Saint Thomas More on Marriage and Weddings

One of the largest and most tragic fractures in the history of Christendom was the loss of England to the Catholic Church during the reign of Henry VIII.  When Martin Luther, and others,  had convinced much of what is now Germany and many other nations to separate from the authority of the Pope, Henry VIII stood firm and earned the title “Defender of the Faith” from the Pope.  The King outlined in very clear language how the seven sacraments were indeed of the Gospel and part and parcel of Christian belief.  

Henry became king when his brother died.  The pope granted a dispensation to Henry so that he could marry his brother’s widow, Catherine of Aragon.  Unfortunately for them, Queen Catherine was unable to bear a male heir (we now know by genetic biology that this was not her “fault” since the sex of a baby depends on the chromosome coming from the male sperm, but that’s beside the point.).  Henry saw the hand of God in his and was troubled in conscience, something his defenders even with the Catholic Church claim.  He felt that it may have been a sin to marry his brother’s widow, and God was punishing him for this.  This is not to delve into his extra-marital affairs of whatever scope, but he was certainly smitten with Anne Boleyn and saw in her the chance to have a male heir. 

Thus he began his efforts to receive a writ of divorce from the Pope so that he could marry Anne and produce the male heir he so long desired.  The pope said “no”, and thus began efforts on Henry’s part to accomplish his designs, even if that should mean his separation from the authority of the papacy.  What was at stake was not only the sanctity of marriage but the  nature of authority in the Church and in society.  Could a monarch claim dominion of the Church in his country, and was that authority valid for matters within the Church?  Caesaro-papism has long been a troubling issue within Christianity, going back to Constantine himself, who felt it his right and duty to order things about in the Church.  

A thorn in the side of King Henry was his chancellor, Thomas More.  More was on the forefront of humanism in the West.  While remaining completely faithful to the Church, he also saw that some of the advances in philosophy and culture taking place late in the 15th century were something a thinking and believing Catholic should embrace.  For all of that “progressive” thinking, he stood firm in his adherence to the Catholic Church. When Henry ordered Parliament to enact the Act of Supremacy, making the British King head of the Church in England, More quietly resigned his position, and returned to private life. . . or so he thought.  

The act contained within it an oath, required of all subjects of the King, in which one would pledge fealty to the Act and to the King as head of the Church.  More refused, without saying why, since making known his mind would mean treason according to the Act.

For a time, More was allowed to keep on as he wanted, but his silence and non-participation made the king look bad, and so more serious means were used to force his adherence and acceptance of the Act of Supremacy, up to and including his unlawful imprisonment.

During the back and forth, and before Henry gave himself a divorce and “married” Anne, some of More’s friends approached him and empathized with his position.  Some of these friends were bishops who had submitted to the Act, thus abandoning their allegiance to the papacy.  They suggested that he at least attend the wedding, for this might placate the Henry, and thus More would be allowed to live in peace.  

In response to this, More told the story of ancient Rome, wherein there was a law that a virgin, no matter her crime, was not to be executed for a capital crime.  The emperor wanted to execute a young woman, but could not because she was a virgin. His counselors offered their advice, “First, your highness, first deflower her, and then the beasts can devour her.”  More told these advisors and former friends that “they may devour me, but they will never deflower me.”

Today, More would be called a bigot, a hater, a closed-minded fiend who deserved to be imprisoned and even to have his “house” burned down for refusing to participate in what was a ceremony of love.  Today, we call him Saint Thomas More, all because he remained faithful to his conscience and would not “bend to the marriage.”  He lost his head, but gained eternity.  

When a wedding isn't just a wedding

One of the largest and most tragic fractures in the history of Christendom was the loss of England to the Catholic Church during the reign of Henry VIII.  When Martin Luther, and others,  had convinced much of what is now Germany and many other nations to separate from the authority of the Pope, Henry VIII stood firm and earned the title “Defender of the Faith” from the Pope.  The King outlined in very clear language how the seven sacraments were indeed of the Gospel and part and parcel of Christian belief.  

