• Wisdom 9:13-18. If we can scarcely guess about earthly things, how can we ever know heavenly secrets? God sends the Holy Spirit to make known our paths on earth.
• Philemon 9-10, 12-17. In returning the runaway slave Onesimus to his owner Philemon, Paul asks the latter to receive the slave as a beloved brother.
• Luke 14: 25-33. We are to renounce all our possessions to be a disciple of Christ, even our father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes our very self.

Thoughts for Your Reflection: by John Gonzalez

This week Scripture challenges us to rethink our relationships. The Gospel passage is one of the most challenging verses we hear from Jesus. If we take them literally then we are forced to turn against the very fabric of our social nature. What culture has not accepted the primacy of the family unit? And yet here we have Jesus debasing that very unit as he offers his steep terms for discipleship.

This passage is not meant to be taken literally. In other passages Jesus defends the commandment to honor father and mother [Mark 7:10-13] and if we are expected to apply his great commandment to love one another then the act of hating father, mother, wife and children would severely compromise this principal mandate. What Jesus does here though is to give us a powerful impression of the great cost and sacrifice that is discipleship and the effects this will have on all our relationships. The object of our hate is not our family or any other member of the human community. Instead it is our own pride, our own passions and desires; our own self-interest becomes the object of our contempt. We are called to carry the Cross and to sacrifice our own will towards a Divine Will that will redefine us completely. This was the path of “mystical death” that was prescribed by St. Paul of the Cross, The Passionist founder. Our journey is to embrace the death of our will and passions and to accept a “divine rebirth” into a holy life whereby all that we do and all that we are to one another is redefined for a great and common good that is not our own. 

For St. Paul of the Cross this mystical process was a journey of a lifetime. We slowly shed a layer of our own will and passions one at a time and become reborn through phases. Jesus is also suggesting that this radical call to discipleship is one that should not happen in an instant. In the Gospel Jesus offers to examples of how the call to discipleship ought to be done with deliberative assessment, using the image of deliberate planning that goes into constructing a tower or conducting a military operation. Thus the first reading reminds us of the place of Wisdom within this spiritual process. We are reminded again about the virtue of humility as we accept a greater Wisdom that again is not our own.

The author of the book of Wisdom reminds us that we are limited and corrupted through our humanity so if we are to seek the things that are in heaven we must give ourselves over the Creator through whom authentic wisdom is granted. We are called to be contemplative. We have access to this Wisdom but we do not always discern it well since our self-interest and desires can get in the way. So we must constantly discern the true wisdom that is different from the “wisdom of the world.”

In discerning the Wisdom of God Paul sees his own human relationships in a different light. Since we are all children of God then we must begin to see each other with the sacred dignity that we all share. Paul urges Philemon to reevaluate his relationship with the slave Onesimus and to see him “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother, beloved especially to me, but more so to you, as a man and in the Lord.” In social matters such as with the institution of slavery Paul is telling Philemon that some social relationships are unacceptable because they contradict the essence of relationship that comes from true Wisdom. But Paul also knows that he cannot impose this on Philemon since he also respects the dignity and freedom that Philemon enjoys. So he requests that Philemon reevaluate his relationship with Onesimus not by giving him a command but by urging him to freely alter this relationship. “I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that the good you do might not be forced but voluntary.” Following the Wisdom of the most high will alter all our social relationships and institutions but if we, like St. Paul, are encouraged to bring people towards this new form of relationship freely then we must be patient with this process. Forcing people to change will not bring an authentic conversion.   

Wisdom, humility and patience are three virtues that are impressed on us this weekend. As we review the political rhetoric regarding the social issues we face we need to see how they reflect a Wisdom that captures the vision for the common good, a humility of not promoting a self-interested agenda, and a patience for gently bringing the community towards this vision. Here are the steps for an authentic process for just and lasting change.

1. Sirach 3:17-18, 20, 28-29.  A humble person finds favor with God and will be endowed with wisdom and the love of loyal friends.
2. Hebrews 12:18-19, 22-24. You have drawn near the heavenly Jerusalem, to the assembly of the firstborn, to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant.
3. Luke 14:1, 7-14. By means of a parable about seats of honor at a banquet Jesus shows that those who exalt themselves shall be humbled and those who humble themselves shall be exalted.

Thoughts for your Consideration: By Fr. Phil Paxton, CP

In today’s Gospel reading from Luke, Jesus observes people choosing where they would sit at a banquet, and uses the opportunity to teach them about humility: “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” I believe that if we looked at our own lives, we could testify to the truth of Jesus’ statement from our own experience.

And our own experience tells us that it is God who does the exalting, and it is God who does the humbling. Sometimes we try to be in charge of the process. There are times when we may calculate that if we humble ourselves we will be exalted. But if we try to do that, we are still trying to exalt ourselves. Sometimes there are others who want to do the humbling, but that is usually done out of malice or envy, and it does not work, either.

What can help us come to an attitude of true humility? Turning to Jesus. Jesus says to the host who invited Him, “When you hold a lunch or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or your wealthy neighbors, in case they may invite you back and you have repayment. Rather, when you hold a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind; blessed indeed will you be because of their inability to repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” If we were to consider these words in terms of the heavenly banquet, or in the context of the Mass, could we not see that Jesus practices what He preaches? Has not Jesus invited us, even when we have been poor, or crippled by anxiety or fear, or made lame by grief and sorrow, or even blinded by resentment or selfishness? Has not Jesus sacrificed Himself for us, without any expectation, or even possibility, of repayment? Does not Jesus constantly call us, even when we are in sin, to Himself?

When we reflect on how Jesus humbled Himself out of love for us, our only response can be humility. There can be no pretending to be better than or more important than someone else. We are all in need of God’s grace and love in Jesus Christ! As we are humble before the love of God, so are we to be humble with each other. An attitude of humility doesn’t allow for prejudice or discrimination. No person or group of persons can set themselves up as being superior or more deserving of life’s benefits than others. We cannot withhold opportunities from others based simply on the fact that they are different from us!

