An Instrument of God

I am reading the new book of the letters of Mother Teresa. It is a God send, God did so much through her, and she realized that she was but His little instrument.

This affirmed something I've been praying about, how we are able to be "instruments of God".

It is first, necessary, to think about what an instrument is. An instrument (not in the musical sense only, but in any sense), is something that is used to reach a certain goal. For the sake of simplicity, I think the pencil is the best example.

In a certain sense, we are all called to be pencils in the hand of God. Sinfulness makes us pencils that are too big for God to use in His precious hand. God works with the smallest instruments for we wonder "how has He done such great things with such a small instrument". We wonder about such things all the time! We wonder at how computers are able to do so much with such tiny parts. The same is true with God. How is it that He is able to do so much with such small things?! It shows the greatness and awesomeness of His love.

So, we are called to be pencils in the hands of God. How is it, then, that we become smaller so that we can fit in His precious hands? Well, we must be shortened and scraped of all unnecessary excesses. If we have a love of self, then our pencil must thin out, all excess exterior must be stripped away. If our desire for other things is too extensive, then we must be sharpened so as to become as short as possible for God to work with us. We must become tiny instruments in His hands.

Now, God can do great work with such small pencils. He can draw a beautiful canvas of works done by His grace and love through us. We must become small to fit into His precious hands, though, in order for this to work. The smaller our pencil is, the more control He will have over us. We are able to be more attuned with His will when the excesses of pride and desires for things of the world are removed. Only then do we fit in His precious hands, tiny, insignificant, virtually nothing compared to the greatness of God. And yet, though almost nothing, it is only then that we become everything, for we become enveloped by His love shown to us by our being open to His will, which is His hands, guiding the pencil each step of the way.

But we must become small and insignificant, for it is only then that the beauty of God can be shown to the world. It is only in nothingness that we become Christ to others and are able to preach with our lives the love of God.

-Harrison

The Simplicity of Christ

I have been reflecting on many things as of late and one thing that has really touched my life profoundly is what John Paul II says is necessary to "fully realize what it means to be human".

To be human is to imitate Christ who "is the image of the invisible God". Christ reveals the Father to us, He reveals to us Who God is. Now, if the Letter of John says that "God is Love", then we have to ask ourselves where Christ shows us that God is Love in His life. There are, of course, many places, but the greatest place is on the Cross. God reveals His love to us through Christ's death on the Cross.

This is all good and dandy and easy to assent to intellectually. But how do we assent to it with our hearts? There is a joy in making an "intellectual assent" and this is a necessary step, but it is all pointless unless it causes us to desire to make the assent of our will, to say "I will live this truth in my life".

So, what is the truth that Christ reveals to us? That we are to love. And how do we love? By "dying on the Cross", by emptying ourselves for the sake of God. We say "no" to things of the world, not because they are bad, they are good! But God is better. We must make room in our souls for God, and that means taking out all the clutter that is in there. How do we take out the clutter? We take it out by dying to self.

This is a principle that is Biblical and consistent with the Tradition of the Church. Death to self is the means through which we become truly human. By emptying ourselves, we have more of our self to give to others and to give to God, and we thus also have a great glass to fill with the love of God.

I am convinced that this is essential for all Christians and especially for all Catholics to hear. Christ loves us and desires to be with us, He is giving Himself completely to us. We must, however, respond with love. The spear that pierced the side of Christ is symbolic of the wound we cause in Christ's Sacred Heart every time we deny Him and His will in our life. It is that wound that is the narrow gate to Heaven, and the only way to get there is by embracing the Cross Christ gives us so that we may serve God in all we do and so that we may come to receive more and more the love He wishes to show us.

This truly is the fullness of the Gospel "To love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your mind, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and to love your neighbour as yourself". This is the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets, and Christ shows us this fulfillment by His death on the Cross. There is no resurrection without the Cross, and there is no Heaven without death to self.

-Harrison

Sense of the Faithful

Just a quick note for the evening. I find that a lot of people talk about the Sense of the Faithful and how that is sufficient for a Catholic Doctrine to hold. I used to be one who fell into using such a term in my day to day speech about the Church.

