“This Is My Body”

This article appeared in the April 15, 2021 issue of the AD Times, the newspaper of the Diocese of Allentown. Read more about our diocesan goings-on at allentowndiocese.org and ad-today.com.

Bishop Schlert has declared this a diocesan “Year of the Real Presence”: a motive for exceeding gratitude. We note meanwhile the real absence of so many, before and since the onset of the global pandemic. We beg the Lord for the grandest possible reunion this side of eternity, where and while we still happen to be.

Recall how, before Judas handed Jesus over, Jesus pre-emptively handed Himself over, saying “This is My Body” (Mark 14:22). This phrase seems to epitomize the spirt of this special year and just about everything there is to being Catholic.

The immediate and crucial context of the statement was, of course, Eucharistic: the bread and wine of Passover became a New Meal, sealed in the love-offering of the God-Man on the Cross. Jesus never offered a more literal declaration. Grammarians call “is” the copulative verb, because it joins subject and predicate. Bread and wine do not “represent,” “symbolize” or “suggest” His Presence-made-palatable to us: they are He.

Our Lord could utter those words on the night before He died because His mother Mary had lovingly consented to the angel’s invitation to bring Him into the world. In every human respect Our Lady was the first to say, “This is my body,” when she offered herself body and soul to the Holy Spirit’s creative action.

From the streets of Caesarea Philippi to the halls of heaven, Jesus has looked out upon this ragtag bunch and declared, “This is my body”: My Mystical Body, the Church. Since the apostles’ time, fellow disciples and leaders sometimes bewilder, yet what’s more a marvel? The Incarnation still alights upon our altars, pulpits and confessionals, and in every place where prayers, works, joys, and sufferings transform the world and pierce the clouds.

Then there is the furnace of the Christian vocation, considered precisely in the ways spouses, priests and consecrated religious “offer [their] bodies as a spiritual sacrifice”(Romans 12:1). Every well-lived example can say to its counterpart, “This is my body,” when, for example, spouses give themselves without reservation in the one-flesh union of sex, or when a priest attends to the sick and dying.

At the Consecration of the Precious Blood, sometimes I will look up at the chalice, see my reflection and then look down to the faithful. That intimate moment prompts a prophecy cited in the New Testament: “Here I am, and the children God has given me” (Isaiah 8:18; cf. Hebrews 2:13). I cannot be any closer to you, for this is my body – Christ’s Body – distinct from yet united to me.

Sounds romantic, but it must translate into daily life.

It’s easy to become a “bachelor who plays God.” Husbands and wives also can collapse into such a cavalier condition. The sexual realm is not the only possible domain of human degradation, but it’s the one that hurts the most. There’s no comfortable compromise: either a body is “given up for,” or it is not.

Our bodies, given up, convey love with exquisite splendor. Witness Catholic participation in education and healthcare; behold the beauty of our sacred music and architecture. Faithful, lifelong, heroic commitments compel like any well-articulated doctrine.

The Holy Eucharist, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Apostolic Succession, the interiority of the spousal embrace, and the lived exteriority of beauty, goodness, and truth: this is Real Presence that can unite us as God intends.

Time for a Podcast

I started this blog some years ago as a place to inspire, inform, and entertain. Its name, "The Shipwrack-Harvest," is a reference from Gerard Manley Hopkins' ode "The Wreck of the Deutschland."

In the worst of this 1875 disaster, five nuns exiled for their Catholic faith started crying out for Christ to come quickly to their rescue, whether as transport-to-shore or death. Hopkins wondered whether the nuns' plea could serve as an intercession for souls to return to Christ.

is the shipwrack then a harvest, does tempest carry the grain for thee? 

Incidentally that's why this blog is spelled ship"wrAck" and not "wrEck." Maybe they spelled it that way years ago. We used to hear the phrase "to rack and to ruin," so maybe there's a connection.

This past week has witnessed articles concerning problems with Catholic priests' failures in chastity (sex only within marriage). The celibate vocation is for the Latin rite the typical condition to be ordained a priest. The celibate person (priest or not) witnesses to the primacy of everyone's relationship with God over spousal relations, however good and necessary they are to the Kingdom.

Hopkins had struggles with his creed, his family loyalties, his emotions--even, it seems, with his sexuality. His poems were sallies in a well-waged spiritual campaign.

In "The Shipwrack-Harvest Podcast," I wish to narrate these poetic forays so their sacredness and whimsy can "fling out broad [the] name" of Gerard Manley Hopkins, and I hope you can join me.

