions caused by original sin (see Catechism of the Catholic Church 405, 978, 1264, 1426).   The interior battle we experience with our disordered desires is indeed fierce.   Yet, as Pope John Paul II insisted, we “cannot stop at casting the ‘heart’ into a state of continual and irreversible suspicion due to the manifestations of the concupiscence of the flesh…   Redemption is a truth, a reality, in the name of which man must feel himself called, and ‘called with effectiveness’” (TOB 46:4).

This “effectiveness” means that we are not hopelessly bound by our fallen desires.   The Catechism observes that the idea that concupiscence is insurmountable actually stems from the Reformation (see CCC 406).   As Catholicism teaches, through the gift of redemption “the Spirit of the Lord gives new form to our desires, those inner movements that animate our lives” (CCC 2764).   Summarizing the teaching of John Paul II on the matter, as we surrender our lusts to Christ and allow “the Spirit of the Lord” to move in us, we discover the ability to orient our sensual and emotional reactions in the realm of sexuality “both as to their content and as to their character” (TOB 129:5).   What once moved us to use  other people for our own pleasure, can lead us to want to lay down our lives for them “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph 5:25).

This is good news — very good news.   Yet, for some reason, it seems many people are skeptical about it, and I’m speaking primarily of Christians here.   Many of us grow up with the impression that all we can really hope for in the sexual realm is a more or less successful program of “sin management.”   The idea of transforming our lusts, many believe, is simply beyond the realm of man’s possibilities.   It’s something we can only hope for in heaven.

Let Us Not Empty the Cross of It’s Power

From one perspective, those who think this way are correct.   It is impossible for human beings to transform their own lustful desires and — to be sure — the fullness of redemption awaits us only in heaven.   But those who enter the “effectiveness” of Christ’s redemption discover “another vision of man’s possibilities” (TOB 46:6).   Much is at stake in this question, as John Paul II makes clear: “[W]hat are the ‘concrete possibilities of man’?   And of which man are we speaking?   Of man dominated by lust or of man redeemed by Christ.   This is what is at stake, the reality  of Christ’s redemption.   Christ has redeemed us!   This means he has given us the possibility  of realizing the entire  truth of our being; he has set our freedom free from the domination of concupiscence” (Veritatis Splendor 103).

What is the alternative to an effective sexual redemption?   If man remains bound by his lusts, is he even capable of loving with a pure heart?   Marriage, in this view, comes to be seen and lived as a “legitimate outlet” for indulging our disordered desires and the celibate life comes to be seen and lived as a life of hopeless repression. And we end up “holding the form of religion” while “denying the power of it” (2 Tim 3:5).  “Ne evacuetur Crux!” — John Paul II exclaims, “Do not empty the Cross of its power!” (see 1 Cor 1:17).   “This,” he said, “is the cry of the new evangelization” (Orientale Lumen 3).   How desperately our sexually broken world needs to hear this cry!   There is another way to experience our sexuality than what our pornographic culture holds out to us, and it passes by way of the power of the Cross.   There is a water that corresponds to our thirst for love, and it flows from the side of our crucified Bridegroom.   Let all who are thirsty come — come and drink the water of life (see Rev 22:17).

Fasting: Crucifying our Lusts

John Paul II wrote that to experience victory over lust, we most devote ourselves to “a progressive education in self-control of the will, of sentiments, of emotions, which must be developed from the simplest gestures, in which it is relatively easy to put the inner decision into practice” (TOB 128:1). For example, we might examine our eating habits.   If a person can’t say no to a piece of cake, how will he say no to an email enticing him to look at Internet porn?   Fasting is a wonderful way to grow in mastery of our passions. If this isn’t already part of a person’s life, he should start with a simple sacrifice that’s relatively easy to put into practice. As one continues exercising this “muscle,” he will find his strength increasing. What was once “impossible” gradually becomes possible.

The muscle analogy, however, is only half right. Growing in purity certainly demands human effort, but we’re also aided by supernatural grace. Here, as I stated in a previous column, it’s crucial to distinguish between  repression  and entering into  redemption. When lust “flares up,” rather than repressing it by pushing it into the subconscious, trying to ignore it, or otherwise seeking to annihilate it, we can  surrender our lusts  to Christ and allow him to “crucify them” (see Gal 5:24).   As we do, “the Spirit of the Lord gives new form to our desires” (Catechism of the Catholic Church  2764).

In other words, as we allow lust to be “crucified,” we also come to experience the “resurrection” of sexual desire as God intends. Not immediately, not easily, but gradually, progressively, as we take up our cross every day and follow, we can come to experience sexual desire as the power to love in God’s image.  When sexual temptations assail us, as they often do, we might say a prayer like this:

Lord, I thank you for the gift of my sexual desires. I surrender my lustful desires to you and I ask you please, by the power of your death and resurrection, to “untwist” in me what sin has twisted so that I might come to experience sexual desire as you intend — as the desire to love in your image.

Perseverance & Self-Mastery

As John Paul II wrote in his Theology of the Body, “perseverance and consistency” is required in learning “what  the meaning of the body  is, the meaning of femininity and masculinity. …This is a ‘science that cannot really be learned only from books, because it consists primarily of deep ‘knowledge’ of human interiority,” that is, of the human heart.   Deep in the heart we learn to distinguish the mystical treasures of sexuality from that which bears only the sign of lust.   “One should add,” John Paul says, “that this task  can  be carried out and that it is truly worthy of man” (TOB 48:4).