Henry, of course, became king when his brother died.  The pope granted a dispensation to Henry so that he could marry his brother’s widow, Catherine of Aragon.  Unfortunately for them, Queen Catherine was unable to bear a male heir (we now know by genetic biology that this was not her “fault” since the sex of a baby depends on the chromosome coming from the male sperm, but that’s beside the point.).  Henry saw the hand of God in his and was troubled in conscience, something his defenders even with the Catholic Church claim.  He felt that it may have been a sin to marry his brother’s widow, and God was punishing him for this.  This is not to delve into his extra-marital affairs of whatever scope, but he was certainly smitten with Anne Boleyn and saw in her the chance to have a male heir. 

Thus he began his efforts to receive a writ of divorce from the Pope so that he could marry Anne and produce the male heir he so long desired.  The pope said “no”, and thus began efforts on Henry’s part to accomplish his designs, even if that should mean his separation from the authority of the papacy.  What was at stake was not only the sanctity of marriage but the  nature of authority in the Church and in society.  Could a monarch claim dominion of the Church in his country, and was that authority valid for matters within the Church?  Caesaro-papism has long been a troubling issue within Christianity, going back to Constantine himself, who felt it his right and duty to order things about in the Church.  

A thorn in the side of King Henry was his chancellor, Thomas More.  More was on the forefront of humanism in the West.  While remaining completely faithful to the Church, he also saw that some of the advances in philosophy and culture taking place late in the 15th century were something a thinking and believing Catholic should embrace.  For all of that “progressive” thinking, he stood firm in his adherence to the Catholic Church. When Henry ordered Parliament to enact the Act of Supremacy, making the British King head of the Church in England, More quietly resigned his position, and returned to private life. . . or so he thought.  

The act contained within it an oath, required of all subjects of the King, in which one would pledge fealty to the Act and to the King as head of the Church.  More refused, without saying why, since making known his mind would mean treason according to the Act.

For a time, More was allowed to keep on as he wanted, but his silence and non-participation made the king look bad, and so more serious means were used to force his adherence and acceptance of the Act of Supremacy, up to and including his unlawful imprisonment.

During the back and forth, and before Henry gave himself a divorce and “married” Anne, some of More’s friends approached him and empathized with his position.  Some of these friends were bishops who had submitted to the Act, thus abandoning their allegiance to the papacy.  They suggested that he at least attend the wedding, for this might placate Henry, and thus More would be allowed to live in peace.  

In response to this, More told the story of ancient Rome, wherein there was a law that a virgin, no matter her crime, was not to be executed for a capital crime.  The emperor wanted to execute a young woman, but could not because she was a virgin. His counselors offered their advice, “First, your highness, first deflower her, and then the beasts can devour her.”  More told these advisors and former friends that “they may devour me, but they will never deflower me.”

Today, More would be called a bigot, a hater, a closed-minded fiend who deserved to be imprisoned and even to have his “house” burned down for refusing to participate in what was a ceremony of love.  Today, we call him Saint Thomas More, all because he remained faithful to his conscience and would not “bend to the marriage.”  He lost his head, but gained eternity.  

I kill myself! but hopefully not...

Lots of posts about depression lately. It was called "meloncholia" by the scholastic (and previous) philosophers. It's a touchy subject especially when someone prominent makes the last act of self-life-taking. Many seek to find a physiological explanation of it: it's because he/she was sick in the head/body. Some see it as an existential experience: life became overwhelming, and this was their "out". Others take the moralistic stance: you can choose to be happy or sad. Others take the "spiritual" stance: He/she is in a better place, free from pain.

In the end, it's about dealing with all of the circumstances surrounding those and other factors. Of course, the claim may be made that unless someone has been through or in or around depression, then one has no right to talk or comment about it. What a quandry! Are we all bound to wring our hands and wonder "how" "why" or "what could be done?" Is it incumbent upon the commentator to ask him/herself, "Have I actually experienced depression, and thus am I competent to comment on it?"

A strange thing happens when one takes a stance on depression...one may have to demonstrate one's "street creds" in this area in order to garner a "right" to comment on it. See how I've filled this post with "quotation marks" to venture into this arena of discussion?

The fact of the matter is we are all living on a knife's edge between sanity and insanity. We all have issues that can drive us over the edge, or into a life of abundance. In any given moment, I may find myself leaning one way or the other. Much has to do with our formation from birth. Much has to do with the choices we've made in the meantime. A lot has to do with our genetic make-up. It seems undeniable that depression can be a genetic factor in families. yet that cannot explain many who have risen from depressive factors and family history to life success.

