Pray to Want, not to Know

Deacon Doug McManaman

“If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. If your foot causes you to sin, cut it off, and if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out.” 

The hand, the foot, and the eye; all three are very dear to us, and to lose even one of them can make life very difficult. So, something very dear to us, it could be a job or someone we love, symbolized by the hand, by which we feed ourselves, can snare us in sin, and so we are feeding on something that is spiritually poisonous. And then the foot, something also very dear to us and so much a part of who we are, can symbolize a mentor perhaps, or an organization to which we belong, and which provides us with some direction, but can lead us into darkness and to our own eventual destruction. Finally our eyes, the most precious of the five senses, can blind us and thereby cause us to walk right into a pit. This can refer to a certain mode of thinking, a set of ideas that we might have embraced when we were young and which feels illuminating, but will in fact lead us astray. 

Because they are precious and feel so much a part of who we are, they are very hard to eradicate. In fact, it is difficult to become aware of their destructive nature. So, we can say “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off”, but we don’t always see clearly what is sinful and destructive, and the reason is that very often we don’t want to see it. There’s that old expression: “There are none so blind as those who will not see”. We don’t see it because we simply don’t want to see it, which is a kind of self-deception. I’m as guilty of that as anyone in this Church. We see this even in the hierarchy, made up of human beings; just consider the history of the Church, the sinfulness and blindness of the Church reeks from the pages of history. How do we explain the blood shed, the bigotry, the Church’s tolerance and defense of slavery, or the death penalty, or the buying and selling of Church offices, and much more? There are all sorts of factors involved, from plain ignorance, weakness, to willful blindness. Try convincing a person that something is a sin who just does not want to see it. It’s not going to happen. So how do we get out of this difficulty? Sin blinds, and so although I want to eradicate sin in my life, I don’t always see what is genuinely sinful, because of ignorance or worse, my own willful blindness. 

The one way out of this difficulty is to pray to want to see what God wants me to see. It’s very difficult to know what God wants me to see, just as it is difficult to know what God wants me to do in a particular situation. I remember in my final years of teaching, I said to my spiritual director: “I don’t know what I should do. I can retire, but I don’t know if God wants me to retire or to keep teaching. How do I find out?” He said: “Don’t try to figure out what God wants you to do, you’re not going to be able to know that, there’s a myriad of possible avenues you could take. Instead, pray to want to do what God wants you to do”. That’s a very different prayer: “Let me want to do what you want me to do”. If we are open and God answers that prayer, He will mold the heart, dispose it in a certain direction through grace, and we will eventually want to do what He wants us to do. It is the same thing with sin. This is important because we can be our own worst enemy, even the most religiously pious among us. Some of the most religiously devout people can go through their whole lives without ever moving past the immaturity and vices they’ve had since their younger days, whether that’s a matter of envy, or personal pride, a condescending spirit, or greed, lying, bigotry, the inordinate love of security, jealousies, abuse of authority, vindictiveness, looking at others with contempt, indifference to the poor and the suffering, etc. Piety does not guarantee that one will be freed from the snares of self-deception, and neither does ordination.

So, the way out of this darkness is to pray, asking God to help us want to see what up to this point we simply did not want to see, and to give us the courage to endure the pain of that vision. The result will certainly be painful, difficult at first, because it will be a death, and death is always painful, but it is an entering into the tomb of Christ, and the good news is that the tomb is empty. Christ rose. The result of this will be a new life, a resurrected life with a much deeper joy. We will begin to see the hell we lived in up to that point, sort of like Ebeneezer Scrooge after he woke up from his ordeal. Life on the outside did not change at all, but he changed, and the result was a joyful existence from that point onwards, as opposed to the miserable and blind existence he led before, which was spawned by his own avarice, arrogance, and lack of generosity. He acquired a sense of humor and referred to himself as a blind fool, weighed down by the chains of greed and indifference, like his partner in business, Jacob Marley. He could see it now. His eyes were restored. 

Archbishop Fulton Sheen of New York used to say that heaven and hell begin here; we create that heaven or hell for ourselves, and it really boils down to love of others. The greater our refusal to exit ourselves so that we remain the center of our own lives, the more we will be weighed down in misery, in our own hell, and the sad thing is we won’t really understand that it is a miserable hell, until we are on the outside. But the more we transcend ourselves in a self-forgetting exit of self in a genuine love of others, the greater will be the joy in which we live.

A Reply to an Objection

Deacon Doug McManaman

I received the following objection to a comment I posted on a Catholic Forum, a comment that I posted here under the title Manufactured Outrage.

Your comment regarding bad manners when a guest in another’s house made me immediately think of the encounter at the well. Was our Lord exhibiting bad manners when he said to the Samaritan woman, “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews”? How wonderful it might be if our Pope could occasionally make such Christlike remarks! Speaking clearly (yes, and respectfully) about the challenging and unique claims that the Gospel makes to each hearer should surely be an important part of the Church’s ecumenical dialog with the people of the world?

This was one of the better and more challenging objections.

The first point that comes to mind as a possible response to your objection is that “who” is speaking makes a world of difference. It was Christ who said to the Samaritan woman at the well: “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews” (Jn 4, 22). Jesus is that salvation who is “from the Jews”, the offspring that will crush the head of the serpent (Gn 3, 15). He is the Son of God, the Word who reveals (makes known) the otherwise “Unknown God”. However, you and I and the rest of us are sinners. That’s important. There are many things that Jesus could and did say that you and I could not say, without a hell of a lot of audacity and presumption. I wouldn’t dare tell anyone to “Come, follow me”, as he did with Matthew. The specific instructions he gave the Twelve were the following: “And preach as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without pay, give without pay.” In other words, our proclamation is to be of the good news of the kingdom, and it is to be accompanied by deeds that prove our words. Our deeds are our words, or at least they are supposed to be, and those deeds are to be healing, that is, life giving deeds. And that’s what he said we will be judged on, not on the dogmas we adhere to (See Mt 25, 31ff). So it’s not about “You are not on the path to God, but we are, because Christ is the Truth, and we are Christians”. Many Christians are not on the path to God, and many who are not Christian are very much on the path to God. 

As for being a guest in someone else’s home, he said: “As you enter the house, salute it. And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.” Singapore invited Pope Francis into their country. They received him, and Jesus said “He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me”. Singapore, a country in which the majority (more than 80%) are non-Christian, received Christ, welcomed him in the very act of welcoming Francis. And so, you want Francis to respond by saying something to the effect that “Your religions are deficient”? Christ never instructed any one of his followers to say that nor anything like that–nor is this what he said to the Samaritan woman. He did say: “You are the light of the world”. What does a light do?  It shines. It shines silently, without words. There’s something to that adage, perhaps falsely attributed to Francis of Assisi: “Preach the gospel, use words if necessary”. Singapore did not invite me to their country, but they did invite Pope Francis. They know what he stands for; he’s the vicar of Christ; his life is about Christ and nothing but. So what more does anyone want from him? 

Does anyone really think he should not have said “all religions are paths to God”? And that “only our religion is a path to God”? A religion is, by its very nature, a path to God, it is an act of the virtue of justice, that is, the highest part of the virtue of justice, which is the virtue of ‘religion’ (rendering due worship to the gods, as Aristotle would say). Salvation, however, does not come through a religion, but through a Person, namely Christ, the Christ that they invited into their country when they invited Pope Francis. But to speak and act “in the name of Christ” means to speak and act in the Person of Christ, that is, in the Spirit of Christ. The Our Father, the most important prayer, does not mention the name of Christ, but the entire prayer is in the Spirit of Christ. We are not called to proselytize, but to speak and act in the Spirit of Christ. American Catholics have been far too influenced by American Evangelical Fundamentalism that insists that only those who explicitly acknowledge that “Jesus is Lord and Saviour” will be saved and that all others who do not explicitly adhere to that proposition will not be saved. We don’t believe that in the Church. A person can be living in the Spirit of Christ (in the name of Christ) without any explicit awareness of the fact. As I have said before, I do know a number of Hindu, Muslim and Sikh students of mine who I would say are holier than I am, holier in the sense of more charitable, more patient, more humble. Their holiness, I am convinced, comes from Christ, the fount of all holiness, the fount of divine grace, which is the indwelling of the Trinity. How did divine grace end up within them, outside of the sacraments? Perhaps Aquinas has an answer. In the Prima Secundae, he writes: “Now the first thing that occurs to a man to think about then, is to deliberate about himself. And if he then direct himself to the due end, he will, by means of grace, receive the remission of original sin: whereas if he does not then direct himself to the due end, and as far as he is capable of discretion at that particular age, he will sin mortally, through not doing that which is in his power to do. Accordingly thenceforward there cannot be venial sin in him without mortal, until afterwards all sin shall have been remitted to him through grace.” S. T. I-II, q. 89, a. 6. 

God is not limited by the sacramental system. God saves, and He can and does save outside the visible boundaries of the Roman Church. And if others are going to want Christ, they will have to encounter a loveable and attractive Christ in us who claim to be his followers. Gandhi was the exception: “I love your Christ” he said. “It’s Christians I have a problem with”. 

Francis proclaims Christ always every day, but Francis, much to the chagrin of those who would like a safer and more bourgeois Catholicism, tends to stress the social and economic repercussions of embracing the gospel and our duty to work towards a universal fraternity. 

My question is: “What challenging and unique claims do you want Francis to make that he apparently is not making?” 

A Few Thoughts on Christ, Clarity, and Confusion

Deacon Doug McManaman

I have often wondered how long an Archbishop of the Church–say, an Archbishop of a large American city like Philadelphia–would put up with a priest under his authority who, instead of trying to help the faithful understand their Archbishop, regularly wrote columns in the parish bulletin correcting and reprimanding his Archbishop for writing things that he happens to find “confusing”. I suspect not too long. I would also think that such a priest might be a source of scandal for the faithful. But for such an Archbishop to engage in this kind of behaviour towards the Holy Father, of all people, would in my mind constitute an ugly and reprehensible double standard. 

I still have a difficult time understanding the current preoccupation with “clarity” and “precision”, in particular when it comes to pastoral-theological matters. “Francis says things that can only confuse!” Since when, I often ask myself, is the unutterable mystery of God something that we can “clarify”? Are you clear on the Trinity? Are you clear on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Are you clear on the mystery of divine grace? Try teaching the fundamentals of the Catholic faith to a group of Hindus and watch how confused they become. The Catholic faith is very confusing. God became man, that is, the Second Person of the Trinity became man, not the First nor the Third; Jesus is two natures, but one Person, so we can say that God died on a Cross, to redeem us from sin…. Huh? What does that mean? That’s not clear. I can’t get my head around that. And is it a bad thing that I cannot get my head around it? Or to be expected? When we are baptized, we enter the tomb of Christ. Really? Does that make sense? That’s not clear to me. Is it clear to you?

Moreover, the very fact that we have Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs, among others, who are holier (more charitable, thoughtful, humble) than you and me is mysterious, given that we are baptized and receive the Eucharist regularly. How do I deal with this theological aporia? Perhaps I can deal with it very simply, precisely, without any confusion and insist that they are not really holy, because they have no grace within them, after all, they are not baptized and still have original sin. Or, I can say that this mystery is to a certain degree beyond me at this time and that any way I choose to try to explain it will remain relatively unclear and imprecise, certainly unsatisfying to the Catholic triumphalist who is comfortable neatly dividing the world into “us and them”, the chosen and the less fortunate who only wait to be formed by our peculiarly Western Christ and Western way of expressing our religious experience. 

Yes, Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, but it is up to us to prove it. “In your face” Catholicism is not heroic, and shouting out verses of scripture like some street evangelist on the corner of Yonge and Dundas is hardly what Christ means by proclaiming the good news of the gospel—at least I thought so. And Pope Francis understands this well, unlike many other prominent Catholics who have been more influenced by American Evangelical Fundamentalism than they are willing to admit. We prove that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, by being Christ, by carrying in our bodies the death of Christ so that the life of Christ may be made manifest in us (2 Cor 4, 10). Christ the Word gives us himself so that we, our entire self, might become him, the Word. Evangelization is not apologetics or a short theological lecture from a microphone. It is relationship; for religion is ‘relationship’. That is the kind of evangelization that is going to bring about a universal fraternity, not Q & A, and certainly not the finger wagging/in your face/we have the fullness of truth whereas you have only splinters/ kind of Catholicism that so many would like to see from our Holy Father. If we have the fullness of truth, our non-Christian brethren will see it; they will notice that we are different, and they will want what we have. If we are no different from the self-righteous religious sectarians they are familiar with in their own traditions, they’ll remain indifferent and will continue looking for something more, but elsewhere; our clever and skilled arguments and pretentious diction will leave them unmoved.

A Brief Response to the Manufactured Outrage Over Pope Francis’ Latest Comments that All Religions are Paths to God

Deacon Doug McManaman

Christ has always been the center of Pope Francis’ life and writing. Furthermore, Christ is everything that the religions of the world are searching for. As G. Studdert Kennedy points out, the Messianic passion is not limited to the Jews; we find it in all the great religions of the world. Having said that, let’s not forget that the Pope is a guest in someone else’s home. They invited him there, they received him with great joy and great love. Now, if Francis believes what St. Paul wrote in his letter to the Galatians, namely that “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me”, then in receiving Pope Francis into their home with great joy and love, they received Christ with joy and love, whether they knew that explicitly or not. When you are a guest in another’s home, you do not say things like “Our religion is better than yours”, or “You have only a sliver of the Eiffel Tower, whereas we have the whole Tower”, etc. That’s just bad manners. Evangelization is not the same as apologetics. A pope is not a traveling academic, but a father, and his life is less about abstract theological problems than it is about relationships. As Christ said: “Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.” 

Here’s something that Studdert Kennedy wrote in 1920, 40 years before Vatican II will begin to move in this direction:

“I do not think there is any doubt that we have grossly underrated the moral and spiritual worth of other religions, and have allowed prejudice to blind our eyes to their beauty, and to the foreshadowing of Christ which they contain. It is a tragedy that we should have allowed a spirit of almost savage exclusiveness to have blotted out for us the revelation of God contained in earth’s million myths and legends, so that Christians have regarded them almost as though they were the inventions of the evil one. It is a disaster that we should have lumped all other faiths together and called them “pagan”—dismissing them as worthless. It is disastrous because it has distorted our missionary methods and delayed the development of the world religion. It has made us seek to convert the East not merely to Christ, but to our peculiarly Western Christ, and to force upon other peoples not merely our experience of Him, but our ways of expressing the experience. It is disastrous, too, because it has bred in us the spirit of intolerance and contempt for others which is one of the chieftest obstacles to the union of the world”.