It’s certainly true that sometimes love and lust are difficult to distinguish. A man, for example, upon recognizing a woman’s beauty, might wonder where the line is between seeing her as an object for his own gratification and lovingly admiring her beauty.   As John Paul writes, lust “is not always plain and obvious; sometimes it is concealed, so that it passes itself off as ‘love’….   Does this mean that we should distrust the human heart?   No!” the Pope insists. “It is only to say that we must remain in control of it” (TOB 32:3).

“Control” here doesn’t mean merely dominating unruly desires in order to keep them “in check.” As we mature in self-control, we experience it as “the ability to orient  [sexual] reactions, both as to their content and as to their character” (TOB 129:5). The person who is truly master of himself is able to direct erotic desire “toward what is true, good, and beautiful” (TOB 48:1).   As this happens we come to understand and experience the mystery of sexuality “in a depth, simplicity, and beauty hitherto altogether unknown” (TOB 117b:5).   In turn, we come to see that the version of sexuality promoted by the culture is like junk food compared to the banquet of love unfolded in the divine plan.

The Amazing Grace of U2

By: Christopher West

Heaven w:sun

A new book called The Gospel According to U2 captures two of my great loves in life — Jesus and the music of these four men from Ireland: Bono, the Edge, Adam Clayton, and Larry Mullen Jr.   Most people who follow popular music know about the Christian roots of the biggest rock band in the world.   But many of the Christians who followed U2’s career in the 1980’s thought they “lost it” in the 1990’s.   I was one of them.   And I was wrong.

Had U2 Lost It?  

Truth be told, I wasn’t much of a Christian in the 80’s.   I was a rebellious teenager pursuing the pleasures of the world, and, because of it, I was empty.   In no small measure, it was the music of U2 that kept me alive during those tumultuous times.   With these guys, it wasn’t your typical “sex, drugs, and rock ‘n roll.”   They sang about dying for love and yearning for heaven.   Anthems like “Pride” and “Where the Streets Have No Name”  got in my blood and became hymns of hope.   They stirred a voice in me that sometimes whispered and at other times screamed: Keep searching!  I was new to faith in the early 90’s, and it seemed the band that had inspired me to pursue belief had now gone off the deep end.   I couldn’t help but love the Achtung Baby  album, but what was one to make of Bono appearing on stage dressed as the devil?   It seemed he had flipped completely to the “other side.”   With tinges of self-righteousness, I decided to “pray for him.”

In 2000, a friend and fellow fan of the “earlier U2” called me with great delight having just listened to their latest album All That You Can’t Leave Behind.   He said two simple words: “They’re back . . .”   They were indeed — as was my enthusiasm for their gift.   In fact, I became a bigger fan of U2 in my thirties then when I was a teen.   And I was also put to shame for how judgmental I was of them during the 90’s.   As Greg Garrett, author of The Gospel According to U2 put it, “What those in panic mode did not understand [about their approach in the 90’s] was that U2 had not completely lost their minds; they had merely changed their methods.”   With deliberateness, they had exchanged their sincerity for satire and irony.

Screwtape & Amazing Grace

It was a big gamble that took incredible chutzpa to pull off — indeed, they would have to (and did) put their musical career on the line for the chance to make at least two critical points to their vast, but divergent audience.   First, by appearing — quite convincingly! — to have bought into the debauched excesses of “rock stardom,” they knew a large segment of their fan base would not even begin to understand what they were up to, and would write them off (guilty!).   But in the very process they would be demonstrating just how superficial, “uptight,” and judgmental believers can be at times (guilty!).   Imagine my surprise when I learned that Bono was actually acting out scenes from C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters when he dawned that devil costume.

The second point they were trying to make was aimed at a different segment of their audience — those who thought the excesses of “rock stardom” were the be-all and end-all of life.   As with all effective satire, the joke was on those who believed the ruse.   By appearing utterly self-absorbed and full of himself in front of stadiums full of screaming fans, Bono was saying: Don’t you see how ridiculous it is for you to think I’m as great as you think I am!?

Bono and the gang are certainly not saints.   But nor are they your typical debauched rock stars.   Those with eyes to see it can recognize that grace is at work in these four men and their craft — amazing grace.   This was confirmed all the more for me at a recent U2 concert in New York City.   The pinnacle of any U2 show is when the band transitions artfully into “Where the Streets Have No Name,” a song about heaven.   On this night, it happened as Bono was singing “Amazing Grace” — yes, “Amazing Grace” — with eighty thousand people singing along.   Then, behind Bono’s voice I heard the familiar organ swell that signals the beginning of “Streets.”   I was pierced by beauty, utterly overwhelmed.   And it seemed that, together, eighty-thousand people were tasting a bit of heaven.  What an amazing grace indeed . . .   I was filled with such gratitude for these four men and what their music has meant to me over the years.   And I hope this brief article gives you the permission   to “claim the comfort,” as Garrett says, that your favorite music has offered you.

Is Celibacy a Life of Sexual Repression?

By: Christopher West

freedom!

Recently, a former Catholic priest appeared on Oprah to defend his choice of leaving the Church in order to get married.   This priest had battled with desire for this woman for several years and finally decided his only options were to marry her or repress his sexual desires.   Indeed, as he announced to a national audience, “repression” is the only choice for a person who remains celibate.

Repression or Indulgence: The  Only  Two Choices?