What if we were to take Jesus’ statement to His host into all aspects of our life, not just as individuals, but as a society? What if “the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind” were invited to the table where decisions were made? I remember seeing a special on LBJ’s “Great Society” programs of the late sixties. One intriguing aspect of the War on Poverty was the principle of “maximum possible participation of the poor.” Even when we are committed to working for social justice, we can be patronizing if we do not listen to the people for whom we’re trying to advocate. Being humble often leads us into different ways of doing things and relating to others!    I have found that humility is one of the best antidotes to prejudice. If I am humble enough to recognize that I can learn from those who are different, whatever might have been the basis for my prejudice falls away.

May God continue to bless us all, and may we be humble before Him.

Every parent wrestles with this in some form or fashion, realizing that a family unit not adequately caring for itself can be burdensome to society at large, while, at the same time, aware that a family too closed in on itself and its own welfare not only isolates itself from advantages accruing from closer attentiveness to the needs of society at large, but also deprives society of contributions it can provide.

This dilemma affects the choice of relationships allowed children, whether with neighbors or with classmates, and also the selection of a neighborhood in which to raise one’s family, with its school system and parish church.

The impact of connectedness, or lack thereof, also affects the extended family, frequently impacted, in this day and age, by the sometimes frequent geographical moves that a family makes, often to distant places, and this can either turn a family’s focus in on itself, or it can induce an openness to its new surroundings and relationships. The saying of Jesus to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Mk 12.31) heightens the complexity of this issue by placing love of others and love of self on the same level, by equating love of self and others.

When the U.N. pronounced May 15^th of each year to be International Family Day, it recognized the vital connection between the well-being of family life, and of a thriving society. A society that has not been enriched by vibrant families will be needy. The phenomenon of massive migrations of families, across the globe, illustrates people unable to meet their needs, seeking better conditions elsewhere. The root cause of this problem can be either their inability to provide adequately for themselves, or the failure of society to help them, possibly because support is lacking from those capable of providing it. 

Whom does one take care of? Is the family to nurture itself, or society at large, or both? This same issue resonates with a long-standing debate in American society on states’ rights vs. prerogatives of the federal government. This disagreement reflects the same dynamics operative in the discussion about how best to raise a family: by focusing on its own well-being to the extent possible, thereby relieving society at large from the responsibility of caring for it, or by alerting it to caring for the surrounding society on the score that a strong set of social institutions works to the family’s own advantage. When some argue that all politics is local (states’ rights), they mean that only those on the scene can best know and provide for the needs and benefits of those at home. On the other hand, there are those who argue that balkanizing the body politic into discrete units, with each looking to its own needs and benefits, is harmful even to these smaller segments precisely because oblivious of the whole, and they suggest that the individual family best serves its own interests when it engages in linkages and connections to others (federal government).

Our analysis so far tells us that we are looking for a unifying principle between being responsible for your own local unit and community while forming the family consciousness and behavior with regards to a global and deeply interrelated society. The Church consistently teaches us that the family is the basic unit of society and this teaching is not subject to change. The way the church understands this concept however is evolving, consider Pope Benedict XVI’s 2008 World Day of Peace message. In the first six paragraphs he extols this teaching that indeed the family is still the basic unit of society and must be protected as such. But from paragraph 6 on Pope Benedict XVI redefines the family unit within a more interrelated global reality.

The social community, if it is to live in peace, is also called to draw inspiration from the values on which the family community is based. This is as true for local communities as it is for national communities; it is also true for the international community itself, for the human family which dwells in that common house which is the earth. Here, however, we cannot forget that the family comes into being from the responsible and definitive “yes” of a man and a women, and it continues to live from the conscious “yes” of the children who gradually join it. The family community, in order to prosper, needs the generous consent of all its members. This realization also needs to become a shared conviction on the part of all those called to form the common human family. We need to say our own “yes” to this vocation which God has inscribed in our very nature. We do not live alongside one another purely by chance; all of us are progressing along a common path as men and women, and thus as brothers and sisters. Consequently, it is essential that we should all be committed to living our lives in an attitude of responsibility before God, acknowledging him as the deepest source of our own existence and that of others. By going back to this supreme principle we are able to perceive the unconditional worth of each human being, and thus to lay the premises for building a humanity at peace. Without this transcendent foundation society is a mere aggregation of neighbours, not a community of brothers and sisters called to form one great family.

A Passionist concern:

Within the various aspects of Passionist ministries and service we often find ourselves engaging with families. Whether it is in the parishes, retreat houses, schools, missions or any one of our social missions, we almost always find ourselves at the service of the family unit. The family, like our own community, is feeling the pressures of a changing world. Whether they are conscience of it or not they are addressing issues that relate to an emerging cosmology and at minimum they can identify aspects of globalization that is making an impact on the family unit. Consider for example some of the frustration and disconnect that an older generation has with their adult children whose lifestyles and values seem markedly different then their own. Consider also the young married couple that is entering a lifestyle of commitment and self-sacrifice in the midst of a globalized society of massive interrelationships. It becomes our responsibility to offer the family unit a perspective of hope, understanding and possibly some tools or resources that will help their community integrate within this all encompassing phenomenon.  

The family is both self-sufficient and interdependent. It cannot meet all its needs. But if it is too dependent on others, it will find that the available common goods do not always meet its particular needs. By doing for itself what it can, it avoids becoming a drain on public resources. By reaching out to society in solidarity, with others, to provide common goods, it helps form a social bonding with others that meet both its own needs, and the needs of all others. The Passionist JPIC Office and the Passionist Earth and Spirit Center are developing tools and resources to help families integrate this both/and reality. Through methodologies of Christian simple living and sustainable practices like the Lent 4.5 Program of the Passionist Earth and Spirit Center and the “Live Simply so Others May Simply Live” retreat of the Passionist JPIC Office Families can learn how to value their own time together as a safe and protected social unit while growing into a deeper conscience of global solidarity. The mantra that we offer the family is the same that is being said all over the world: Think Globally, Act Locally.  