Available on Anchor.fm:
https://anchor.fm/shipwrack-harvest

My podcast RSS feed:
https://anchor.fm/s/9577d18/podcast/rss

Rabbit? Run!

The latest papal obiter dictum (read: leaving on a jet plane) concerned his contention that good Catholics do not have to "be...like rabbits" when it comes to family size.

It may be accurate, though picayune, to insist that Pope Francis did not say, *breed* like rabbits, as the phrase typically is attested. Be...breed...whatever.

This post of Dr. Gregory Popčak is informative, especially his reference to paragraph 50 of the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes.

One segment of the citation clears up this breeding problem (emphases mine):

...in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church’s teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel.

Before reading the Popčak piece, I recalled a phrase that I picked up at some point in the seminary: humano modo. Context? Glad you asked:

Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion [humano modo] a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh. {source}

A "human manner"--a manner suitable to free and rational creatures who are "now called children of God, for that is what we are" (1 Jn 3:1). A human manner presumes a total investment of self that is permanent, exclusive, and open to new life. A human manner is not "arbitrary" and casual, fit for public display and risible observation.

Can rabbits marry each other--or dogs, cats, gerbils, or even the most intelligent orangutans? Does a total investment of self that is permanent, exclusive, and open to new life ("openness" being a uniquely human possibility) even occur to rabbits, or any of the other animals? The sexual expression of rabbits and other animals is instinctual, not free and rational.

Now maybe scientists and others have observed in animals some approximation to human love. Every concern for the other as other certainly participates in, derives from, divine love--and cannot  otherwise exist. But we are not animals; and Pope Francis is reminding us that the Catholic Church wants responsible parents who must decide wisely and generously how they will cooperate with God's gift of generation. Indiscriminate copulation, devoid of devotion, will not suffice.

Maybe I'm a "speciesist" by insisting that, however tender we may deem it to be, the procreation and rearing of animals is different from human love both in degree and in kind. Maybe my take doesn't catch the spirit of the Holy Father's words any more than the rereading by any author in the mainstream media (or even this article), but I offer it nonetheless.

Daring Conversation on the Delicate Condition

My friend Fr. Joseph Faulkner was a couple of years behind me at Saint Charles Seminary. The title of his blog, "Father Talks Too Fast," cleverly and self-effacingly points to the cadence of his homilies. Although fast talking was not among my recollections of him from seminary days, intelligence and wit certainly were.

His diocesan bishop, the Most Rev. James D. Conley of Lincoln, recently published a pastoral letter on contraception (available here). While people might not expect a Catholic cleric to speak about the topic in an encouraging and compassionate manner--if at all!--Bishop Conley does. He exhorts married couples to be open to life. Alongside fidelity, permanence, exclusivity, and totality of investment of self, openness to life is a constitutive dimension of the Sacrament of Matrimony. When any of these dimensions is absent and the offending spouses do not repent, marriages tend to fail, if they happen at all. Thanks to the chemical, mechanical, or otherwise intentional separation of babies from bonding, the sexual expression ideally reserved for sacramental marriage happens more easily outside of sacramental marriage. Even in a sacramental marriage, contraceptive sex is a reservation of self contrary to the covenant context that demands "all of me."

Father Faulkner has published (and I include here) the recent homily that develops his Ordinary's viewpoint. He provides insightful background to the current landscape, detailing not only the widespread abandonment of the established teaching among non-Catholic denominations, but also the provenance of Pope Paul VI's watershed encyclical Humanae Vitae, in which the Holy Father courageously reaffirmed Church teaching against the suggestion of most of his chosen advisors. Father also discusses the effects of contraception on marriages--on the erosion of trust and sacrifice and every other aspect of Christian Love.

Various preachers around the country have begun once again to promote an integrated vision and practice of marital love. Fear undoubtedly inhibits some preachers, but at this point we may wonder what more there is to lose by keeping silent.

Human respect is one of the last strongholds. No priest or deacon longs to hear the usual barrage:

"Where do celibates get off preaching about such things, when some of them can't keep themselves in check?"

"How do they know what it's like to try to raise children? Maybe they'd change their tune if they tried just for a day."

"They don't know all the situations that have led me/us to my/our decision. How dare they judge?"

There are other objections, too. I won't answer any of them here. It's enough for me to wonder how the Catholic Church could possibly maintain her comprehensive reverence for human life for so long, amid so many objections, if the Church herself weren't true and her teachings weren't true. I don't propose that thought as a solid, discussion-ending argument, but it ends the discussion for me. From there I can listen with an open mind and heart to good presentations such as Fr. Faulkner's, or from Dr. Janet Smith, or others.