Is this true?   Are our only options when it comes to sexual desire to “indulge” it or “repress” it?   Granted, to a world bound by sexual lust, life-long celibacy seems absurd. The world’s general attitude towards Christian celibacy might be summarized like this: “Hey, marriage is the only ‘legitimate’ chance you Christians get to indulge your lusts. Why the heck would you ever want to give that up? You’d be condemning yourself to a life of hopeless repression.”

The difference between marriage and celibacy, however, must never be understood as the difference between having a “legitimate” outlet for sexual lust on the one hand and having to repress it on the other. Christ calls everyone — no matter his or her particular vocation — to experience redemption from the domination of lust. Only from this perspective do the Christian vocations (celibacy and marriage) make any sense. Both vocations — if they are to be lived as Christ intends — flow from the same experience of the redemption of sexuality.

First, marriage is not a “legitimate outlet” for indulging our sexual lusts.   As Pope John Paul II once pointed out, spouses can commit “adultery in the heart” with each other if they treat one another as nothing but an outlet for selfish gratification (see TOB 43:3).   I know it’s a cliche, but why do so many wives claim “headache” when their husbands want sex?   Could it be because they feel used rather than loved?   This is what lust leads to — using  people, not loving them.  Liberation from the domination of concupiscence — that disordering of our appetites caused by original sin — is essential, John Paul II taught, if we are to live our lives “in the truth” and experience the divine plan for human love (see TOB 43:6, 47:5).   Indeed, Christian sexual ethos “is always linked . . . with the liberation of the heart from concupiscence” (TOB 43:6).   And this liberation is just as essential for consecrated celibates and single people as it is for married couples (see TOB 77:4).

A Mature Purity Leads Us to Sexual Freedom

It is precisely this liberation that allows us to discover what John Paul II called “mature purity.”   In mature purity “man enjoys the fruits of victory over concupiscence” (TOB 58:7).   This victory is gradual and certainly remains fragile here on earth, but it is nonetheless real.   For those graced with its fruits, a whole new world opens up — another way of seeing, thinking, living, talking, loving, praying.   The marital embrace becomes a graced experience of the holy, rather than a base satisfaction of instinct.   And Christian celibacy becomes a liberating way of living one’s sexuality as a “total gift of self” for Christ and his Church.

John Paul II observed that the celibate person must submit “the sinfulness of his humanity to the powers that flow from the mystery of the redemption of the body … just as every other person does” (TOB 77:4). This is why he indicates that the call to celibacy is not only a matter of formation but of transformation (see TOB 81:5). The person who lives this transformation is not bound to indulge his lusts. He is free with what John Paul II called “the freedom of the gift.”   This means his desires are not in control of him; rather, he is in control of his desires.

In short, authentic sexual freedom is not the liberty to indulge one’s compulsions, but liberation from the compulsion to indulge.   Only such a person is capable of making a free gift of himself in love — whether in marriage, or in a life of consecrated devotion to Christ and the Church.   For the person who is free in this way, sacrificing the genital expression of one’s sexuality for so great a good as the eternal Marriage of Christ and the Church not only becomes a possibility, it becomes quite attractive.

Spousal Prayer of the Saints

By: Christopher West

man and woman

Recently, while preparing for a long drive, I decided to look through my old collection of tape series for something to listen to (yes, I still have a cassette deck in my car).   My eyes landed on a box set called “Passion for God” by a Carmelite Abbess named Mother Tessa Bielecki.   When I arrived at my destination before the tapes were over, I didn’t want to get out of the car.

Passion for God

“Passion for God” is an introduction to the spousal mysticism of St. Teresa of Avila.   Here’s how the back cover of the series describes it: “Inside the great medieval monastary at Avila, Spain, one of history’s great love affairs took place.   For it was here, within these turreted stone walls, that the Christian mystic St. Teresa surrendered her ‘ensouled body’ to God.   What emerged from this divine union informs our spiritual lives to this day through the ecstatic ‘spousal prayer’ form that St. Teresa embraced so fiercly. … Mother Tessa takes listeners far from the hard pews of dutiful worship and into a lush marriage chamber, where God is mystically experienced as spouse.”  Regular readers of my articles are certainly familiar with the biblical analogy of spousal love as a way of understanding God’s love for us.   God’s eternal plan is to “marry” us: the Church is the Bride and Christ the Bridegroom.   “Spousal prayer” means, very simply, to open oneself wholly and completely to Christ, surrendering to him in a union of love like a bride surrenders to the loving embrace of her bridegroom.

And, yes, as uncomfortable as this might seem for men at first, this includes us too.   As John Paul II wrote in Mulieris Dignitatem, “According to [the spousal analogy], all human beings — both women and men — are called through the Church, to be the ‘Bride’ of Christ, the Redeemer of the world.   In this way ‘being the bride,’ and thus the ‘feminine’ element, becomes a symbol of all that is ‘human’” (MD 25).   (Don’t worry, guys — it doesn’t mean we have to wear a wedding dress or anything.   It means, essentially, that we, as creatures, have to learn how to open and “receive” the love of the Creator.   This is not  a threat to our masculinity, but the key to authentic masculinity.)