However, reading a book on Dogmas of the Church by Dr. Ludwig Ott, I am noticing that "Sense of the Faithful" is not the correct terminology, but it is rather a "Sense of the Communis". In the realm of the community in this sense, in order to be one who contributes their opinion to the sense of the Communis they must be in communion with the Church and all she teaches. Thus, only those who are fully orthodox and love Christ are able to properly contribute to the sense of the communis.

This is interesting because the sense of the faithful does not carry the same weight in terminology. When we say sense of the faithful, it ends up being all those who think they believe and thus have the right to contribute their opinion to the Church and Her teachings. If this is the case, then we fall into the danger of the Church becoming Democratic, that the majority of the faithful (according to their own definition of what it means to be a "faithful") have the weight of opinion on the life and teachings of the Church.

This is, of course, a false understanding of the reality of the Church. The Church is a communion of love between those who hold and proclaim all She teaches. This is a great mystery. So, it is the sense of the communis that has all the weight when it comes to the definition of the truths of faith, and not the sense of the faithful.

-Harrison

A Eucharistic Culture

I have to apologize for the lack of updating. I'm extremely busy and so God and work come before blogging. However, tonight, for example, I have a few free minutes and so am going to put a quick idea across.

This past weekend we were honoured with the presence of Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Archbishop of Quebec City and Primate of Canada. He had many things to say, including a bit about the conclave (don't worry, he did not break the seal, he just mentioned his state at the time, the awesomeness of the experience and so forth).

He made one interesting note. He said that Canada's only hope of becoming a great culture again is that it become a Eucharistic Culture. I found this to be provocative and bold statement (in a good way). Essentially, if Canada wants to be "Canada", it must rediscover its Christian heritage, to inform herself of it, and live the values and truth that she was built on, most notably in the affirmation that God is real.

I know he truly hopes for the Eucharistic Congress to be the catalyst behind a cultural renewal in our country. He really did understand that the source of change of society is to first effect the culture.

Now, the question comes of how we actually build that Eucharistic Culture. It is not easy considering we live in such a morally deprived society nowadays. However, it is possible.

I have said it again and again, but the first thing we need is Saints, holy men and women who live the life of God totally and without reserve. We need to truly encounter the reality and truth of Christ. This happens, again, first and foremost in the Eucharist, where He is truly present to us.

I found the statement that "Canada needs to become Eucharistic" very fascinating. It had never occurred to me before. This makes sense, and yet at the same time it is a very mysterious phrase, one that will be need a good deal of prayer and meditation.

-Harrison

Ice Surface Melting!!

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=4a6499de-bf0a-49eb-9b1d-ca302e0be6e5

I love the National Post. Always gives reasonable! discussion of issues instead of being overrun with emotionalism and irrationality (*cough cough* Globe and Mail *cough cough*).

-Harrison

Jesus of Nazareth - Book Review

The following is a book review I wrote for the Diocesan Messenger (the newspaper for the Victoria Diocese):
-------------------------------------

Jesus of Nazareth is a result of a lifetime of experience of Joseph Ratzinger, his “personal search for the Lord.” The fact that the book is based on his personal search that makes it so interesting, especially because the book is the work of Joseph Ratzinger the theologian, and is not a part of his magisterial authority as Pope. This leaves the book open to theological criticism, and some have taken Ratzinger up on that.

It is, however, difficult to find a point of criticism with this book. It is a book writing in a style that is beautiful, deep, and accessible. It is through this masterpiece of Christian writing that Ratzinger expresses three essential aspects to this book; it is Christological, meditative, and engaging.

The Christological aspect is perhaps the strongest, and yet most subtle, theme of the book. In the book Ratzinger discusses the intellectual background of the historical-critical method in biblical theology. He engages this method throughout the entire book by discussing who Christ is. He engages the historical-critical by affirming, in so subtle a way, that Christ is the source of history, thus attacking the historical-critical method that history is the source of Christ. This is especially affirmed in his discussion on Christ's temptation in the dessert, in which each of Christ's responses affirm that He is God, always obedient to the will of the Father.Ratzinger's “personal search for the face of the Lord” makes this book meditative because it is obviously based on years of deep personal prayer. It is this search that has created a love that is obviously sincere and deep. His reflections on the various aspects of Christ's life are profound in a way that they provide the reader with a variety of sources for contemplation in their own search for the face of the Lord. His experiences are a great addition to ours as we all journey together towards Christ.