I would note that a person who at some point makes the decision to say, "This is it. I 'must' take my own life as an act of..... (fill in the blank)" has made a multiple of decisions before that moment, or may have been forced into various decisions by others, thus depriving such person of the liberty necessary to make a free decision.

In the end, none of us knows the whys, wherefores or whatifs that any other person makes. This is part of the counsel of Christ that we not judge. St. Therese notes that God is just, and this was a great consolation for her, since she knew that God would be mercifully just, and take into account her weaknesses when He judged her.

That being said, in every moment, we are self-judges of our own thoughts, and have sovereignty over how we look at others, and ourselves. Is it a merciful look? a kind look? a just look? have we left someone or some class of persons out of our so-called adult gaze of maturity? I think of the little babies who never get a kind look...who are considered disposable. Decisions we make have consequences. They reverberate, and turn our character in one way or another. Not all paths are just. Not all paths lead to peace. Some lead to severe judgment, and rejection. That's not a judgment on any one person. It's a statement of psychological and emotional fact. If free choice in these matters were not a factor, if choices are not part of the equation, if the consequences of our actions were not a substantive element of later dire choices, then there is no hope for the one who is at the beginning of suffering such experiences.

And let us not forget that the number one factor in leading us to a life of grace and peace is a surrender to the One Who alone can give real peace. This is why the 10th commandment is as important as the 1st.....in that violating it can lead to a violation of the latter.

in the end, of course, we all should give thanks to God that He is, as St. Therese noted so often, a God of Mercy, Who looks upon each of us as His child, for Whom He lived, and died, and rose. And loves us always....despite the choices we make....and perhaps, to spite the choices we have made.

The promise He made to Abraham and to his children forever. . .

                As I have begun again to go through the Bible from start to finish, I find new insights along the way, even as I’ve read it all several times before.  What is striking is the nature of faith in the people of Israel, going back to the Patriarch Abraham.  What set Israel apart is their acceptance and belief in only One God.  Early on, this was what is called “henotheism”, or, they only had one God, as opposed to the surrounding cultures which had multiple gods.  It took awhile for the Hebrews to develop the understanding that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was the only true God.  The God who made everything had chosen Abram, and his descendants, as His special people.

                Oddly, this choice of them as peculiarly His own came at a time in their history when the other part of God’s promise seemed to be broken, that they would inherit the land of Canaan in perpetuity.  After the exile of the northern kingdom of Israel, and then the consequent exile of Judah, the Hebrews needed to come to a deeper understanding of their relationship to God, and what it meant to be His people.  Surprisingly, along with the realization that their God was the only true God also opened up the prophets to speak of Israel as a sign for all the nations, and indeed the vehicle by which He would reveal Himself more broadly.  In the later prophets we have universal themes develop which bear this out, even if at the time it was not understood; indeed, it would not fully dawn upon them in fullness until Christ came, and sent the apostles out to all the nations.

                But what is consistent throughout the history of the Hebrews, from Abraham on to the last of the prophets, is the nature of the faith.  God remains unseen by human eyes, but still makes Himself present in various ways, as the letter to the Hebrews points out. How Abraham heard or knew God was speaking to him is really irrelevant.  He had an awareness of God that led him to wander based upon a promise he heard, and to remain faithful even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, such as the length of time it took for him to finally have the child of the promise.

                This is what makes Abraham so great, that he remained faithful in the face of his trials. Somehow God would fulfill the promise, and that was enough for Abraham.  The great heroes of the Old Testament are those who imitated Abraham in this consistency, not turning to other gods to solve their problems, be they hand-made idols, or nature gods, or whatever.  The pure faith that gave strength was in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 

                Consider David.  Though he sinned mightily by committing adultery and murder, and then sinned by numbering the people, he never sought help from other gods.  He was simply a real man who sinned, and repented.  His son Solomon, however, was not so faithful, and by worshipping other gods, to whom his many wives introduced him, he was a cause of the splitting of the kingdom in twain, and the subsequent evils that afflicted the Israelites for centuries.