The Love of the Bridegroom & His Bride

Spousal prayer, as St. John of the Cross put it, leads to “a total transformation in the Beloved, in which each surrenders the entire possession of self to the other with a certain consummation of the union of love.   The soul thereby becomes divine, God through participation, insofar as is possible in this life.”   Then he makes the analogy more explicit: “Just as in the consummation of carnal marriage there are two in one flesh, as Sacred Scripture points out (Gen 2:24), so also when the spiritual marriage between God and the soul is consummated, there are two natures in one spirit and love” (Commentary on stanza 22:3 of the Spiritual Canticle).

Oh to what astounding glory God calls us!   God is an eternal “explosion” of life-giving love, and he calls us to participate in it.   That’s where spousal prayer takes us — into the heart of God who not only loves us, but is love.   When we see the union of husband and wife for what it is, we see that it is a “great mystery” that reveals the master plan of God to become “one” with us in Christ (see Eph 5:31-32).   It’s an icon of something divine, a window into heaven.   And that’s precisely why our sexuality is under such attack in our world: the enemy wants to blind us to the divine “iconography” of our masculinity and femininity.

As Tessa Bielecki said so well in this tape series, we mustn’t repress or try to annihilate our sexual desires.   Rather, in and through Christ, we must sublimate them — that is, make them “sublime,” noble, holy.   Indeed, spousal prayer takes us on a journey of painful trials and purifications through which erotic longing becomes more and more a yearning for God, a path to holiness.   This is what John Paul II was positing when he said, “The sexual urge is … a vector of aspiration along which [our] whole existence develops and perfects itself from within” (Love and Responsibility, p. 46).  The great mystics of the Church not only understand eros  as a longing for God, they live it as such.   They live eros  as “prayer.”   For prayer, as Pope Benedict put it, “is nothing other than becoming a longing for God” (Mary: The Church at the Source, p. 15).

Letting Go of our ‘God Substitutes’

Spousal prayer invites us to enter more and more deeply into union with Christ the Bridegroom as a member of the Church, his Bride.   But for this to become a lived experience, we must learn how to let go of all of our “God substitutes” and open our deepest desires for love to the One who alone can fulfill them.  The Greeks called that deep yearning for love  eros.   As Pope Benedict wrote, “eros  tends to rise ‘in ecstasy’ towards the Divine…; yet for this very reason it calls for a path of ascent, renunciation, purification and healing.   Concretely, what does this path of ascent and purification entail? … Here we can find a first, important indication in the  Song of Songs, an Old Testament book well known to the mystics” (Deus Caritas Est  5, 6).

The great mystics of the Church love the  Song of Songs  because it speaks of an experience that’s near and dear to them — the experience of  eros  lived as “prayer.” For prayer, as Pope Benedict put it, “is nothing other than becoming a longing for God” (Mary: The Church at the Source, p. 15).   When  eros  is lived as a longing for God, we have “spousal prayer.”  In laying out his great pastoral “program” for the new millennium, John Paul II stressed the importance of such deep, intimate prayer: “Yes, dear brothers and sisters, our Christian communities must become  genuine ‘schools’ of prayer  where the meeting with Christ is expressed … [in] ardent devotion until the heart truly ‘falls in love.’” Indeed, we “have a duty,” John Paul said, “to show to what depths the relationship with Christ can lead.”   And to show these depths, he turned to mystics:

“The great mystical tradition of the Church … shows how prayer can progress, as a genuine dialogue of love, to the point of rendering the person wholly possessed by the divine Beloved.” — As an aside, I’d bet that the word “possessed” reminds you of demonic possession.   But  possession by evil spirits  is simply a diabolic mockery of what we are all called to:  possession by the Holy Spirit, which means “vibrating at the Spirit’s touch,” as John Paul wrote.   Learning how to surrender to the divine in this way means learning how to enter into “spousal prayer.”  This is “a journey totally sustained by grace,” John Paul insisted.   At the same time it “demands an intense spiritual commitment and is no stranger to painful purifications (the ‘dark night’).   But it leads, in various possible ways, to the ineffable joy experienced by the mystics as ‘nuptial union.’   How can we forget here, among the many shining examples, the teachings of St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila?” (Novo Millenio Ineunte  33).

Beware of Idols

Such deep, intimate prayer is not only reserved for those in a convent or a monastery.   It “would be wrong,” John Paul said, “to think that ordinary Christians can be content with a shallow prayer that is unable to fill their whole life.”   In fact, when we fail to enter into the depths of prayer, we are “not only mediocre Christians but ‘Christians at risk’ … [of] succumbing to the allure of ‘substitutes’” (Novo Millenio Ineunte  34).  Mother Tessa observes that one of the biggest “substitutes” on the market for intimacy with God is sex.   Sex is meant to be an  icon  — an earthly sign that points us to the heavenly reality of union with God.   But we so often treat it as an  idol.   That is, we go to sex as if it were our ultimate fulfillment, as if it were God.   Don’t we see this kind of idolatry everywhere in our media culture?

The way out of this trap for all of us — whether single, married, or consecrated celibate — is precisely the intimacy of spousal prayer.   If we lived spousal prayer to its depths, Mother Tessa observes, consecrated celibates would have their longings for love beautifully fulfilled in God rather than being prone to sexual frustration and bitterness; single people would be freed from a terribly destructive promiscuity; and married people would stop expecting their spouse to be God.  We have two choices as a culture, Mother Tessa believes: Mysticism or neurosis; sublimation of erotic desire or sexual chaos; spousal prayer or social upheaval.   In the end, she’s absolutely right.   Oh, Lord, teach us to pray!