The final aspect is that it is a book that is engaging and relevant. Ratzinger explicitly brings the Gospels to our present situations. He does not read the Gospels according to the modern situations, but rather reads the modern situations according to the Gospels. Christ, revealed to us through the Gospels, is the lens through which history is looked through. This is an essential point for Ratzinger in his affirmation of Christ as the center, source, and summit of history. He does this aspect justice par excellence.

All in all, this book is a brilliant and accessible book that all Catholics ought to read. Wherever you are on your spiritual journey, this book has something for you. This book presents to us Christ, and Christ reveals to us who we are created to be, and it is through this presentation of Christ by Ratzinger that we come to a deeper understanding of the call to holiness we are all challenged to answer.

Mystery

I have come to experience over the past few weeks that people seem to lack a sense of mystery. This is not just something that is apparent in just a select few, but really, in the end, I think we all lack that certain sense of mystery.

I will give an example. There are many times that people will ask for a reason behind a certain action. There are certain times that giving a reason is acceptable and indeed proper. However, it is not always the case that we ought to have to give an answer. There may be a valid reason, but it may just be that they ought not to be privileged to such a reason. If a Bishop moves a priest, he is not required to explain why, or if someone is not wanting to go somewhere, they do not have to always give a reason why it is they don't wish to go there if it is personal and are uncomfortable with the public knowing about such decision.

This all leads to the culture in general and, in a certain sense, the Church. A loss of mystery follows from a loss sense of Beauty. When we loose sight of what is True, Good, and Beautiful, we loose sight that we can not comprehend the True, Good, and Beautiful. This is, for example, the danger of technology. Technology makes everything accessible, tangible, explainable. Technology becomes, as Fr. de Souza said at a lecture here one evening, about technology becoming anti-sacramental.

The Sacraments are meant to be mysterious. We can have an understanding of them, but, in the end, we can never comprehend the total reality, and this is most true in the Eucharist.

This is why I believe intellectualism can go too far. St Thomas, after his mystical experience, stated that "All I have written is but straw". Intellectual pursuits are true, good, and a gift from God, we are supposed to explore that gift according to the size of the gift given. However, just as it is with the grace of freedom, the gift can be misused. We can come to worship intellectualism. Intellectual pursuits are only so good as when our lives reflect holiness. If intellectual pursuits are not bearing fruit in our souls and the souls of others, then we have to question if we are using this gift accordingly.

The danger of intellectual pursuits I find is that people tend to want to know about everything, even if you do not feel they have the right to know. It is true that we are supposed to give a reason for the hope within us, but I think we can take this pursuit too far when attampts to understand things we were never meant to understand. I think that mystery is a good thing because it leads to contemplation. Intellectual pursuits are only so good as to when they lead us to contemplate the beauty of God in a deeper and more profound way.

I may be wrong in this and would gladly accept any comments.

-Harrison

Having vs. Being

It is not wrong to want to live better; what is wrong is a style of life which is presumed to be better when it is directed towards "having" rather than "being", and which wants to have more, not in order to be more but in order to spend life in enjoyment as an end in itself.  - John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, Paragraph 36.

This quote came to my mind today when our Bishop gave his homily at Mass this morning.  I will first say this, his homily was probably the best homily I have ever heard and I mean that in every way.  It was engaging, it had something for everyone, it spoke about the central vocation for us all, which is to holiness and to live a life of love.  The most important thing, however, was that he did not stop there, but engaged us and challenged us as to how it is we are to love God, and that is something that is very important for us to hear.  Oh yes, and he was also "eschatologically oriented", that is, he said that we come to know the important things in life when we meditate on our own death.

This above quote from Centesimus Annus is something that he touched on.  While I was at the Tertio Millennio Seminar, I had to give a 10 minute presentation on a paragraph that I found topical and engaging and I chose paragraph 36, specifically focusing on the above quote.

It is this quote that is essential for the modern culture because it speaks to a deeply a reality that has spread itself rapidly in Western culture, that is, we are defined by what we have, not who we are.

