I had previously noted there were three different yet
unifying things which occurred to me this past week. This is the third (see my posts: Does God Love Me and The Rich Man’s Reward,
for the first two.)
- - - - - - - - - -
Msgr. Luigi Guissani, professor emeritus at the Universita Cattolica
del Sacro Cuore in Milan, Italy, is the founder of the Catholic lay movement
Communion and Liberation, which flourishes in Italy and 60 other
countries. A number of his books were
recently translated into English. One is
a series titled: Is It Possible to Live
This Way, with books about Faith, Hope, and Charity. A second series is on religious faith, with
books titled: The Religious Sense, At the Origin of the Christian Claim, and
Why the Church.
None of these books are easily summarized. Were I to attempt my typical book review, I’d
generalize the topic and point to some of the more striking words which touched
my heart, but these books are truly different.
Msgr. Guissani writes his books as a teacher, and indeed some of his
words are talks he had with students on the nature of faith and its existence in
the very being of their life. In some
ways, his words remind me of the encyclicals of Blessed JPII; he comes at the
topic of discussion from many angles, intending to remove all doubts and answer
all questions. Unlike JPII’s words,
however, I rarely found myself skipping ahead over Guissani’s, thinking “Okay,
I got that. Let’s move on.” No, Msgr. Guissani discusses alternate views
or questions not to dismiss them, but rather to point out why they are good
questions, containing some germ of truth, and are in fact important questions
to raise. He seems to say to those who
would question the Christian faith that: “Yes, you are spot on in your
thoughts. That is so true, ---- but …”
To the youth, to the
unbeliever, to the skeptic, he gives some measure of value, of inclusion in OUR
search for the truth. And, in truth,
that is the heart of the Christian experience and the Catholic Church in particular.
And so in reading his works you come
along on the journey, together with him.
And you grow in faith and understanding.
I view Msgr. Guissani as one of the great teachers of our faith in this
age, similar to my feelings about Fr. Jacques Philippe --- who is giving a
retreat to the women of my parish next month.
All their books are worth reading, and reading again. They get to the heart of the faith. And now I shall summarize just one section
from “Why The Church,” for in this past week it touched the heart of MY faith.
The second chapter of the books is titled: “The First Premise: How to Attain Certainty
About the Fact of Christianity Today.”
Guissani asks: How can I come to know the truth about Christ? In response he notes that “Three cultural
attitudes give rise to different answers to this question: one view is rational
--- it sees Jesus as a fact of the past; the other judges the presence of Jesus
through feelings, through enlightenment; while the third one is the
Orthodox-Catholic view.”
Guissani explains that the rationalistic attitude gathers
facts and analyzes them --- much as I approach business problems. Unfortunately, “what emerges are hundreds of
interpretations.” The rationalistic attitude “implies
projecting dimensions onto reality, and whatever goes beyond these measures
does not exist by an a priori definition.”
Rationally, miracles cannot exist, based on my knowledge of things and
events. This is the problem with
rational thinking when applied to spiritual matters; it is limited by me and my
experiences. Guissani takes pains to
point out, however, that the truth of an object exists in ITS being, not OURS. It may be our objective to discover that
truth, but rational assumptions may limit what we can discover. “Rationalism denies the possible existence of
something whose nature goes beyond the bounds of the limited horizons man can
reach … the rationalistic attitude
diminishes the content of the Christian message even before taking it into
consideration.” The Christian
message is that God made Himself present: Emmanuel – God is Present. The rational hypothesis ASSUMES that is
impossible.
You cannot understand God with this manner of thinking or
cultural background.
The second attitude toward understanding Christ accepts the
underlying definition of God: with God
everything is possible. Therefore man’s
rational experiences do not limit understanding, but how can man become certain
of God’s presence? The Protestant
attitude is that this is possible through an inner experience, a direct
relationship with the Spirit of God.
This was the experience of the prophets; they heard a message others did
not. This attitude of “feeling” Jesus is
easy to comprehend, even for Catholics, however it makes us the judge of Christ’s
presence. In both the rationalistic and
experience/feeling understanding of God there is subjectivism. “Protestant subjectivism provokes two
questions. First, how can one determine
whether what one “feels” is the result of the Spirit’s influence or the
idealization of one’s own thoughts? If
every man were his own prophet, how could a distinction be drawn between an
enlightenment by the Spirit and the codification of one’s own concept, … the
expression of a personal opinion?” And
this brings up the second question:
Would the Spirit choose such a method of communication which heightens
confusion? “What (Jesus) said changed
people within, but they were words that came from without. This is to say, the Christian message is a wholly human fact according to all the
factors of human reality, factors interior and exterior, subjective and
objective. The Protestant attitude
annuls this wholeness, reducing the Christian experience to merely interior experience and, assumes
an a priori position to which it has no right.”
Guissani seems to explain that the Protestant explanation of Christ
steps up from the rationalistic understanding because the Protestant
explanation accepts that God’s presence on earth is possible, but it
prioritizes each person’s experience to understand Him. God is who each person understands Him to be;
the true essence of His Being may be understood differently in each
person. Guissani says that this isn’t
really understanding Him; it’s understanding Him merely as much as we can or
want to. We restrict God’s ability to
reveal Himself to us.
The third attitude, the Orthodox-Catholic view, “is
consistent with the structure of the Christian event as it presented in
history.” It accepts that the original
acceptance of Jesus was an encounter
which moved the heart of believers, but Guissani asks how can we know this
encounter 2000 years later? “Jesus told
(His disciples): Anyone who listens to
you listens to me.” (Luke 10:16) “The
so-named Orthodox-Catholic approach shows us this method for reaching Jesus
Christ even today. This method is the chance encounter with a reality comprised
of those who believe in Him. For the
presence of Christ in history visibly abides in the unity of believers, which
is the encounterable form of His presence.
Historically speaking, this reality is called church, sociologically the
people of God, and ontologically, in the profound sense of the word, the mysterious Body of Christ.” As noted in First Corinthians 10:17, “Though
there are many of us we form a single body.”
This is the teaching of the parable of the vine and the branches. This is “a God made presence, who even after
70, 100, or 2,000 years reaches you through a reality that you can see, touch,
and feel. This is the company of
believers in Him.”
I like this quote which Guissani cited from Karl Adam: “We Catholics acknowledge readily, without
any shame, nay with pride, that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and
wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the Gospel of Christ, in the
same way that the great oak cannot be identified with the tiny acorn. There is no mechanical identity, but an
organic identity … and the continual emergence of new forms. The Gospel of Christ would have been no
living Gospel, and the seed which he scattered no living seed, if it had
remained ever the tiny seed of A.D. 33, and had not struck root, and had not
assimilated foreign matter, and had not by the help of this foreign matter
grown up into a tree, so that the birds of the air dwell in its branches.”
Guissani presented an analogy which I liked. He told the story of a Japanese girl and an
American boy who meet, fall in love, and over time learn and accept each other’s
unique cultural background. The son’s
parents, reading a letter from the girl who is back home in Japan thinks
something is wrong with her. “Patiently,
the son tries to explain what his mother finds so disconcerting is the fruit of
a different logic, an imaginative structure distinct from what we Westerners
are accustomed. However, his mother does
not really understand him.” Guissani
points out that the mother’s literal reading of the letter appears very
objective, “however, from the perspective of understanding the contents of the
letter the son’s is evidently much more objective because he ‘was able to grasp
her mode of expression.’” Guissani then
asks:”But how can one come to have the experience which dictates the words? To attain this, one needs an encounter,
something present. One needs to meet that experience today,”
even as the boy met the girl.
This is the Orthodox-Catholic view of faith. Christ isn’t history; He isn’t a personal
feeling alone; He is lived in the Church, in the Body of Christ, a living and
an understanding of each other. This
communion of believers explains the importance of the mass, the re-living of
Christ’s life now, today, together.
Emmanuel --- God is with us.
I found this explanation by Guissani of the ways we strive
to believe in Jesus as God to be most compelling, and it related to my life
very much, and to my thoughts this past week.
I wrote earlier of how some do not understand my feelings about life, of
not prioritizing myself enough. In
Guissani’s view, I might be said to be living the Orthodox-Catholic message, or
at least to some degree. I am choosing
to dwell in the Body of Christ, choosing its well-being over mine, accepting my
pains as small things in the full body, and perhaps even as necessary for its
health.
This definition of the Church as a unity lived and
proclaimed to each other is not understood by many in America today, and is even
rejected by some: “No! Your beliefs are yours alone, not to be lived
in public. No! There are laws saying you may not live your
life as the Body of Christ, but rather must live it as part of the body WE
proclaim, the body of justice and equality in OUR eyes. You will not speak of your God in public!” And so living our faith and helping one
another with schools or hospitals or charities --- while helping ALL others,
even non-Catholics --- is not permissible.
“You may not live your faith in public; WE will decide what you do in
public.” And so the Affordable Care Act
and other laws require nuns to pay for contraceptive means, and Catholic hospitals
to perform abortions, and Catholic photographers to celebrate “gay” weddings,
and a man driving across a desert in a Western state sees a cross on a hill and
sues, saying: “This offends me,” and a judge considers.
And I can almost hear the devil cackling, waiting for the
first nun to take advantage of the temptation of “free contraceptives.” “See,” he will scream. “They really don’t want what the Church
teaches.” And it will be headlines,
everywhere.
Such is the attitude in the United States today.
I guess I feel compelled to document here one other thing I
read this week, which influenced my meditations. It was from the daily Readings of the Office,
which included the story of Esther.
Esther was a Jewish maiden who was made queen --- until the day the king’s
chancellor declared that all Jews must die, for daring to live their faith in
public ---- this was against the law there, also. And so Esther prayed to God, in words we
perhaps should be praying today:
“My Lord, our King, you alone are God. Help me, who am alone and have no help but
you, for I am taking my life in my hand…. We have sinned in your sight, and you
have delivered us into the hands of our enemies, because we worshipped their
gods. You are just, O Lord. But now they
… have undertaken to do away with the decree you have pronounced, and to
destroy your heritage; to close the
mouths of those who praise you, … to open the mouths of the heather to
acclaim their false gods, and to extol an earthly king forever.”
“Manifest yourself in the time of our distress and give me
courage. Save us by your power, and help
me, who am alone and have no one but you, O Lord. … O God, more powerful than
all, hear the voice of those in despair.
Save us from the power of the wicked, and deliver me from my fear.”
So what are we to do, as Christianity in public is being
outlawed in America. First, I believe, we
should follow the prayers of Esther, humbly admitting our faults and begging
God’s mercy. And then, as Esther, be
prepared to die. It was Jesus who showed
us the example, of the one dying for the all, even if the one were God. Do we consider ourselves more important?