God First Loved Us

By: Christopher West

therapy

A friend of mine — I’ll call him “Joe” — recently came to me in distress asking me to help him process the counsel he had been receiving from a Catholic therapist.   “You need to love God more,” was his therapist’s repeated advice.   Sounds fine.   Don’t we all?   But as Joe shared more, I began to understand why his stomach was in knots.  Joe is a man profoundly in touch with that deep “ache” in his soul, that human desire for happiness, love, fulfillment.   As the Catechism  makes clear, this yearning “is of divine origin: God has placed it in the human heart in order to draw man to the One who alone can fulfill it” (CCC 1718).   Like most of us, though, Joe, at his own admission, has looked to fulfill that desire in wrong ways.   One of his goals in going to a Catholic therapist was to learn how to direct his desire rightly.

Love God More?  

Over several sessions, the impression Joe got from the therapist was that his hunger, his “need” itself  was the problem, and somehow it needed to be annihilated.   His therapist said he was being self-centered; he shouldn’t be thinking about his desire at all, but should focus on serving God more, on loving God more.   Of course, we often are self-centered and need to focus more on God.   Acknowledging that, Joe tried dutifully to put his therapist’s counsel into practice.  It didn’t work.   And the more his therapist insisted that he “love God more,” the more Joe felt like a failure, until one day Joe erupted: “I can’t love God more!   I try and try but I don’t have it in me.”

Joe is right.   In and of ourselves, we aren’t able to love God.   Our loving God can only be a return of the love he pours out on us.   “This is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us” (1 Jn 4:10).   As the Catechism  states, “God’s initiative of love always comes first; our own first step is always a response” (CCC 2567).  My point here is not to pounce on Joe’s therapist.   There may well be more to the story.   Rather, Joe’s situation presents the opportunity to reflect on a widespread “trap” we’re prone to in the spiritual life — the trap of thinking it’s up to us to “be good” to “be holy” to “love God more.”   When we think this way we’re actually forgetting our basic status as creatures.

Allowing God to Love Us

In his book Faith, Hope, Love, Catholic philosopher Josef Pieper put it this way: “Need-love, whose goal is its own fulfillment, is also the nucleus and the beginning in all our loving.   It is … set in motion by the act that created us.   Hence, it is fundamentally impossible for us to control it, let alone annul it.”   Pieper continues, “The call for an utterly disinterested, unmotivated … love that wishes to receive nothing … simply rests upon a misunderstanding of man as he really is.   The error, it must be noted, consists not so much in mistaking man’s empirical imperfection as in failing to recognize that the human condition is that of a created being.”  In other words, this deep need  that Joe experiences is not the result of some stubborn imperfection that he must strive to overcome.   It’s something God put there to lead Joe to heaven: that is, to invite Joe to open himself to divine love, the one and only thing that satisfies the ache.

We have nothing to offer God (or anyone else for that matter) that we have not first received.   This is why, in the biblical analogy of spousal love, we are always the “bride” (even men!) and God is always the Bridegroom.   For, according to the theology of our bodies, the bride is the one who receives the gift of the bridegroom and conceives life within.   As John Paul II put it, “the husband is above all the one who loves and the wife … is the one who is loved” (TOB 92:6).  So, how can we love God more?   By letting him first love us more.   How can we serve God more?   By letting him first serve us more.   For Christ came not to be served, but to serve (see Mt 20:28).   We must let him serve us.   We must let him “wash our feet” or we can have “no part in him” (Jn 13:8).   Mary is the one who shows us how to receive  this kind of love, this kind of service.   Mary, Mother of God, pray for my friend Joe that he would learn how to open his desire to the One alone who can satisfy it, just as you did.   Amen.

Have you encountered any of the above problems? Call your PaxCare Tele-Coach now and get the help you need to resolve any such issues.

Everyday Mysticism

By: Christopher West

sunrise

For nearly two years I’ve been reflecting on something I read in an article by Father Raniero Cantalamessa.   I can’t get it out of my head.   The article was provocatively titled “The ‘Atheism’ of Mother Theresa” (National Catholic Register Sep 9-15, 2007). Read the article in it’s entirety here. It explored the meaning of   Mother Theresa’s extended “dark night” (a period of intense spiritual loneliness and separation from God’s consolation) of union with Christ in his cry of abandonment from the cross.

Cantalamessa wrote of a modern phenomenon he called “atheists in good faith” — people who feel abandoned by God.   Perhaps they would believe if they encountered God, but they encounter only “the silence of God.”   And he observed that the mystics, like Mother Theresa, “exist above all for them; they are their travel and table companions. Like Jesus, they ‘sat down at the table of sinners and ate with them’ (see Luke 15:2).”   In other words, Mother Theresa lived in solidarity with those who don’t believe.   All the while believing, she “felt” in her own heart what the atheists feel — abandonment by God.

Christianity  Must  Be Mystical  

As Cantalamessa says, “This explains the passion in which certain atheists, once converted, pore over the writings of the mystics…There they find again the same scenery that they had left, but this time illuminated by the sun….Because of this the mystics are the ideal evangelizers in the post-modern world….They remind the honest atheists that they are not ‘far from the Kingdom of God’; that it would be enough for them to jump to find themselves on the side of the mystics, passing from nothingness to the All.”