Finally let us also address the primary issue that we will face if we have not done so already with regards to the family: The issue of identity. The emerging social order is at present giving us a crisis of identity. This is a natural crisis that always accompanies major sociological and cosmological shifts. Our own community is in the midst of this crisis as we try to comprehend the place of our charism, spirituality and community within this globalized reality. We will notice that Catholic families are also being stretched in their identity. The older generation will not know how to cope or relate with a younger generation that is far more technological and interconnected then they ever were. The younger married couples are going to struggle with how they are to identify their own roles while respecting the other members of their intimate family community. Some young men for example will attempt to impose a familiar family male role only to find that their spouse has other hopes and expectations. In many ways our task again will be to listen and to walk with the members of the family that try to comprehend their role and identity within this new reality. But we must also be able to offer guidance, encouragement and a perspective of patience and understanding as they journey on this difficult transition.      

Our Passionist spirituality offers a powerful perspective for the crisis of identity. To begin with we offer an ethic of compassion. The family unit, as with the rest of society, is going through a massive transition and this will require the members of the family to be patient and understanding of the journey that they and their family members are taking. Compassion is the principle by which we endure and share in the suffering of others based on the fact that they do not walk it alone. We are all together on this journey and by sharing our own difficult transition into this emerging reality we become a suffering companion to them. By placing their own crisis within a larger social framework we offer them the ability to see God’s work in all this. Our other great gift of course becomes the spirituality of mystical transition that is at the heart of our own Passionist charism. We are dying to new life. That is the Passionist principle that Fr. Thomas Berry used to offer a spiritual perspective to the massive cosmological transition that we are facing. Within the context of globalization we can also use this principle to help see that God’s hand in this. Individually, socially, we are at the foot of the Cross wondering where all this is headed. This is an opportunity for families, as it is for us, to reflect on the core values and message of our faith and to creatively reintegrate them into the emerging family dynamic.

• Isaiah 66:18-21. Distant foreigners will not only be converted to the Lord but they will even be chosen as priests and levites.
• Hebrews 12:5-7, 11-13. God disciplines us by trials, at first a source of grief, later of joy. Parents discipline the children they love.
• Luke 13:22-30. Enter by narrow gate. People will come from distant corners of the earth to feast at the kingdom of God. The last will be first, the first will be last.

Thoughts for your Reflection: By John Gonzalez

This Sunday’s lectionary readings give us two related challenges. The first challenge is to our attitude of self-righteousness. Many of us, including this author, can identify many moments where we are so sure of our own moral positions and religious tenets that we consciously or unconsciously form judgments on the moral and religious perspectives of others. Our Christian scripture warns us consistently against the sins of self-righteousness and the resulting sin of casting judgment. It is a message that bears repetition because our human condition, regardless of creed, will move us to be inclined to control our religious perspective with a false sense of understanding. The second challenge tells us that foreigners and outsiders will not only share in the Kingdom of God but they will often times show us the correct path especially when we are blinded by our own false sense of righteousness and social complacency.

There is a fine line that is being walked throughout scripture and we must continuously struggle with this. Scripture offers us a spiritual reality centered on a divine relationship. Based on this metaphysics scripture also gathers a moral teaching to guide us in developing this divine relationship which we humans share not only with God but also with each other. Jesus is a teacher of the law and he follows the prophetic tradition of those like Isaiah. But Jesus and Isaiah are teaching about divine mysteries. Our limited human understanding cannot hope to fully comprehend the divine mysteries so Jesus reverts to teaching in the form of parables so that we learn by way of analogy what we cannot hope to fully comprehend by reason alone. The fine line is that Jesus and the prophets teach about a spiritual reality accompanied by a moral framework, but they also warn us against self-righteousness and uncharitable judgment since we must also be open to the universal mystery that is beyond our human experience and understanding.  

In the Gospel reading Jesus is tackling the self-righteous by repeating the mantra “some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.” People will be waiting by the narrow gate assuming that they will be privileged to enter because they “ate and drank in your company and you taught in our street.” But Jesus will tell them “I do not know where you are from.” This challenges us not to be complacent. Just because we are part of a Christian community and we attend Mass and Church services does not give us an automatic green light to pass through “the narrow door.” A share in the divine union is not gained because of who we are but because of what we do. It is when we are humble and at the service of one another that we gain access towards a fuller and more meaningful life.

In the second reading Paul identifies our suffering as a path towards redemption.  It is part of the human condition that when we are comfortable and at peace that we tend to have a false sense of control and security. We no longer become appreciative of our blessings but instead we begin to think that we alone are responsible for our fortune.  It is when we lose everything however and when we feel at our lowest that we again are reminded of the blessings that come from outside of us. That is why Jesus and Isaiah refer to the foreigners and outsiders in this week’s reading as heralds of the divine vision. Through their marginal perspective and painful experience we will be able to humbly appreciate the struggles and blessings that we take for granted and the social programs that serve us all.

Isaiah and Jesus celebrate foreigners and outsiders in their participation with the Kingdom of God. The second challenge that we are offered is to look towards them and their valuable perspective regarding how we should discern the divine vision, independent of our own social status or dominance. The social program that many of us in the United States take for granted came through a righteous struggle that many of our immigrant descendants fought for. This includes social security, education, unions and a variety of labor laws. But now many of us take it for granted and we look down upon the new immigrants whom we feel do not deserve these same rights and benefits. The social program that had been put into place in the 30’s through the 70’s were hard fought victories of a social vision that was based on Christian values and developed after a difficult period of national suffering during the early half of the 20^th century.

We have forgotten this period of national pain and now these same social programs have lost any value to us. We ought to listen to the value and perspective of the foreigner and outsider in our midst with regard to a renewed national agenda in light of the contemporary suffering that we are facing, but instead we further marginalize them and create conspiracy theories regarding the new immigrant population and their “anchor” or “terror” babies. We have become so self-righteous with our own Judeo-Christian and national identities that we are even willing to change the fundamental laws of our nation to enhance our own position and dominance while further marginalizing foreigners and outsiders. As we hear the Gospel reading this week let us keep in mind and reflect on who Jesus say will be “reclining at the table of the kingdom of God”?