How many people define themselves by the car they drive, the amount of money they have in the bank, how many houses they own or, in my case, how many books they have.  We all have that one thing we enjoy in life that we define ourselves by.  It is not to say that we can't enjoy books and cars and houses and the material things in life.  But they must have a purpose.  They must not be the end of things, but must be a means.  The material things in the world are supposed to be a means, to help us attain Heaven.  That is the point and purpose of "things".  

What defines ourselves is being, that is, living in the moment according to God's will for us.  We be, we exist, we experience everything all out of our love of God.  Our dignity is based in who we are, not what we own.  How many times people try to define themselves based  on how others think about them, how they do in school, and so forth.  This is not how we are made to be important, we are not made to be loved based on what we have.  Rather, we are to be loved simply because we are an individual.  God does not love us because of our grades, because of our money, and so forth.  God loves us because we are us.  It is the fact that God loves us that we want to live the call to excellence.  From there, when we experience God's love, we are challenged by that experience to live the life of love as God does.  We are challenged to live that more excellent way, to become excellent for the glory of God.

We do not define ourselves by what we have, we define ourselves by who we are, a human individual, loved by God's infinite love.

John Paul II, ora pro nobis.

-Harrison

More Canadian Cultural Renewal

I was privileged this evening to have dinner with Fr. de Souza (writer for the National Post), Tom Mcfeely (an editor for the National Catholic Register), his wife, and some friends from College and Career.

I have had some ideas about getting people together to start brain storming on how to engage cultural renewal in Canada and Tom knew about this, so he told me to put my idea across Fr. de Souza to see what he thinks.

Fr. de Souza felt that publishing journals in the realm of First Things, for example, would be a bit too difficult to get going in Canada.  In the US, it has about 40,000 subscribers and is probably the most prominent politically conservative, religiously orthodox journal in the US.  Since Canada's population is only about 1/10 the size of the US, he feels it would be difficult for people, in a journal, to be able to get their readership up enough to make it a financially viable endeavor.  

I will be honest that I was rather surprised to hear this.  While I understand his reasoning, I do think that if things are promoted properly then people will subscribe.  I am sure that it would not be difficult to get many subscribers, again, promotion is everything.

He was also a bit down, I found, on the idea of think tanks, because they need money and people seem hesitant in giving money for such things.

I think he is in principle for such endeavors, but feels that since our population is so much smaller and less religious, it would be hard to get such things off the ground.

He did say, however, what he does think would work.  He said that we ought to encourage people to write for their local newspapers, so that their opinions could be heard on a local level and that, generally, editors for local papers are willing to have local writers to write on local issues as it gives the paper that local feel it wants.  

He also mentioned the idea of a website in which there would be access to content and news on a regular basis.  He believes that this is the best means.

I still think the other things are possible too, though, and I am going to be continuing to be bouncing ideas off of people.  I do see the idea of a website being very popular and something that can give us the boost we would need to eventually get a journal off the ground.

I also had another idea but I forgot to put it past him.

-Harrison

What Ruins Society

I have began writing notes on the nature of society and the impact of allowing homosexual marriages as being legal on a society at large.

This has me contemplating as I know there is various "anthropological stamps" on society as they are based on the social nature of Man.  The concept I have been contemplating most is the concept of "nuptial stamp" on society, that society is in a certain sense nuptial.  If it is, then nuptiality is based on the necessity of the difference of sexes, and if that is essential in the nature of a society, then homosexuality itself can never be seen as a society.  At best it could be seen as a partnership, but partnerships have no legal (or social) rights to marriage.

This is all in the preliminary stages and so will require more reflection and study, specifically in the realm of social and anthropological philosophy.  

What got me thinking about this is why civilizations in the past have fallen.  It has been on what I call the 4 pillars of the death of a civilization, which are abortion, homosexuality, infanticide, and promiscuity/destruction of the idea of the family.  All 4 are attacks on the nature of what we see society being.  But why is it that these are seen as the essentials for destroying a civilization?  If a civilization is destroyed, it is because the structure of society has fallen apart, so, logically, these 4 pillars of death really would be the antithesis of a free and virtuous society.  And they are all inherently social.  So, they must be the cause of the fall, but why is it that they have such a detrimental effect on society?  This is what I hope to research, and any suggestions on this would be greatly appreciated.

-Harrison