All of this I find utterly fascinating.   But I still haven’t gotten to the line I’ve been pondering for two years now.   Here it is: “Karl Rahner was right to say: ‘Christianity of the future will either be mystical or it will not be at all.’”  What does this mean?   Are all Christians called to be mystics?   We tend to think of mystics as those “far-out” saints who levitate or bleed with the wounds of Christ.   Certainly we are not all called to that.   But we are all called to an “every day” kind of mysticism.  As the Catechism  puts it: “Spiritual progress tends toward ever more intimate union with Christ.   This union is called ‘mystical’ because it participates in the mystery of Christ through the sacraments … and, in him, in the mystery of the Holy Trinity.   God calls us all to this intimate union with him, even if the special graces or extraordinary signs of this mystical life are granted only to some for the sake of manifesting the gratuitous gift given to all” (CCC 2014).

Mystics are not dreamy believers out of touch with reality; they, in fact, are the ones potently in touch  with Reality.   They are men and women madly in love with God and burning to know him ever more deeply.   They are men and women who have heard the divine love song (the Song of Songs!) and learned, through many purifying trials and tribulations, to sing back and harmonize with the Trinity.   And, precisely because of their deep union with God, they feel a deep unity with and love for all of humanity.   They are ready and willing to suffer for and with others, drawing them through such love into Love itself — or, rather, Love Himself.

Closer to Christ than Expected?

Without such love there is no future for Christianity.   This, I believe, is what Rahner’s statement means.   This also, I believe, shines a light on the importance of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body at this historical moment.   John Paul II’s catechesis on the body is mysticism for the modern world.   It brings John of the Cross’s “spousal mysticism” to the whole Church, proposing it in some sense as the “normal” Christian life, the normal way for Christians to view reality.

Could it be that, just like the “good atheists,” there are those who have been swept away by our sex-obsessed culture who are not “far from the Kingdom of God”?   Could it be that they only need to “jump” as Cantalamessa says, to find themselves on the side of the mystics?   Afer all, it’s the mystics who saw the union of man and woman as the key for understanding divine love.   Who knows, maybe one day those now caught up in society’s sex obsession may “pore” over John Paul II’s TOB, finding “the same scenery that they had left, but this time illuminated by the sun.”   Oh, let it be, Lord!   Let it be!

Fatima and the Theology of the Body

By: Christopher West

fatima statue

May is a month that Catholics traditionally devote to honoring the Blessed Mother.   One of my favorite Marian memorials falls in the middle of the month, May 13, when we honor Mary under her title “Our Lady of Fatima.”   I’m not a big devotee of Marian apparations, but because of my work promoting John Paul II’s Theology of the Body (TOB), I have gained a great interest in Fatima.   What’s the connection?   I could write a doctoral dissertation on it, but I’ll provide the short version in the next two articles.

The Assassination Attempt

As many Catholics know, between May 13 and October 13, 1917, Mary appeared to three peasant children in Fatima, Portugal delivering a three-part message — the “three secrets” of Fatima, as they’ve come to be known.   The first secret presented a horrifying vision of hell.   The second involved a prophecy of World War II and the warning that “Russia would spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church.”   However, Mary assured the children, “In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.”

Mary also told the children that “the Holy Father will have much to suffer.”   This brings us to the “third secret” of Fatima, which was not publicly revealed until the year 2000.   In 1917, the children saw a vision of bullets and arrows   fired at “a bishop dressed in white.”   Sixty-four years later, while driving through the crowd in St. Peter’s Square, a “bishop dressed in white” was gunned down by Turkish assassin Ali Agca … on the memorial of Our Lady of Fatima: May 13, 1981.  Many years later John Paul II reflected: “Agca knew how to shoot, and he certainly shot to kill.   Yet it was as if someone was guiding and deflecting that bullet.”   That “someone,” John Paul believed, was the Woman of Fatima.   “Could I forget that the event in St. Peter’s Square took place on the day and at the hour when the first appearance of the Mother of Christ … has been remembered … at Fatima in Portugal?   For in everything that happened to me on that very day, I felt that extraordinary motherly protection and care, which turned out to be stronger than the deadly bullet” (Memory and Identity pp. 159, 163).

The fact that John Paul was shot on the memorial of Fatima is well known.   What few people know is that the Pope was planning to announce the establishment of his Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family on that fateful afternoon.   This was to be his main arm for disseminating his teaching on man, woman, marriage, and sexual love around the globe.   Could it be that there were forces at work that didn’t want John Paul II’s teaching to spread around the world?   (In fact, by May 13, 1981, John Paul II was only about half way through delivering the 129 addresses of his TOB.   Had he died, obviously, the full teaching never would have been presented.)   And could it be that, by saving his life, the Woman of Fatima was pointing to the importance of his teaching reaching the world?

The Theology of the Body & Fatima

It would be over a year later that John Paul officially established his Institute (of which I’m a proud graduate). On that day, October 7, 1982 — not coincidentally the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary — John Paul II entrusted the Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family to the care and protection of Our Lady of Fatima. By doing so, it seems he himself was drawing a connection, at least indirectly, between his miraculous survival and the importance of the Theology of the Body.

Digging deeper, the precise link, I believe, between John Paul II’s TOB and Fatima lies in Mary’s mysterious words about the “errors of Russia” and the promised “triumph” of her Immaculate Heart.   John Paul II’s TOB is like weed-killer applied to the deepest roots of the “errors of Russia” that have spread throughout the world.   As such, the spread of the TOB throughout the world is a sign, I believe, that Mary is preparing us for her triumph.  But what does it mean to speak of “the triumph of the Immaculate Heart”?   What are the “errors of Russia” and how does John Paul II’s TOB combat them?