                This brings us to the one who exhibited the greatest faith the world has ever known, or will ever know: that of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  Steeped in the faith tradition of her people, she knew the prophecies, and was certainly attuned to God’s directions her whole life. Though possibly (from tradition with a small “t”) she was a member of the priestly tribe, or certainly related to it (hence, Elizabeth, her kinswoman, being married to Zechariah, a priest), her faith was not centered on the Temple once she was older, for she lived, after all, in Nazareth by the time the Annunciation took place. Yet she had that awareness of God’s care for her, and knew her obligation to be faithful to Him.

                It was this faith that enabled her to be open to the message of the angel, and to believe what she heard.  It’s important to note that her question to the angel Gabriel was not “how can this be”, implying a bit of doubt, but “how will this be. . . since I do not know man.”  This indicates that she knew God could enable her to conceive, but since she was dedicated to virginity, she needed more information.  I propose that she was, in a way, testing the spirit of the angel to make sure that her divinely inspired vow of virginity was not going to be at stake.  Somewhere Saint Ambrose makes this point in other verbiage.

                Once apprised of the protection of her virginity, she opens herself, and her womb, to the working of the Holy Spirit, and the rest, as they say is history, so to speak.

                And on that note, since the proof is in the pudding, isn’t it interesting that a shepherd from the Podunk area of Mesopotamia who claimed to have been called by God, and that God had promised him descendants as numerous as the sand on the seashore, indeed became the Patriarch of billions who trace their religious life back to him?  One surely cannot claim that this faith took off through force of arms, since conversions were not sought by the Israelites (not really anyway), and so much of the history of the Hebrews was very much under persecution and exile.  Even the Church sought conversions through witness, and not force (even if at certain times there have been forced conversions, but always contrary to Church teaching).  Nevertheless, what Abraham believed, in a loving God Who would fulfill His promises and provide protection to that end, is still the center of the Judeo-Christian religious system. 

                It’s funny when talking with atheists who like to note that there are “thousands of gods” and “which one do you choose”, since the obvious answer is: the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Who became a man in Jesus Christ to save us.

                Which brings us back to the Blessed Mother. . .  Abraham had his faith tested when God asked him to offer up Isaac, and act that was designed not for God’s knowledge, but for Abraham’s sake, to bring his faith to perfection.  (As an aside, this story was also kept alive in the mind of the Hebrews to tell them that human sacrifice was not on God’s wish list.).  Mary received word that she would conceive and bear a son, without knowledge of man.  It happened, and Jesus was born.  She was also told that her Son would have an eternal kingdom, yet on the cross, that seemed to be a lie.  She, like Abraham her father in faith, was tested, and even moreso.  The beauty of the faith of the Virgin Mary is that she continued to believe as she held the corpse of her Son in her arms at the foot of the cross.  The Annunciation is bound to the mystery of the cross as much as any other event in her life.  As Abraham continued to believe that “God Himself will provide a lamb”, so the Virgin Mary believed that the cross was not the end, but the new beginning of her Son’s eternal kingdom.

Thoughts on Our Lady of Lourdes

                While a priest may choose special readings for certain memorials and feasts, the readings that fall on today’s Feast are so Marian as to provide substance for reflection upon the meaning of this day.

                The first reading relates Solomon’s prayer after building the Temple.  Once they had completed the dedication, the Lord filled the Temple with the Cloud of His Presence, the “Shekinah”, the sign of God amidst His people.  Solomon cries out, ““Can it indeed be that God dwells on earth?
If the heavens and the highest heavens cannot contain you, how much less this temple which I have built!”  Solomon knew God was greater and beyond the confines of the heavens and the earth, and knew his efforts at providing a house for God was merely symbolic.  And yet he is struck with awe that God still makes His presence known here on earth. 

What Solomon could not even begin to grasp was the idea that God would indeed build His own house on earth, and that that house, that Temple, would be the body of the Virgin Mary.  Catholic Marian spirituality and theology has often used the Hebrew writings about the glory and stature of the Temple as references to the Virgin Mary.  What man could not establish or build in any permanent or fitting way as a place for God to live among us, even with God’s instruction and command, He Himself would do when He fashioned the body and soul of the Virgin Mary, Immaculate from the first moment of her conception.  This is the title that she gave herself when she finally told Saint Bernadette who she was.  Until this revelation, she only let Bernadette surmise who she was. 