I wonder aloud whether the contraceptive tendency betrays a lack of gratitude, if not latent disdain, for the gift of our own existence. In any case, fear lies at the root of directly-willed infertility; and "perfect love casts out all fear" (1 Jn 4:18).

By month's end, the Church will be canonizing Popes John XXIII and John Paul II. The latter was a fearless force behind Humanae Vitae. In the early 1980s, John Paul developed his "Theology of the Body" out of earlier reflections that had supported his predecessor's 1968 encyclical. An entire generation of priests and religious, the present blogger included, has claimed JPII as a chief inspiration behind their calling. Without having sired a child, Pope Wojtyła has given birth to thousands of vibrant Catholics. His successors continue, in their own ways, to breathe new life into the dry bones of this post-Christian century.

I have great respect for Catholics and other people of good will who "struggle" with the Church's teaching, if by "struggle" they mean "try to understand and live it, who occasionally or often fail, but repent and try again." As for those who do not "struggle" by the above definition--those who reject it or casually ignore it, or who might even be unaware of it--I desire their salvation and every other blessing I would desire for myself. Foremost among those blessings are knowledge and love for the truth. If I were a married man, or a permanently or provisionally unmarried man, I would also "struggle," by the above definition. I'd hope, however, that my wife and I, or prospective wife and I, would want to do everything possible to live according to the Church teaching.

In the upcoming Bishops' Synod on the Family in 2015, we can be assured that openness to life within the marital embrace will continue to be a matter for conversation. I do not know the exhaustive list of synodal topics, but I would venture to include the increased divorce rate, the decrease in children, the increase in artificial means of conception (as well as contraception), and the increasing legitimization of same-sex marriage. Like the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, these issues are synoptic (i.e. they can be considered side by side and are "related" to each other).

Following Pope Francis' example, we begin always with the basic Gospel: Jesus Christ has saved us! In light of that message we then can talk about controversial matters. Catholic clergy can relate the motives and benefits of ongoing openness to life; joyful Catholic couples can share their struggles (trials and triumphs) in the practical realm. But it will require boldness, both in terms of the willingness to face objections and the willingness to field questions. Like the Greeks who gathered to hear Paul at the Areopagus (cf. Acts 17), people may want to hear more about this Good News, and as they accept it they slowly will attempt to live it. The Church's compassion (manifested most clearly in the Sacrament of Penance) can bolster those who find themselves unable and unwilling to walk this challenging way.

Of Hamburger and Filet Mignon

A recent RCIA subject was the Sacrament of Marriage.  While I was the presenter ("A bald-headed barber can cut hair," said a venerable deceased priest of our diocese), there are two Catholic couples who have joined us this year for a refresher course.   I could rely upon them for insights into authentic Catholic marriage, for refutation or support.

On the whiteboard I wrote down Canon 1055.1 as the point of departure:

The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

I hardly began to unpack that rich definition before a vibrant discussion ensued.  Looking back, I think the catalyst was an early digression on the distinction between celibate (properly defined as "non-marriage") and chaste (sexuality expressed appropriately in one's "state in life," whether married or not).  I do this to myself.  

Former high school students can recall how class discussions often went (imagine the last glug glug glug of the toilet bowl), but we have something greater than high schoolers here.  The average age of the group is, give or take a couple of years, 40.  By this point our good people have had some experience in the gamut of human relationships, certainly once as children, but now as co-workers, spouses, and parents.  They can testify to the blessings of marriage amid some considerable wounds.

By evening's end we basically treated the subject, though not without diversions aplenty.  "We will revisit this topic next week"...and perhaps a few more times, because the marital analogy pervades Catholic theology.  As we adjourned one candidate noted, "When it came to everything else we've learned so far, it was easier to just accept what was being discussed.  But when it came to marriage..."  Yes--marriage and family life are one big fat sensitive nerve that runs through the person and society.  It is akin to the "Bread of Life Discourse" (cf. Jn 6) in terms of its effects on the confounded crowd.   It is the foremost point of departure between All-In Catholics and Cafeteria Catholics.

"Lord, to whom shall we go? The Kardashians aren't even around yet!"

As much as I trembled at the sound of contention, in my heart I rejoiced.  There is no other way for understanding and healing to begin, except in the encounter of truth, undertaken in an atmosphere of brutal honesty and tender acceptance.  "The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off" (Gloria Steinem, whom I never ever expected to quote in a post on the Catholic vision of human sexuality).

+ + + + +

A priest I know likes to say, "Why settle for hamburger when you can have Filet Mignon?"  This, chiefly, in regard to Filet Mignon; but also--and, I believe, more pointedly--with respect to the Catholic Church, which still, even in Vatican II, claims to be blessed with the fullness of the means of salvation.

Matthew 25:21

Catholic speakers on the topic of human sexuality (the likes of Christopher West come to mind) might find this metaphor "meat and just" for their purposes.  The contraceptive mentality, whether it is expressed as concubinage, same-sex relations, ipsation (from the Latin ipse, "self"), or the restriction of fertility for egregiously selfish motives, is, no matter how you garnish it, hamburger.

Actually, it is hamburger laced with "mad cow disease": vitiated, unable to fulfill its intended purpose.

For many people sexual activity has no other purpose than to satisfy partners who mutually engage in it, in whatever manner suits them.  The Catholic Church maintains both a proper purpose and a proper manner for sexual expression.  Unlike many of our Protestant brethren--and to the consternation of some Catholics--the Church will neither retract nor qualify this positive Word on the One-Flesh Union.

I constantly witness the noxious effects of self-spoiled sexuality on many penitents and their families.  And Confession isn't the only forum that people don't tend to visit while on a winning streak!  (Whining, maybe.)

We are talking about the deliberate, mechanical and/or chemical separation of the procreative and the unitive purposes of the sexual act.  (I was about to call it the "marital" act, as it once was known; but why must we call it "marital," or why limit its use to that context?)  Last year a secular publication ably described the consequences of the great divorce of openness to new life and reinforcement of the nuptial bond.  Various writers, including a blogger from the Fellowship of Catholic University Students (FOCUS), have repeated John Paul II's famous verity: The problem of pornography is not that it shows too much, but that it shows too little.

Everyone has composed his or her own variations of this danse macabre, whether from a more theoretical standpoint or from their own painful experiences.

God knows that people who have made or are preparing to make the solemn promise of chaste celibacy share concupiscence with the laity.  We have our own ill-set, including misplaced resentment and indulgence in "more socially acceptable" vices.  Moreover, our overt violations of commandments six and nine have garnered much publicity in recent years, proving old and prompting new speculation on covert violations.

I may be sounding like a critic of my own kind here, but it's more of an anticipatory volley against expected objections; besides, through working with others I've gotten to recognize and address many things over the years--a lifelong endeavor that gives much joy and saves much trouble.  There's no harm in preemptive honesty that is both accurate and charitable, made by one who knows and who wants to be part of the solution instead of the precipitate!

+ + + + +

With any "adult" audience, inside or outside of the liturgy, I cannot presume that they have heard it all before, or heard it right.  Fulton Sheen, I believe, said that people often hate not the Catholic Church as she really is, but what they suppose the Catholic Church to be.  Even so, they may very well understand what she teaches with regard to certain matters--sexual or otherwise--but their system just isn't accustomed to filet mignon.

Nowadays, whether I'm talking to the 4th graders or to 40 year olds in RCIA, I am plugging character formation--the gentle and determined subjection of the passions to the intellect and will.  "Emotions make an excellent servant, but a poor master."  I try to be consistent with this because, I figure, it's always appropriate to exhort my brothers and sisters in Christ to become more conscious of God's presence in their daily choices.  And I never hesitate to remind them that I am speaking as if to a mirror.

THIS is the Real Thing

Thanks to a reader for this link, "The Chalice, the Pepsi Can, and Sexuality."

(I forgot that I can embed the video:)

"Nobody will choose their proper vocation if they do not see themselves as sacred."
"What do You want of me, if this is how You created me?"

This realization of self as precious-because-made-in-God's-image was not fully present in me when I was ordained, nor was it fully present when I applied to the seminary.  It remains an area for continued growth.

Underlying one will find a tendency to extreme thinking: "If I do not accept this proposition 100%, I am not accepting it at all, and therefore am unfit for a vocation."  A rather high bar to set for my oneself, don't you think?

How many current spouses (that's a vocation, yo) can say that they had accepted themselves as God's Image by the time they got to the altar?

How many people's struggles in this regard manifest themselves as so many different attachments: alcohol, food, sex, spending, work, _______?

How many persons find a way to the altar (as spouses, religious, or priests) with some sort of attachment?  Perhaps they deny it, or are not yet able to see it; perhaps their spouse is in the same position--either seeing or ignoring--yet chooses them anyhow!

Faith is saying, "I can't see it, but You claim to have created me in Your Image, to have thought enough of me to suffer and die for me; so, OK.  Have it Your Way" and then Faith is living with that acceptance in the forefront--wherever it takes you.

A life of faith is an effervescent life.