Marx’s Deep Seed of Destruction

Part of Mary’s message in Fatima was that “Russia would spread her errors throughout the world.”   However, “In the end,” she said, “my Immaculate Heart will triumph.”   When we hear of the errors of Russia, we rightly think of the spread of communism.   But communism has roots that go deeper than Marxist economic theory.  As most of us learned in school, Marx considered class struggle to be the defining factor of history.   But digging deeper, Marx also believed that the fundamental “class struggle” was found in monogamous marriage and, indeed, in the sexual difference itself. “The first division of labor,” Marx co-wrote with Frederick Engels, “is that between man and woman for the propagation of children.”   In turn, Engels affirmed that Marxist theory “demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society” (see  The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State).

It seems the deeper revolution — and, I would contend, the deeper “error of Russia” — is the one aimed at destroying marriage and the family.   Indeed, those who seek to deconstruct sexuality in the modern world often draw straight from Marx.   As feminist author Shulamith Firestone wrote in  The Dialectic of Sex: “[J]ust as the end goal of socialist revolution was … the elimination of the … economic class distinction itself, so the end goal of feminist revolution must be … the elimination of … the sex distinction itself [so that] genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally.”   Welcome to the deep-seated sexual confusion in which we’re now immersed.

The Triumph of the Divine Bridegroom  

But here’s the good news: Just as John Paul II’s vision of the human person inaugurated a new kind of revolution that led to the fall of communism, his TOB has also inaugurated a new kind of revolution that will, I believe, lead to the collapse of the dominant sexual ideology.  In his book  The Last Secret of Fatima, Cardinal Bertone wrote: “The Communist system seemed invincible, and it looked as if it were going to endure for centuries.   But then the whole thing collapsed like a house of cards.”   Perhaps we can expect the same with the deeper “error of Russia.”   Indeed, in the Book of Revelation, the “whore of Babylon” — that mysterious feminine figure who mocks the Bride of the Lamb — is brought to ruin in “one hour.”   And as she collapses, all the merchants who “gained their wealth from her” (think the porn industry, Planned Parenthood, etc., etc.) “weep and mourn”   (Rev 18).

And then comes the triumph of the New Jerusalem, the Bride who has “made herself ready” for her Bridegroom.   She is dressed in “fine linen, bright and  immaculate” (Rev 19:7-8).   She is “clothed with the sun” (Rev 12:1).   This radiant Bride, of course, is personified in Mary.   “In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.”   What does this mean?   In short, it means that  purity of heart  will triumph.   Somehow the pornographic lies will be  redeemed.   All of “Babylon’s” distortions will be untwisted and we will come to see the human body as it really is — as a glorious sign of “the mystery hidden from eternity in God” (TOB 19:4).

By showing us the path to authentic purity (never to be confused with puritanism or prudishness!), John Paul II’s TOB paves the way for Mary’s triumph.   Is it a coincidence that John Paul began writing his TOB on the feast of the Immaculate Conception?   Is it a coincidence that he devoted the entire work to “Mary, all beautiful”?   Is it a coincidence that she saved his life on the memorial of Fatima so that his teaching could reach the world?  Let us pray for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart.   It may be closer than we realize.   Already in 1994, John Paul wrote that Mary’s words spoken in Fatima “seem to be close to their fulfillment” (Crossing the Threshold of Hope, p. 221).   Let it be, Lord, according to your word.

Susan Boyle and the Communion of Saints

By: Christopher West

british flag

If you don’t yet know who Susan Boyle is, type her name into YouTube and watch her April 11 appearance on Britain’s Got Talent.   At the time this article is being posted, this performance has been watched almost 200,000,000 times collectively (between the different video accounts posted on YouTube).   A few days after the show, her performance had already been viewed over 3 million times.   Less than two weeks later, it was close to 50 million.  Let me briefly paint the picture.   A middle aged “frumpy” woman walks out on stage to the glaringly cynical response of the audience and the judges.   Simon Cowell, well known in the U.S. for his merciless treatment of American Idol contestants, asks her:

“What’s the dream?”

Susan: I’m trying to be a professional singer.

Simon: (cynically) And why hasn’t it worked out so far, Susan?

Susan: I’ve never been given the chance before.   But here’s hoping it’ll change.

Simon: Okay, and who would you like to be as successful as?

Susan: Elaine Paige or somebody like that.

As Robert Canfield, a professor of anthropology at Washington University, wrote on his blog: “It was easy to regard this woman as tragically unaware of her own limitations, with aspirations that surpassed her ability. And she was now on stage, on TV. Before a huge audience. Here was a disaster in the making. This would be difficult to watch. …[But] her first note changed everything. The audience was electrified.”

So why am I writing about this in an article pertaining to the Theology of the Body?   First, reading her “body language” — her unkempt look, her double chin, her frizzy graying hair, her strange hip swinging dance in response to Simon Cowell — is precisely what made people so dubious.   We were definitely reading this book by its cover.   But I also think John Paul II’s Theology of the Body (TOB) shines a light on why millions around the world have been moved to tears by her performance.   When this seemingly unappealing “book” opened up and the audience saw how beautiful the inner story really was, we all experienced a little foretaste of heaven.