Mysteriously, she did not say, “I was conceived Immaculate”; she said, “I am the Immaculate Conception”.  St. Maximillian Kolbe wrote extensively on this title found in the apparition. He notes that she calls herself this as a proper name.  Conception is usually considered a moment in time, the exact moment when a human being comes to be through the instrumentality of father and mother.  But Our Lady refers to herself as The Immaculate Conception, a continuing existence as it were of stainlessness and being.  Her being is derived, of course, from God the source of Being, yet she is a living being of holiness not just in one moment, but ongoing.  

And the psalm response today at Mass was also most fitting: “How lovely is your dwelling place, Lord Mighty God.” (Ps. 84:2)  As appropriate this is for the Temple of Solomon, how much more does it apply to the Virgin Mother of God.  The psalmist yearns to dwell in the House of the Lord; how much more should we hope to dwell in the love and protection of Virgin Mother of God.  Being with her for one day, one moment is worth more than all time spent in the tents of the wicked. 

Finally, in today’s Gospel reading, when Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for their legalism, He notes that they keep mere human traditions instead of fulfilling the Law of God. The one precept He notes is the fourth commandment, “Honor your father and mother.”  The Pharisees would allow someone who had dedicated their goods to God not to have to care for their parents.  Here it is noteworthy to state that the fourth commandment is not primarily for little kids, but for adults, and the respect and honor they should have for their parents who were older.  Does one think for a moment that Jesus would violate the one commandment that He uses to show true obedience to God? He prepared a place for His mother before all others. He honored her in the best way possible by granting her the greatest status in His Kingdom.

And this brings us to the Church, for what can be said about the Blessed Mother individually is also true of the Church universally.  The Virgin Mary is certainly the Mother of the Church, since she gave birth to the Church’s Head; but she is also, as Vatican 2 notes, a member of the Church, a pre-eminent member, but still a member.  It is a mysterious relationship that defies ordinary human categories, yet still expresses profound truths accessible to our minds by faith. 

The Church was conceived immaculately for she came to be via the perfect and holy sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.  She maintains that status, which is renewed constantly especially in the sacraments and the Mass most of all.  And where does the Mass take place? Within the church buildings constructed to symbolize the Universal Church, the Body of Christ.

As a final note, it is well known that Lourdes is a place of healing, with millions going there over the past 150 plus years seeking health both physical and spiritual.  Most think that the waters of the spring are where most cures take place.  In fact, most cures happen when the daily Eucharistic procession occurs.  Mary is the Immaculate Conception for sure; she, as always, points the way to her Son, Who is the source of all that is Holy and the Fount of Mercy for the afflicted. 

The Presentation of Jesus in the Temple

A few late thoughts on The Presentation...

Many years ago (over 20?), I had issues with the 4th Joyful mystery.  I couldn't quite figure out what there was to garner from this encounter of the baby Jesus in the Temple. It was one of the mysteries that didn't resonate with me.  So, I decided the best course of action would be to ask God to show me what was so special about this mystery, and why I should meditate on it. Among all the prayers that one sends up to God, those that ask for a deeper understanding of His life and truth are the most readily answered.  It's ironic that a few years before I made this prayer, I had made my consecration to the Blessed Virgin following the format of St. Louis Marie de Montfort? 

So, what have I learned from this mystery?  Much. . .

First of all, there is the obedience of Mary and Joseph to the law of Moses.  Forty days after the birth of a male child, the parents were to bring the child before the Lord and offer a lamb as a sacrifice of purification. This was a reminder of the deliverance of Israel from the Egyptians, as every first born male child was a reminder of the seminal event in the life of Israel as a nation: the Passover.  But Joseph and Mary did not offer a lamb; they offered "a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons". What?  Well, this was the concession granted to the poor, who probably could not afford a lamb, so they were allowed to purchase and offer the less costly birds as their offering.  This means that Joseph and Mary were poor. 

But what about the "purification" that was required of a new mother after the birth of her child? Blood, you see, was considered sacred and purifying, yet a person also needed some kind of purification if he or she touched blood. This is the language of sacrifice, not hygiene.  It was not because blood was "gross", but because it was "holy", and thus touching it was considered to bring one into the Holy realm.  There was need of some substitution so that one could return to the "profane" realm.  "Profane", though not a Hebrew term (Greek) means "before/outside the temple" or, not sacred.  Not that there's anything wrong with that. . .  Thus, the sacrifice of the lamb (or two turtle doves) was an offering of the blood of the animal as a substitution on behalf of the mother who had bled in giving birth to her first child.  Yet, the Virgin Mary was not stained by this ritual uncleanliness, since she remained a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus.  So, she brought obedience to a new level, much as her Son was obedient to the law of Moses though its Author.  She submitted to the ritual purification even though she was morally and spiritually pure in a way not grasped by the former Law.