Subsidiarity states that the smaller segments of society, such as the family, must be duly recognized and allowed to function separately and independently at the level of their own competence. Whenever a task can be done at a lower level of organization, let it be done there, without interference from above. The principle of solidarity represents those benefits and necessities that are only attainable collaboratively, and that pertain to every segment of society in order to live well. This is the common good for which society as a whole is responsible, on whose behalf everyone must work in solidarity. In this scenario, the family unit illustrates subsidiarity at work providing many of its needs. But the common goods, to which every family aspires as well, exceed the reach of the individual family, and so families must join in solidarity with others to gain them. While the family achieves many of its personal or private goods by dint of its own resources, access to the goods common to all requires it to reach out in solidarity with others, both by helping to provide them, and then to enjoy them.

Our question is what value and relationship do these two principles have in light of the globalization and the new cosmology. During the Medieval era, Prior to Newtonian cosmology, the individual was subsumed (although not completely) by the collective identity. In Medieval European society your own value was measured by how it served the body politic or Christendom. Since the Newtonian cosmology the tables were turned and the collective identity was replaced by individual freedom and achievement. From what we can gauge the new cosmology is moving us towards a holistic relationship between these two social forces.

The current laws governing the universe exist in two distinct frameworks. General relativity explains the apparent universal interrelationships that exist in large inter-planetary bodies. Under this framework the Universe is an ordered collective system out there and we all fit neatly into it. But if we look at the law governing the subatomic particles general relativity no longer makes sense. Instead we move towards the field of quantum mechanics and under this system each individual particle exists almost independently and very chaotic with its surroundings. Under this framework the universe seems very random and pointless. But theories such as string theory are emerging as the unifying principle that will bring the individual and the collective together through infinitesimal filaments of energy that have distinct vibrations for every particle but which keeps them all in harmony as a collective whole.

For our theology, subsidiarity is the principle governing the very basic family/social unit (quantum mechanics) while solidarity is the principle that governs the collective interrelationship (general relativity). We are looking for a holistic theological unifying theory that can bring these two principles together.  

Early Christianity may offer us a model for how to integrate these two principles, especially within the religious and family dynamic. As the young Christian faith grew, it found its membership coming from both Judaism and the gentile world. Under the initial influence of St. James, Jewish practices such as circumcision, near and dear to a significant portion of the early converts to Christianity, were also proposed for the gentile converts to the faith, because they meant so much, at least to the Jewish portion of the new Christians, who wanted to preserve a significant presence of their mother religion (Judaism) in their new surroundings. However, it would require the gentile converts to Christianity to reach out to something new and different for them, and St. Paul was less than enthusiastic about this prospect. This expresses the issue of staying with familiar surroundings, or reaching out to the strange and different. A compromise was worked out allowing the Jewish converts to retain certain features of their familiar heritage, such as their Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament), while the gentile element among the new converts was dispensed from circumcision, though they were challenged to accept the Hebrew scriptures (the (Old Testament) as their spiritual sustenance, while being allowed to celebrate the Christian Mysteries (the Eucharist) in the familiar setting of their own homes, since at this early stage the Christian church building was neither conceptualized, or constructed. The best interests of both groups were met by allowing them to continue enjoying the benefits of their origins while stretching them to reach out to new social experiences. The growing Christian family both honored the familiar background of each group, and urged a new social setting on them. 

Later on, St. Paul was to touch on something similar from another angle, that of the growing internal development of Christianity as it flourished and developed. St. Paul noted that, in any organization, some positions are more prominent, enjoying status and outreach, attracting attention, and enjoying new relationships. Such enterprise benefits the entire operation. At the same time, any well-functioning program also depends on smaller and less socially oriented units within itself. St. Paul was anxious to avoid any conflict between the larger and smaller segments of the Christian churches he founded, so he broached the human body as an example of how parts and wholes work together, to their mutual benefit. (1 Cor 12) He contrived a fictitious conversation in which the foot should say: “Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body”. Paul remarks: “it does not for this reason belong any less to the body”. And he goes on: “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I do not need you’”, and again comments “…indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary…” And he concludes: “If one part suffers, all the parts suffer with it…” St. Paul presents parts and whole as mutually benefitting each other, both by remaining what they are and performing within their own area of competence, and also enriching another part, which would otherwise suffer without help from other parts of the body. This too helps to reflect about fostering the welfare of the family, both by caring for itself, as well as by contributing to society at large. So the family is at one and the same time to look to itself by pursuing its own interests, even while reaching out to engage others: the neighbor, the parishioner, the fellow-worker, the professional and business world, the political scene. Pursuing its own interests need not harm the public sphere but can even benefit it, and showing concern about public affairs need not be so demanding that the family’s private affairs suffer. Indeed, they may be enriched.

A further illustration of this dual concern is assembling a jigsaw puzzle. The puzzle comprises pieces designed to fit together into a whole. The whole is the final product, and it directs the placement and alignment of the various pieces. Each placement is so unique that only one special piece can fit into a given space. There is no way to substitute one piece for another. Each piece is suitable for only one space. The part and the whole go together, since, without the large space, there won’t be any place for the piece to fit, just as no final picture will emerge until each piece finds the space where it belongs.  The family is like one of these puzzle pieces, appreciated for its own qualities, as well as for the part it plays in the whole (society at large) that provides it the big picture, where it finds a fit.

Catholic social teaching has and continues to advance both principles. In the recent encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict XVI he specifically describes the importance of integrating both principles into a cohesive relationship. In focusing on the issue of International aid the Holy Father describes the danger of an absolute approach to either principles under paragraph 58.

The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa, since the former without the latter gives way to social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need.

This particular vision may seem quite grand however and the author of this post does not fully share Fr. Berry’s conviction. But what I do share with him and the growing academic community is that there is a new and emerging cosmology that is going to change the way we see and understand ourselves in relationship to all living things and to the universe at large.

The Catholic Church agrees with this position and as a result the Pontifical Academy of Sciences has held conferences to evaluate the emerging scientific and theological development of this new cosmology. In the 1991 address to the participants of a conference by the Vatican Observatory Pope John Paul II laments the rift between science and religion since the times of Galileo saying that: In principle the Church could not accept such a rift, convinced as she was that the truth of nature and the truth of revelation come from the same divine source. Pope John Paul II goes on to celebrate the theme of that particular conference declaring:

The theme you have chosen is a particularly significant one: The Quantum Creation of the Universe and the Origins of the Laws of Nature. It not only includes such fundamental concepts in the natural sciences as quantum physics, quantum gravity, cosmology and physical laws, but also such religious themes as creation, God and nature, the natural and the supernatural, miracles, and others. You have chosen a difficult task, but one which offers the promise of advancing the understanding of concepts essential to the meeting of religion and science.

Why would this be important for those of us who engage in social justice ministries? In his book titled “Cosmopolis” Stephen Toulmin suggests that the way we understand how the universe functions and develops has an impact on how we perceive our own idea of social relationships. He tells us that “Social and natural regularities alike are aspects of the same overall cosmos+polis – i.e. cosmopolis, the practical idea that human affairs are influenced by, and proceed in step with heavenly affairs.” Some of these social developments are intentional. Consider the fact that if you read Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” or John Lock’s treatises on government, both assert a position on the natural order as a fundamental reason for establishing their social economic or political systems.

A new cosmology is indeed emerging and the social implications of this will be enormous. Fr. Berry’s contribution was to address our spirituality so that the “truth of revelation” can be integrated with the “truth of nature.” Below I will briefly explain the emerging cosmology and present Fr. Berry’s recommendations for developing a “Christian cosmology”.  

A New Cosmology:

The social order that has governed our nations since World War II have been designed based on a Newtonian Universe. Newton’s and Galileo’s great revolution was to identify a universe that looked to be in a timeless and almost perfect order. The famous image we received was that the universe functioned like a well oiled machine (usually like a clock). Theologically God was understood as the “Prime Mover” or the clock winder who set the universe in motion and who then walked away leaving us to continue oiling the divine machine. An implication of this was to identify ourselves as cogs in a machine. We each had our individual duty. If we did it responsibly, we would keep the universe functioning well. Religion and faith became very individualized since our goal was to be individually in tune with the master designer. Our social structures served that same purpose. Politically we focused on governing the self-interest of the individual. Economically we also focused on serving the individual’s interest in the marketplace. The rebellion of communism did not alter the social cosmology. Instead it shifted the priority. Instead of focusing on the individual cogs, Communism created a political and economic system based on serving the social machine itself.

Throughout the 20^th century we have been introduced to a new cosmology. Albert Einstein has taken us on a journey towards getting to know a universe that is not stable and in orderly motion. Instead we are now aware of an expanding universe that is deeply interrelated. We have begun to identify the Universe as a constantly emergent cosmos of dynamic matter originating in time from a single source. The sciences of quantum mechanics show not an orderly but a very chaotic system of subatomic particles. String theory posits the possibility that matter may look chaotic but can again be interrelated and unified. Our expanding universe is causing us to be quite humble as we consider these mysterious aspects of nature. The implications for theology are amazing. God is no longer a separate being that wound a perfect clock and walked away. God is ever and always present with an ever changing universe. Might the essence of string theory even offer us a glimpse into the unifying divine plan?

To seek the implications of this cosmology for the social order we do not have to look too far. Since World War II we have begun to design social systems based on an interrelated reality that we believe cannot be ignored. While politically many of us still hide behind the façade of nationalism and national borders, economically almost none of us can deny the implication of living in a globalized world. Globalization itself is the birth of the first social concept that gives expression to this new cosmology.

Fr. Berry suggested that within our own theological field it is our responsibility to wrestle with the spiritual and theological implications of this new cosmology. In an article that he wrote called “Christian Cosmology” he makes the following recommendations regarding how the new cosmology intersects with our faith and spirituality:

1. The Universe is a sequence of irreversible transformations begun 13.7 billion years ago with four major stages (galactic, earth, life and human)
2. The evolutionary process has a psychic-spiritual as well as a material-physical aspect
3. Earth has a privileged role as a planet whereon life is known to exist. There is a unity of the earth process (what happened to on member affects the others.)
4. Through humanity the universe reflects and celebrates itself in conscious self awareness.
5. The ultimate measure of value is found in the full expression of the universe. The well being of humanity coincides with the well being of the earth.
6. The universe can be understood as the primary revelation of the divine.
7. Biblical revelation (incarnation and redemption) all takes place within the larger cosmological and historical context.

With these recommendations Fr. Berry is suggesting that by integrating  our emerging cosmology we will be developing a spirituality of deep and dynamic interrelationship between God, creation, and ourselves. Our former cosmology had us existing as a far more independent and isolated reality. The new emerging cosmology is depicting a far more symbiotic relationship within all of creation. Utilizing Christian language Fr. Berry sees all of creation existing in communion with God. He offers us this mantra to help us reorient our vision of ourselves with all of creation: “We are no longer a collection of objects, but a communion of subjects”.

• Revelation 11:19; 12:1-6, 10. A woman, clothed with the sun, gives birth to the Messiah who was snatched up to God, lest the demon devoured the child. She herself fled into the desert, to a special place prepared for her by God.
• 1 Corinthians 15: 20-26. As in Adam, all died, so in Christ, all are raised to new life. These belong to him and become the kingdom handed over by Christ to the Father.
• Luke 1:39-56. Mary’s “magnificat” praises God for exalting the lowly. Mary herself is acclaimed by Elizabeth as “blessed among women” for trusting in the Lord’s words to her.

Thoughts for your own consideration: By John Gonzalez

This week we celebrate a dogmatic article of Catholic faith, the assumption of Mary into heaven. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches have celebrated Mary’s preeminent status within the Christian family since the Council of Ephesus in 431 defined her status as the Mother of God. In 1950 Pope Pius XII made the infallible dogmatic declaration regarding the Assumption of Mary. For the Catholic Church dogmatic statements can only be about spiritual matters of revealed faith. Social teachings and moral positions cannot exist as dogmatic articles, they exist as undefined doctrines. However it is understood that moral teachings and social positions flow from our understanding of revealed Christian mysteries.

The Assumption, like the Resurrection, reveals to us the Divine origin and approval of the sacred ministries of Jesus and Mary. If it was not for the Resurrection then the social vision that Jesus publicly offers through his teaching and healing ministries would have been made invalid by the social powers of his day which sentenced him to death. Scripture attest to the fear that the disciples had when Jesus was arrested. The courage that they found came from their experience of the risen Christ. An experience which convinced them that social injustice can never defeat the Divine vision for a community based on the love of God and neighbor. In the second reading that we have for this week St. Paul treats the Resurrection as the birth of a new era with an invitation towards new life. The culture of death will be systematically brought down starting with the defeat of the social powers and sovereignties that are responsible for enforcing the values and culture of death until finally death itself is defeated.

But the Assumption reminds us of Mary’s role and ultimate vindication in bringing about this new era. Of course her most famous action is recounted in the first reading. Having said yes to God and acquiescing to giving birth to the Messiah. Her role and responsibility does not end there however. Mary’s yes to God takes her through a journey that she shares with the anointed one of God. She along with Joseph is responsible for the welfare, education and values that they teach Jesus as he “advanced in wisdom and age and favor before God and man.” [Luke 2:52] Mary could have taught Jesus to be good and responsible citizen, respecting the rules and social values of the Roman and Temple authority. But instead she forms him in the higher values that flow from his own special nature. These values are centered in the radical love that God wants to share with all of creation. Values that are holistically good but which will ultimately challenge society and cause great pain and suffering to both Jesus and Mary. Mary proclaims these values in the Gospel reading for this week in one of the finest prayers we have, the “magnificat.” It is a prayer of faith that describes this divine vision of justice which Mary now becomes a part of.

He has shown the strength with his arm, dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart. He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones but lifted up the lowly. The hungry he has filled with good things; the rich he has sent away empty. [Luke 1: 51-53]        

Mary’s role is by no means passive as we have generally understood it to be. She is very much involved with the formation and development of Jesus. She is an instrument of grace, justice and compassion to a world that is mired in violence and death. Not only in giving birth to the savior, but also in being a model of faithful discipleship both to the early Christian community and to us two thousand years later.

The Passionist Retreat House in Sierra Madre California is dedicated to the mysteries of the sorrowful Mother. At the Retreat Center there is an amazing garden dedicated to the seven sorrows of Mary. At its center is a powerful statue depicting the meeting of Mary and Jesus along the way of the cross. Here one can feel how the suffering and deep compassion that exist within this historical moment transcends time and space to become a symbol of divine empathy for all suffering. Since the cross itself is a social suffering that is imposed on Jesus by an unjust social order then one can find divine empathy and compassion in all the unjust social sufferings that we face within our own historical moment. We can identify with the Holy Lamb of God as well as with the sorrowful Mother who deeply believed that God the Father would bring meaning and joy to the struggle and suffering of the moment. That is why so many cultures have such a deep commitment to the sorrowful Mother. When no one else is there, she is, giving us the strength of her faith to help us make sense of a desperate moment.    

Jesus publically proclaimed the Kingdom of God as a new social contract where all humanity and creation experience the liberation of our own self interest in order to share in the cosmological vision of love and service to God and others. This week we celebrate the second most prominent citizen of that Kingdom. With a steady faith in the plan that God has for all humanity Mary was assumed into this Kingdom. We ask her to strengthen our own faith in the values and plan that God calls us to achieve as we continue her struggle in bringing forth the good news of the Gospel message to a world that continues to suffer today.

The 1971 Catholic Synod of Bishops offered a powerful support for the promotion of social justice within the life of the Church. Under paragraph 6 of their document “Justice in the World” The Catholic Bishops of the entire world say the following:

God has revealed himself to us, and made known to us, as it is brought progressively to realization, his plan of liberation and salvation which is once and for all fulfilled in the Paschal Mystery of Christ. Action on behalf of justice and participation in the transformation of the world fully appear to us as a constitutive dimension of the preaching of the Gospel, or, in other words, of the Church’s mission for the redemption of the human race and its liberation from every oppressive situation.

Here, the pursuit of justice is described as being a constitutive element rather than an unimportant or secondary dimension of the Gospel mandate. Furthermore the Bishops also highlight the theological center of our call to pursue social justice within the Pascal Mystery. In the mystery of Christ’s passion, death and resurrection the plan of God’s Kingdom is revealed to us and the social program that Jesus pursues of publically promoting a society that is based on love, compassion, non-violence and justice is given the divine stamp of approval.

The Passionist Constitutions eloquently describes this theology further under Constitution article 65:

We Passionists make the Paschal Mystery the center of our lives. This entails a loving commitment to follow Jesus Crucified, and a generous resolve to proclaim His Passion and death with faith and love. His Passion and death are no mere historical events. They are ever-present realities to people in the world of today, “crucified” as they are by injustice, by the lack of a deep respect for human life, and by a hungry yearning for peace, truth, and the fullness of human existence.

Here again the centrality is the Paschal Mystery. However we Passionists also look towards the incarnation of the social injustice that Christ suffered with the unjust suffering that continues in our world today. Devotion to Jesus Crucified calls us to walk with the “people in the world today, “crucified” as they are by injustice.” Social justice is not an afterthought. It is a central part of the Christian mystery. Of course the pursuit of social justice has evolved along with the development of the social order so that the methods of pursuing the social agenda looks different now compared to the 2000 year history of the Christian faith. So with that we will examine what we mean by social justice today.

Actions on Behalf of Justice:

In a retreat program on social justice that the Campaign for Human Development offers the parishes the facilitator offers the following story to the participants:

Once there was a church picnic. It was a beautiful day. The picnic site was by a river, and there was a cool breeze across the water. Kids were playing ball. There was lots of food. Bingo was in full swing! All of a sudden someone shouted, “Look, there is a body floating face down in the river.” At once, a few people waded into the river and pulled the person ashore. Someone else called an ambulance while another administered CPR. Other shaded the person form the heat of the sun. Everything looked under control, but then another body was sighted and then another, and then another… Everyone scurried to help in some way. One person, left the group and began to run upstream. “Where are you going?” the crowd cried out. “We need you to help.” He replied, “I’m going upstream to find out why people keep floating down the river…”

This story begins to describe to us the concept of the two feet of social justice. The basic concept is that if we are to participate in God’s salvific plan that includes the transformation of unjust systems then we must address two aspects of social injustice. The first dimension of injustice is the real manifestations of suffering and injustice. We must help those who are suffering. Like the story above me must give aid to the people who are floating down the river. This form of service is traditionally called charity and we usually express this with direct social service ministries or donations. Homeless shelters, soup kitchen, prison and hospital ministries, educational opportunities, all these are expressions of charity ministries that address the real needs of people who are suffering.

However the person who left the group to run upstream exemplifies the other dimension of social justice. In this case the person is analyzing the situation to uncover the root cause of suffering. As the person goes upstream and discovers the reason for why people are ending up in the river he will have to further understand the reason of this situation and respond to the need. It may be that a bridge is broken and in need of repair. It may be that a criminal activity is happening whereby they will need to advocate for the end of this practice. This is the dimension we traditionally call justice and it is usually expressed with advocacy and community development. Legislative advocacy, corporate responsibility, micro-finance and development projects, Community organizing, are all expressions of justice ministries that address the root causes of suffering in the world. 

The analogy of the two feet is intentional because it suggests that just as a person finds it easier to progress walking on two feet versus hoping on one so to is it easier for a society to experience progress by utilizing both justice and charity. Justice without Charity is insensitive and bound to fail since it is not taking into consideration the needs of the victims. It would be as if the person at the church picnic just begins to make an assumption that some criminal activity is taking place and advocates for better policing when the entire time a bridge is broken. Similarly Charity without Justice leads to an unending cycle of service and ministry and at some point the community will either become exhausted or callous to the suffering.

The founder of the Passionist Community, St. Paul of the Cross illustrates the use of the two feet during an episode in the 1730’s when he and his community found themselves in the middle of a battle between the Austrians and Spanish in the town of Orbetello. In addressing the sufferings of the wounded soldiers St. Paul tended and ministered to the needs of the wounded from both sides. This shows his use of charity to the victims of the battle. During this same episode he became aware of the Spanish General’s intent to bombard the town. He appealed against the bombardment and as a result the Spanish General opted for a blockade which brought an end to the battle. This shows his use of justice to advocate against any further suffering.   

The Church has traditionally placed more emphasis on charity over justice. In the encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, Pope Benedict XVI states “It must be admitted that the Church’s leadership was slow to realize that the issue of the just structuring of society needed to be approached in a new way.” In this encyclical Pope Benedict maintains that the Church by its very nature is required to promote charity. Politics and the State on the other hand have the responsibility to administer justice, although the Church is deeply committed to the “promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good.” The Gospel and social tradition of the Church offer moral principles that promote the values of justice. Yet in the pluralistic global society that we live in we cannot expect nor want our Church to be legal authority behind the establishment of the just social order.

However because the Church’s mission is the promotion of the Gospel we must expect the institution, and us as members of that institution, to participate in the global order by assessing justice or the lack thereof and offering guidance and assistance as individuals or as Non-Governmental Organizations especially where States either cannot or do not take responsibility with policies that fly in the face of the Gospel and the teachings of the Church. “In today’s complex situation, not least because of the growth of a globalized economy, the Church’s social doctrine has become a set of fundamental guidelines offering approaches that are valid even beyond the confines of the Church.” With her orientation towards charity, the Church seeks to humanize and personalize secular and public institutions that otherwise may not meet the total needs of those they seek to serve.

Pope Pius XI reminds us in the encyclical Divini Redemptoris that “charity will never be true charity unless it takes justice into constant account… let no one attempt with trifling charitable donations to exempt himself from the great duties imposed by justice. Both justice and charity often dictate obligations touching on the same subject-matter, but under different aspects.” Catholic social teaching has always described a deep relationship between these two values. However in the recent social encyclical by Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, the Holy Father goes further in actually integrating these values and suggesting again that they serve the same function only with a different emphasis.

To desire the common good and strive towards it is a requirement of justice and charity. To take a stand for the common good is on the one hand to be solicitous for, and on the other hand to avail oneself of, that complex of institutions that give structure to the life of society, juridically, civilly, politically and culturally, making it the pólis, or “city”. The more we strive to secure a common good corresponding to the real needs of our neighbours, the more effectively we love them. Every Christian is called to practise this charity, in a manner corresponding to his vocation and according to the degree of influence he wields in the pólis. This is the institutional path — we might also call it the political path — of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbour directly, outside the institutional mediation of the pólis.

Justice and charity function to promote the common good. With this statement there is no longer a hierarchy of values. Charity is the personal encounters where we directly give to our neighbors in need. Justice is a “no less excellent and effective” form of charity that pursues such virtue through an institutional or “political path”, the path of social justice.

It is strange to want to summate something as the first steps towards the rest of you life.  I stood at the door of the retreat house for St. Paul of the Cross Monastery in Pittsburgh not entirely sure of what awaited me, but with what I considered a reasonable understanding of where I came from.

Less than a month ago, like many young people of my age, I adorned a cap and gown as I walked across a stage to receive my college diploma. What I chose to do after though, is what distanced me from my peers, and brought me to the door of the Passionist Monastery.

I chose to break the traditional path that my other fellow graduates would endeavor because of the calling I felt. This was by no means an easy decision, but the affirmation I received in my three and a half weeks of training in Pittsburgh for my experience with Passionist Volunteers International was the blessing I needed to be able commit whole heartedly.

I, along with ten other volunteers, all of us recent college graduates, began to root ourselves in the eminent experience of overseas missionary service. To do so, we took great pains to reflect as both an individual and as collectives, particularly in the group with whom we would live with in intentional community in either our site in Jamaica or Honduras. It was made clear to us that with the stresses of international service is it important to know oneself. This task, though appearing straightforward enough, was perhaps the mot difficult part, but the lynchpin of my orientation experience. It is in my path of self discovery that I could truly understand how this volunteer experience corresponded with God’s plan for me. I began to see how this experience offered opportunities of growth and understanding that truly affirmed my presence there.

Contributing to this understanding and my place in the program was grasping the Passionist charism. Studying the history of St Paul of the Cross, the expansion of the Passionist Community into North America, and the work they continue to do around the world gave us future volunteers valued perspective. We became part of something bigger than a volunteer, and throughout the training period, my own interaction with the Passionist priests and brothers demonstrated to me how familial our embrace with the Congregation of the Passion would be. Furthermore, our study of Passionist charism also gave us the fundamental mission ideology we share, “ to accompany the crucified and suffering of today”. The way in which we each grasped this accompaniment is very personal but serves as the modus operandi in our individual service abroad.

It is a unique opportunity to be able to love and serve with the support of a collective and the autonomy of the individual. That is what I needed when I passed those doors into the retreat house. To enter a new part of my life, be able to look back, but have confidence in where I am going.

• Wisdom 18:6-9. A remembrance of the night of Israel’s departure from Egyptian bondage
• Hebrew 11: 1-2, 8-19. Faith is confident assurance concerning that which we hope for. No matter the extant of human weakness, God’s promises are fulfilled; no matter how precious our gifts, we die to receive something still greater.
• Luke 12: 32-48. Let your belt be fashioned around your waist and your lamp be burning ready. The Son of Man will come when you least expect him.

Thoughts for your Consideration: By Fr. Stephen Dunn, CP

Why was the little parable in today’s Gospel important to St. Luke?  It would seem that he was not primarily concerned with any moral flaw that provoked the servants into getting “out of control.”   Rather, he highlighted their failure of imagination regarding the future.  Whatever they were making of the unpredictable timing of their master’s return, it did not translate into appropriate “waiting … so that they may open the door for him as soon as he comes and knocks.” 

What the servants in the parable experienced on a domestic scale, Luke could see reflected on a larger scale as his young Christian community coped with the frustrations of shaping their life of faith half a century after the Resurrection.  At that moment, there was great disappointment in the realization both that the Second Coming had not occurred immediately and was not likely to occur any time soon. 

The other two readings of today’s liturgy seem to propose a spiritual remedy for them: look back to your ancestors in the Faith and learn the robust attitudes with which they confronted their future.  It was not just a matter of passive waiting for Divine promises to be fulfilled, but active engagement in re-orienting their lives through perils such as family uprooting as well as challenges to deep loyalties, even that of parenthood (Abraham / Isaac). That is how we will learn the art of looking ahead with hope.  On the one hand there was the totally trustworthy promises spoken by God.  On the other hand, there was always a test of the strength of that trust.  Luke seems to have wished this lesson to take root in the midst of the post-Resurrection crisis of his community.

Accustomed as we are to two thousand years of Christian history, we do not feel the particular tension that Luke’s community felt when it looked to the future. But the Gospel story and the grouping of passages from Scripture in the liturgy today have a point to make for us as well. Our second reading from the Book of Hebrews asserts: “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen”. The very essence of faith is to expand our imaginations in hope. We must look to the quality of the imagination we bring to that task.  Are we looking for clarity about the ‘things unseen’ or are we creatively learning to trust?  The return of the master – the imagined future realized – is determined by the master, not the servant.

We do not lack for our own ‘ancestors’ in this quality of faith; to be “alert when the Master comes and knocks”.  The theologian Fr. John Coleman remembers an encounter with Mother Teresa in just that way.  He was in Calcutta for a month to experience work at the ‘house of the dying’ — part of the discernment of his future in ministry.  This is his account:

On the first morning I met Mother Teresa after Mass at dawn.  She asked, “And what can I do for you?” I asked her to pray for me. “What do you want me to pray for?” …“Pray that I have clarity.” She said no. That was that. When I asked why, she announced that clarity was the last thing I was clinging to and had to let go of. When I commented that she herself had always seemed to have the clarity I longed for, she laughed: “I have never had clarity; what I’ve always had is trust. So I will pray that you trust.”

This, Fr. Coleman remarks, put her squarely in the number of those “who had conviction about things unseen”. Trust does not function from clarity, but creatively waits for the ‘return of the master’.

If I were to name an ‘ancestor’ to whom to turn, it would be Pope John XXIII.  His “conviction about things unseen” was such a great inspiration to me because he audaciously summoned the Second Vatican Council.  It opened the windows, as he put it, for the Christian community of our own day, to breathe in the challenge of renewal and participation in the future of the world at large. It was so exhilarating that it seemed very easy to espouse. There were many partners in that exciting vision of a community learning the creativity of hope: great theologians and thinkers; committed and energetic lay leaders; teachers, students and inspired laity.  So many of them in the intervening years have become actual ancestors to us. 

Now, like St. Luke’s community we find ourselves about fifty years later, pondering the message of this parable. How creatively have our imaginations coped with the not-yet-arriving “things hoped for”?  As with the Exodus from Egypt, an unseen desert lay ahead.  It seems, like St. Luke’s community of old and the servants in the parable, our imaginations too need the example of our ancestors to face this challenge of absence. 

The liturgy today asks us whether our attitudes of disappointment or frustration (or even possibly more unruly ones) about half a century later are due to our need to mature in trust in ways we never dreamed of when our ‘conviction of things unseen’ was exciting but still not tested in any desert pilgrimage.  Like those in the parable, faith now summons us to learn the appropriate imaginative ‘waiting …so that we may open the door for him as soon as he comes and knocks.”