A Foretaste of Heaven

Paraphrasing some dense teaching from his TOB, John Paul taught that in the afterlife we will be totally liberated from all that weighed us down in this life.   All the fears and insecurities, all the wounds and all the shame that kept us in “hiding” here on earth will be completely wiped away.   In total freedom and confidence, we will emerge from our shells, sharing the unique gift we are with each and everyone else.  Somehow, we will all have our “moment on stage,” so to speak — just like Susan Boyle.   And all those gathered in the heavenly banquet will see us — truly see  us shining in the totally unique way God made each of us to shine.   And we will marvel at the beauty, the unique and unrepeatable beauty, of each and everyone for all eternity.  When you watch (or rewatch) the clip on YouTube, pay attention to the facial expressions of the judges throughout her performance — they tell the whole story.   Towards the end, we even catch a glimpse of Simon Cowell’s “inner beauty” as his face spontaneously lights up and he sighs in a kind of dazzled wonder.   Priceless.

Countless bloggers and commentators have tried to explain why these seven minutes on YouTube move us so profoundly.   Again, I think Robert Canfield expresses it well: “Buried within the human psyche are feelings, yearnings, anxieties too deep for words, usually. Only sometimes do we see it in ourselves. Always it is something outside ourselves that touches us, somehow, where we feel most deeply. At such moments we remember that we are humans —   not mere living creatures, but human beings, profoundly and deeply shaped by a moral sensibility so powerful that it breaks through our inhibitions; it can burst out, explode into public view, to our own astonishment. And sometimes that objective form — a person, an event, an object, a song —   embodies deeply felt sensibilities for a lot of us at once, so that we discover how much we share in our private worlds, worlds otherwise inaccessible to anyone else. It becomes a social event, so we can all rejoice, and weep, together.”   Yep.   That’s it.  In Catholic-speak it’s called the communion of saints.   A little foretaste of heaven.

Sex and the Gospel

By: Christopher West

man and Bible in field

The Associated Press recently ran a story about a controversy brewing among a community of “bible-believing” folk in rural Alabama.   Many in the town of Good Hope were disturbed by a billboard advertizing a series of sermons at the local Daystar Church.   The billboard, next to a picture of a bride and groom, read: “Great sex: God’s way.”   “It’s really stirred up the people here,” said a town clerk.

The prickly topic of sex always seems to “stir us up,” doesn’t it?   Perhaps my sensitivities are just different because of the work I do, but nothing strikes me as untoward in what Daystar Church is trying to do.   It strikes me, rather, as an attempt to engage the culture in a conversation about God’s plan for sex and marriage.   And this is something we must  do.  The AP article reported that Jerry Lawson, the pastor at the center of the controversy, said one of the purposes of his campaign “was to get Christian parents talking to their kids about sex before they learn too much immorality from TV or playground buddies.”  Sounds good to me.   Not only good — essential.   Because if we aren’t feeding our children from the banquet of God’s glorious plan for man and woman, they will, without a doubt, be eating from the culture’s pornographic smorgasbord.

What Does Sex Have To Do With the Gospel?

“‘I think some people are kind of missing the point,’ said Lawson.   The church needs to be out front on the topic of sex when even kids’ TV shows depict illicit relationships and homosexuality, he said.   ‘It comes down to God saying the most healthy place for sex and the only right place for sex is within a marriage — one man, one woman, and one marriage,’ Lawson said.”  And this has “really stirred up the people”?   Why?   Local evangelist Roland Belew gives a simple answer.   He said the whole idea of talking about sex in church goes against the teaching of the New Testament apostles.   “Paul said preach the Gospel. …Talking about sex ain’t gonna get nobody to heaven,” said Belew.

Oh boy.   Where to begin?   Obviously discretion is required from the pulpit.   But the idea that “preaching the Gospel” has nothing to do with sex and that “preaching about sex” has nothing to do with the Gospel betrays layers and layers of seriously misguided thinking.   When we divorce God’s love from sexual love, as Pope Benedict says, “the essence of Christianity” becomes “decisively cut off from the complex fabric of human life” (God is Love 7).   The “gospel” then becomes cold, aloof, inhuman.   In other words, we’re no longer preaching the real Gospel.

Sex, the Gospel, & St. Paul

According to John Paul II, coming to understand God’s plan for sex — and by that I mean coming to understand God’s plan for creating us as male and female and calling the two to become “one flesh” — is essential  if we are to understand who God is and what his eternal plan  is for us.   In other words, it’s essential if we are to understand what the Gospel is actually all about — what it promises, how it challenges us, and what it leads us to believe in and hope for both in this life and the next.  For God stamped an image of his own mystery and plan right in our bodies as male and female. “For this reason…the two become one flesh.” For what reason?   The very Apostle to which Mr. Belew appeals tells us the reason for sex: it’s all a great mystery that reveals to us the “good news” of the Gospel: God has wed himself to us forever through the union of Christ and the church (see Eph 5:31-32).

In his Letter to Families, John Paul described this passage in Ephesians as “the compendium or summa, in some sense, of the teaching about God and man which was brought to fulfillment by Christ” (19).   In other words, if you are looking for a passage that summarizes the entire message of the Bible, this passage about God’s plan for sex fits the bill quite nicely.  I can agree with Mr. Belew that talking about sex the way the culture does “ain’t gonna get nobody to heaven.”   But talking about it the way St. Paul does will launch us there like a rocket.   If that’s what Pastor Lawson is trying to do, I’m all for it.