Now, as to Simeon. . .   Here we have a faithful son of Israel who sums up in himself the justice and fidelity of Israel, and its longing for the Redeemer. I think of him, schooled in the law and prophets, as always hopeful of a definitive answer to that longing of Israel for God's ultimate entrance into the world to fulfill His promises.  His life was most likely one of tension, for he continued to await the fulfillment of God's promises, yet most likely experienced a level of persecution from those who did not share in his hope.  There are always those who live in the present, without thought of the meaning of the past, or the hope of the future.

And here we must not forget the working of the Holy Spirit in this event.  St. Luke mentions the Holy Spirit more than the other evangelists.  He does not disappoint in this event.  Simeon had an openness to the Holy Spirit that enabled him to see the coming of the Messiah.  Are we as open to the Holy Spirit?  Are we willing to wait for the moment when the Holy Spirit will indeed show Himself? 

And what about that prophecy Simeon made?  Such a beautiful prayer:  "Now, lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word; for mine eyes have seen thy salvation which thou hast prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to thy people Israel."  Simeon encapsulates the hope of Israel, and the promise of God that He will not only fulfill the desires of Israel, but will extend that promise to the nations.  This was a promise that came into Israel's consciousness during and after their exile in Babylon.  After the Temple had been destroyed, and the people of Judah exiled to Babylon, Israel learned that their place in the world was not just for a particular nation or tribe, but was destined to be extended to all nations.  Though this is clear in the writings of the prophets, it had been lost in memory as Israel suffered under the several persecutions following their return from exile, and the occupation by Roman legions. Yet Simeon kept this faith alive, and saw in that tiny baby a concrete sign of God's fidelity.

And what shall we make of the terrifying words of Simeon to Mary? The Cross is announced, or rather, per-announced. How strange to speak of rejection and contradiction while looking at an innocent, 40 day old baby. Or is it so strange, given the reaction of modern culture to the birth, or potential birth, of a baby? Yet, this tiny baby is said to be a sign of contradiction, a sign to be rejected.  Not much "joy" in that statement. 

And how crude of Simeon to speak a prophecy of Mary's sufferings.  I doubt a priest of today would be well received if he were to speak about a newly baptized baby as one destined to suffer and be rejected.  But what do we learn from this prophecy? We know that Mary was to share in the sufferings of her son.  Her heart would be pierced by sorrow and suffering in union with her Son.  I do not agree with modern translations that put parentheses around these words to Mary. They make it seem as if this is a parenthetical comment, whereas I think that the piercing of her heart is part and parcel of this "revelation of hearts". Mary suffers along with Jesus.  I see in these words the reality of baptized people who reject Mary (piercing her heart by ignorance and sin) and thus reveal themselves as witting or even unwitting enemies of Jesus.  To reject Mary is to reject the full reality of Jesus. 

And let us not forget Anna. I've met dozens of women like "Anna" in my life. They are either real widows, or like them. Holy women who have endured the sufferings of life, and yet have maintained their faith.  They see more than the learned of the schools and universities.  They are everywhere, and they maintain the faith of the people of God. They pass on by word, witness and penance the fundamental nature of Biblical faith: God is in charge, and will fulfill His pledge of love and salvation. 

Finally, Mary and Joseph return to a normal life in Nazareth, while Mary holds all these things in her heart. We probably know of these infancy events because Mary remembered them, and kept them in her heart.  She reflected upon these events often, and passed them on to Luke, or whoever passed them on to Luke.  This means she made these events an integral part of her own prayer life.  If she found them so fruitful, shouldn't we do the same?

Memory and Hope

                Scripture is replete with admonitions to remember what God has done. Indeed, the whole of the Bible can be called “memoirs”, in a sense, as Saint Justin Martyr referred to the Gospels.  Saint John of the Cross teaches that the theological virtue of hope perfects the memory (which he considered a separate faculty), just as faith perfects the intellect and love perfects the will. 

                The trouble is that we may have painful memories that pop into our heads, and can remain with us thus actually taking away our hope. Memory of a failed relationship can hinder us from entering into a new one.  Remembering a past difficulty that turned out badly can restrain us from trying the same kind of activity again. Pondering over an act of abuse from our past can return us to a place of weakness and rob today of its strength.  This may be one reason why the Lord inspired the Scriptures, so that we could, by reflecting upon them, store up memories of what He has done for those in trouble, so that we can draw strength from Him today.

                It is in this light that I reflect upon the 5^th Joyful mystery, the finding in the Temple. How odd that of all the things that must have happened in the hidden life of Jesus, Mary and Joseph that this event was recorded for our reflection. It is obvious that Saint Luke makes a parallel between the loss, and finding, of Jesus to the three days leading up to the resurrection. It is significant that Jesus remained in Jerusalem at the time of the Passover. I am sure that each time they went to the Holy City He was thinking of His coming mission of preaching, dying and rising again. (And, yes, I am convinced that He knew what was to take place in His future earthly life.) 

                And maybe the rest of His earthly life in the home of Joseph and Mary was simply quite ordinary, and nothing spectacular happened.  That in itself is “revelation”, for everyone has a more or less ordinary life, day to day things that were as common for the Holy Family as they are for us. They worked and prayed, had friends and family around, celebrated their faith and interacted with their community.  All of this in an atmosphere of grace.

                Yet for some reason, Mary told Luke this story of the loss and finding in the Temple, and he chose to include it in his Gospel.  It stuck in her mind all those years.  This means that she really did “keep it in her heart”, and reflected upon it.  It is one of those moments that she found, not odd, but mysterious, in the Biblical sense of the word.  There is no indication that Jesus ever took her aside and said, “Hey, mom, remember when you thought I was lost, and you found me in the Temple?  Well, this is the reason why.”  He spoke a word to her that day when He was twelve, and never explained what it meant. 

                Until Calvary.  The Virgin Mary, as with us, had to live a life of faith.  Her faith was greater than that of the rest of us combined.  Yet it was not vision until she was taken to heaven. God did not explain everything to her, as He does not explain everything to us, at least not as we might like or grasp at the time.  As she watched Him die on the cross, and then be buried, she would have certainly been considering her life with Him: the circumstances of His conception; His birth; their early trials, and the words of Simeon especially.  She also knew His teaching, that He would rise on the third day after being crucified. It is my considered opinion, dare I say, that her mind went back to that event 21 or so years before. 

                There is no evidence that she went to the tomb on Easter morning.  Why should she? As her Son told her, “Why were you looking for Me? Did you not know I had to be about my Father’s business?”  That gentle, shall we say, rebuke, so mysterious, so seemingly out of character, was preparation for her so that she could face those days of darkness until the dawn of Easter.  She remembered her panic, sorrow and concern for her pre-teen child, and the calm way He replied to that worry and sorrow.  “I must be about my Father’s business.”  She found Him back then, and she would see Him again.

                Now that is all well and good for her, but what does it do for us, aside from perhaps gaining a new insight into that fifth joyful mystery, and its connection to the fifth sorrowful one?  God can do new things, and often does. Yet there is a way in which He is predictable, or rather, He follows the patterns that match His own Being and Nature.  He also made us a certain way, and still responds to the people of today as He guided and responded to the people of the Scriptures, including Our Lady. If this were not the case, then reading the Bible would only be a quaint exercise of perusing an ancient text, and not an encounter with the living and effective Word of God.

                When faced with a troubling event of today, it is entirely possible that the Lord spoke a word to us in the past that contains an answer for us now.  Something that was troubling in our past life that led to some sort of God-inspired resolution can contain the seed of the answer we need in this moment. Even events that still carry with them a twinge of remorse, regret, or even deep pain, may in fact hold a word of comfort that at the time made no sense, but answers a question we have about today’s current difficulty.

                It isn’t that we should bring up painful memories for the sake of bringing them up.  But in the face of a painful situation today, it may be of use to us think back and consider if we’ve experienced something even years ago that was similar, but worked its way through, even if incompletely in our minds. God was faithful in the past; He is faithful today.  He will be faithful tomorrow.  For Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever.