A Note on Divine Impassibility

By Deacon Douglas McManaman

If God is pure act of existing (ipsum esse subsistens), as any good Thomist would contend, then it is difficult to understand how God could suffer, not to mention how God can change. Change proceeds from potentiality to actuality, but there is no potentiality in God. From the same angle, it is argued that God cannot suffer, because suffering implies passivity, which is an accidental mode of being and thus implies potentiality.

It seems to me, however, that the problem with this reasoning is just that–it is reasoning pure and simple. What God has chosen to reveal about himself transcends the grasp of reason. We insist that God is the unutterable mystery, the utterly incomprehensible, the ineffable, and the gulf between human reason and the mystery of the incomprehensible God is unbridgeable from our end–only God can bridge that gap, which he does via divine revelation. 

When certain modern theologians and philosophers speak of God as subject to change and evolution, it is very difficult for someone like me to get a handle on what it is they mean and how such a contention can be true, raised as I was on classical metaphysics. However, I think there is a way to come to some appreciation for this particular perspective, and the way to get there is by focusing on the nature of love, and not the philosophy of being. Allow me to explain.

A person who is completely indifferent to the well-being of another human person is not moved by his or her suffering. We may not be completely indifferent to the well-being of another, only relatively so, in which case our sorrow at the news of their demise is relative and proportioned inversely to that indifference: the greater the indifference, the less we are moved by their suffering. Conversely, the more we love somebody, the more we have invested ourselves in them. In doing so, we have made ourselves vulnerable. This is what it means to genuinely love another–it means to love that person as another “self”, so that what happens to that person happens to me, or is felt by me. The more perfect that love, the more perfect will be my identification with them, and so their happiness becomes my happiness, and their unhappiness becomes my own unhappiness. Hence, love is always risky. If I am averse to risk, my love will be very limited. The greater my love, the greater my willingness to throw caution to the wind and risk everything for the beloved. 

When I choose to love another, I choose to make myself not only vulnerable to suffering, but subject to change. I actually introduce new potentialities into my life. In this way, one could say that I render myself more imperfect, in so far as imperfection implies potentiality. For example, in choosing to love another as another self, I am now larger, which means I am no longer just one, but two, and three, and four, and so on, depending on how many I choose to love as another “me”. My happiness is now subject to change. Their increase in well-being and happiness becomes my own, just as any sorrow that comes to them as a result of any harm that befalls them becomes my own sorrow. My life is much less stable as a result, that is, it is more open to fluctuation, instability and change. To the extent that the person I love is left in a state of “not yet”, to that extent I am “not yet”. If the person I choose to love is left permanently deprived, unrealized, or destroyed, then I am permanently unrealized, deprived, and my life is to a certain extent destroyed–just consider the state of a mother whose child has been destroyed. Does she ever recover completely? The only way we can avoid this is to separate ourselves from the one we love so that his or her sorrow is no longer ours. But if I have become them through love, then I have freely made myself subject to the changes that they are bound to undergo. 

Now, from one angle, it is true that I cannot love someone I need. For love to be genuine, I have to love that person for his or her sake, not for my sake, that is, not for the sake of my needs–this is nothing more than self-love. However, to freely choose to love another for his or her own sake, not for my sake, is to freely choose to create the conditions in which I now need that person’s completeness in order to achieve my own. The difference between the former and the latter is that the latter is a gift, while the former is not. 

All this is just the nature of love. In other words, if love is joyful, it is also painful, and the greater the love, the greater the pain in store for me.

Now, the central text for this discussion here is found in 1 John, chapter 4: “Beloved, let us love one another, because love is of God; everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God. Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love” (v. 7-8). Reason can establish that whatever exists in God is identical to his act of existing, so indeed, God is love without measure. God is absolute love. But now we are in a quandary; for love without the ability to change, without the will to identify with the beloved, and thus without the ability to suffer, is simply not love. If God loves more than any of us, then God suffers more than any of us, and if love involves a free decision to render oneself vulnerable to change and instability, such that the beloved’s growth in perfection becomes my own growth in perfection, then the God who is Love Itself is a God who, by his own will, is subject to change. In fact, one would have to say that such a God needs us, because genuine love creates the conditions in which the lover needs the beloved’s completeness in order to be complete.

The passion and death of Christ is the visible manifestation of the interior suffering of God who is Love, and his need for water–”I thirst” (Jn 19, 28) – is a manifestation of the divine need–for our love and the love of all that was created through him and for him (Col 1, 16). And so it may not be a matter of choosing between the philosophy of being and divine revelation. Rather, it is divine revelation that reveals something of the darkness that reason encounters when it tries to pierce the veil that limits it. The light of reason is darkness compared to the light of divine revelation. To settle upon the light of reason and leave divine revelation aside is to settle upon darkness. God is Love, and so God is a never ending source of surprises. Those who have an aversion to surprises will be drawn to what is controllable, manageable, comprehensible, and stable–an evolving universe, an evolving world, and an evolving Church will only make them anxious. 

 

May God bless you, Deacon

A Thought on Faith and Conceptual Frameworks

Deacon Douglas McManaman


I’ve been visiting a man in hospital who has a serious infection that has deprived him of his ability to walk, and he’s been in a great deal of pain for years. He has assured me a number of times that we are not “on the same page” in terms of our worldview. In other words, this man does not believe in God, in the resurrection of Christ, in eternal life, nor will he permit me to pray any kind of blessing over him. He is a very intelligent man and not in any way irreverent or disrespectful, and I do enjoy sitting down with him and listening to him, especially his ideas on Paracelsus and toxicology. However, on a couple of occasions he has said to me: “May God bless you, Deacon”. He assured me that he does not mean this in the same way I understand those words, for in his mind, there is no God, but he still insists on uttering what seems to me to be a genuine blessing.

Well, the cat is out of the bag, at least in my mind. I certainly would not tell him that, but God is the unutterable mystery—we’ve been saying that for centuries (Pseudo-Dionysius, Aquinas, Maimonides, Eckhart, Pascal, etc.). If we pause and think hard about this, what do we really know about God in the end? We may know something about what God is not (apophatic theology), but do we really think we adequately understand God’s relationship to creation, to my own mind, your mind, to the unconscious mind, to the collective unconscious, and what do we really know about God’s trinitarian nature? What I am really asking is to what degree does my concept of God and all that belongs to it correspond to what he actually is? I could ask a similar  and easier question: “To what degree does my concept of a human being correspond to the complete reality of the human person?” There is no doubt in my mind, after years of reflection upon my experience with human beings and my study of human nature, that my current understanding of “human being” is much richer than what it was decades ago, but there is also no doubt that my understanding is infantile compared to what there is to know about the mystery of the human person. How much more so is this the case when it comes to my concept of God and his relationship to me and everything else? God is infinitely knowable and thus incomprehensible, and so it would seem to follow that my current understanding, which is all wrapped up in a concept or collection of concepts, will forever shrink to a kind of nothingness next to the divine infinitude. In other words, my concept will always be, if not false, at least infinitely inadequate. 

This semi-paralyzed man does not work with the same conceptual equipment that I work with, and yet he is moved to say: “May God bless you, Deacon”. What does that mean? Must he possess the very same concepts that I possess, which refer to the unutterable mystery of God who we believe created all things and sustains all things, who revealed himself in the Person of Christ, etc., in order for him to know and respond to, at some level, something that not even he understands explicitly, namely the proximity of God himself? It would be foolish of me to insist on it, especially when I know that my own current conceptual framework and all its intelligible content is infinitely inadequate. Perhaps this is an instance of grace worming its way into his soul, as St. Edith Stein once wrote about [1]. Does this patient have to explicitly and consciously know that his suffering is a sharing in the suffering of Christ in order for it to be so? Does he have to explicitly and consciously offer his sufferings for the salvation of souls for his sufferings to be so offered and thus made spiritually fruitful? I would say no, not at all. In fact, all that is necessary is that God take the initiative and join a human nature to himself so as to be present to every human person and an implicit desire on this man’s part, rooted in an implicit knowledge of God’s proximity, that the best befall others—and God is certainly the best. It would seem that God has outwitted even the most rebellious, giving them what they ultimately want, which is himself, and on their terms. 

 

[1]. She writes: “All merciful love can descend upon anyone. We believe that it does. And now, should there be souls who exclude themselves from it permanently? In principle, the possibility is not excluded. In fact, it can become infinitely unlikely, precisely through what prevenient Grace is able to accomplish in the soul. This Grace can only knock, and there are souls that open themselves at even this quiet call. Others let it go unheeded. But then this Grace can worm its way into these souls, and more and more expand itself in them. The greater the space that it occupies in such an illegitimate way, the more unlikely it will be that the soul closes itself off. It already sees the world now in the light of Grace…The more ground that Grace wins from that which occupied it before, the more ground it deprives from the free acts directed against it. And, in principle, there are no limits to this displacement. When all the impulses against the spirit of light are displaced from the soul, then a free decision against it [the spirit of light] becomes infinitely unlikely. For this reason, the belief in the boundlessness of God’s love and Grace, as well as the hope for universal salvation, are justified…” Edith Stein, “Freiheit und Gnade” und weitere Beitrage zu Phanomenologie und Ontologie: (1917 bis 1937) (Freiburg: Herder, 2024), 158-159. Quoted in Christoph Wrembek, S. J. Hope for Judas: God’s Boundless Mercy for Us All. N.Y.: New York City Press, pp.148-149.



Paying Attention to Everyone

Excerpts from a St. Vincent de Paul Retreat

June 6, 2026. Orangeville, Ontario

By Deacon Doug McManaman

*

I’m sure you know already that the work you do is hidden from the public gaze. You quietly serve those in need, and of course more and more people are struggling with the rising cost of living, the increased price of gasoline and groceries, and all these have been the result of unjust decisions made by those in power, i.e., the conflict in the middle east, the war in Iran, which affects everyone in this world. There is nothing we do that does not have far reaching social repercussions. And this is where you come in. You are stepping in to serve the needs of the most vulnerable, the victims of these decisions that they did not make. They certainly did make some decisions in life that brought them to where they are now in their lives, but we don’t know what those are nor do we know all the factors behind the decisions that people make, their backgrounds, their upbringing, their unconscious drives, etc., and so we really cannot pronounce judgment on anyone. When we are young, we tend to be more judgmental. I know I was. And the reason is we tend to believe that “what we see is all there is”. It’s a cognitive bias that is very prevalent, otherwise known as an availability heuristic bias. We make judgments on the basis of information that is readily available to us, but we assume that all that is not available to us simply does not exist, and so we tend to think we have an all-comprehensive grasp on reality. As an example, a teaching colleague of mine from India said that when he came over to Canada and entered a classroom for the first time, he assumed that all the students would stand for him as he entered the classroom, because that’s what they do in India. But they didn’t; they just sat there talking with one another, some were on their phones, and he was shocked. He assumed that what he saw in India is all there is to see.

And there is so much about the poor we serve in this town that we don’t see, so much about their lives, their upbringing, their emotional wounds, the psychological and emotional conditions that they don’t have that would have enabled them to make different choices, and it is so easy to assume that if I don’t see it, it’s not there. And when that happens, we tend to make judgments, even in our own hearts. We have to catch ourselves doing that and reject that habit of thinking in order to become more comfortable with not knowing. Jungian psychotherapists Robert A. Johnson and Jerry Ruhl describe hubris as “a limited knowledge, a partial perspective coupled with the presumption that one knows the whole story. It is a self-deception, …” They write: “When you think you know the whole of what is going on, you most likely are acting out of a complex (a one-sided inner pattern). The story we consciously know, or believe we know, is never the whole saga that is unfolding within and around us. In the first half of life most people suffer from hubris. Given time, life has ways of correcting this human fault through suffering…”

*

In the St. Vincent de Paul Society, you are helping to carry the burdens of those who struggle among us. And this is at the very heart of what this life is about. It’s certainly what life in Christ is about. He carried our burden and calls us to take his yoke upon ourselves: “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for yourselves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light” (Mt 11, 28-30).

Economists tell us that the economy is not a zero-sum game. If someone prospers economically, it does not necessarily mean that someone else is becoming impoverished–both might be getting more prosperous. But I will say this: life in the community of Christ’s body is very much a zero-sum game, a series of trade-offs, as it were. We carry one another’s burdens. If I want a life of ease, someone will be left behind to suffer alone. We are not merely private individuals existing side by side without any mutual indwelling or co-inherence. And so, a person might wonder at times: “Why is this happening to me?” “Why am I suffering like this?” Of course, I don’t have the specific answer to that question, but only a general one. Such a person might very well be relieving another person of his burden, a person he or she does not know, because he/she exists in Christ, and Christ suffered, the righteous for the unrighteous, and this person is sharing in Christ’s life. And others in that same mystical body have carried my burden throughout my life, so that I could enjoy momentary relief from suffering, and I don’t know who they are.

So, although your suffering might seem pointless, useless, meaningless, you will be delighted to discover in the fullness of God’s kingdom that you were actually carrying someone else’s burden and providing them with much needed relief. And that is why as chaplains we pray that God join the sufferings of this patient to the sufferings of Christ, for the sake of someone else. We share in Christ’s redeeming work when we suffer, and this suffering is precisely a matter of carrying one another’s burdens. Our sufferings are never pointless.

*

Now, I don’t know why some people are poor, but I know their suffering is holy and the relief you provide is holy. They are carrying our burdens, and when we enter into their lives, we help to relieve their burden. We have a share in their mission to redeem the world. And what you do is genuine priestly work. You have a priesthood, the Royal Priesthood of the Faithful, a baptismal priesthood; for after you were baptized with water, you were anointed with Sacred Chrism, anointed Priest, Prophet, and King. You share in this threefold identity of Christ. A priest is one who offers sacrifice, and you live your life in the Person of Christ, the great high priest. In the letter to the Hebrews, we read: “Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession”. You are genuine priests, because you offer yourselves, your life, as a pleasing sacrifice. The ministerial priesthood serves this larger priesthood of the faithful, not the other way around.

*

Mother Teresa was always fond of saying that we can do no great things, only small things with great love. I have an appreciation for hospital ministry at this point in my life that I did not have at the beginning, especially after working with dementia patients, those who will not return later on to thank you and express how much you did for them. Every apparently insignificant thing we do will exit this world and enter into eternity. It will exit this world because it will be entirely forgotten. But these small acts have an eternal significance, because they enter the heart of God. And when you think of it, how much do we really know about the life of Mary or Joseph? Very little. There are so many details that are hidden from us, but you know that every day of Mary’s life was filled with providential significance. Every apparently insignificant act of hers had eternal significance and a weight we cannot measure, because we have no access to the details. Think of the individuals whose lives she was involved in, either momentarily or for a longer period, the words she said to them, the advice she gave, the things she did. She spent months with Elizabeth while she was carrying John the Baptist. We don’t know what she did or the words that were exchanged or the effect she had on her cousin. We can only imagine. But we will know in eternity, because her apparently ordinary and insignificant acts and words have entered into eternity. The ordinary has become extraordinary. Or, we could say that the two have been joined, and this happened when God the Son joined a human nature. The apparently insignificant has become profoundly significant.

*

We have to be very careful of the dualism that we’ve inherited from the Greek world, especially the dualism of the “sacred and the profane”. Jesus spat on the ground and made a paste of mud to heal the eyes of the blind man. That mud is holy. The earth has become holy; matter is now holy. His blood dripped from the cross onto the ground and he entered into the Jordan to be baptized by John. Thus, the ground is made holy by his blood, and water is made holy by his entering into the waters of the Jordan. He inhaled and exhaled the oxygen in the air. There is nothing profane about the earth. Only sin is profane, but nothing God created and assumed in the Incarnation is profane. The extraordinary, namely God Himself, becomes ordinary; the extraordinary is now hidden in the ordinary. These ordinary and apparently insignificant acts we do daily, especially those directed to the poor and the disadvantaged, are really extraordinary and have eternal significance. The world doesn’t have to know about them to be extraordinary.

*

Just after we completed our taxes, I lamented to my wife that we really did not give enough to charity last year. My daughter was in the room and heard me say this, but said nothing of course. And then I saw that my neighbor was having new shingles put on his roof, and so I began to wonder about our own roof. I’m sure it’s been over 20 years since we had our shingles done. But when the roofers removed the shingles on my neighbor’s house, they discovered rotting wood and asked him if he wanted it replaced. Of course, he had no choice at that point. So, the cost went from $6,500 to $25,000. That scared the heck out of me. What if this happens to me?

Fortunately, I have a friend who is a brilliant entrepreneur and who flips houses. I told him about my neighbor and he was sure he got robbed. He called up some roofers that he contracts out and asked what it would cost to replace an entire roof, not the shingles, just the wood underneath. $4000 max. And then the $6,500 on top of that for the shingles. So, $10,500, as opposed to 25,000.

I decided to get my roof done, so he gave me the name of a company he contracts out. I called them up, the roofer came to give me an estimate; he was Chinese, barely spoke English, his name was Jimmy (I’ll make up a last name, Lee). Jimmy was a good man; he looked at my roof and said I did not need new shingles, that they would last another 10 years. But he said my vents were plastic and damaged from squirrels, and there were some damaged shingles. So, he said he could just replace all the vents and repair the shingles around the vents and anywhere else where there was damage, and I said I wanted to put on de-icing wires, which I used to have. He said he would do it. His estimate for all that, including the wires, was $1,380.00, which my friend says was a very good price for the work that is to be done. So, I said I’d like you to go ahead and do the work. They came and did the work on the following Saturday. When the work was done, I spoke to Jimmy’s wife, who handles the finances, and asked if they accept e-transfers. They do. She sends me the email address by text:  jjmmylee@hotmail.com (that is not the actual email address, but similar). Now, when you look at the email address, you might read: jimmylee etc. So, I set up my bank to send an e-transfer, and I get a notice via email that the deposit went through. She calls me the next day to say she did not receive the payment. I said I have proof that I sent it. I sent her a screenshot of the email I received from the bank. She asked me if I sent it to the right email address. I said I sent it to the address she provided. I called the bank and they assured me that I had sent $1,380.00 at 7:20 am. But, as I was talking to my bank, I looked closely at the email address she sent me. It does not say jimmylee…., but jjmmylee (two j’s). When hyperlinked, the second “j” looks like an “i”. So I just sent Jimmy Lee, whoever he is, $1,380.00. The bank assured me that they cannot do anything about it. The money is gone. So, I had to send another e-transfer to the roofing company. My wife and daughter came home and I told them about what had happened, and my daughter says to me: “Well, that takes care of the charity issue, doesn’t it?” Yes, I just donated $1,380.00 to some unknown person. I hope he needs the money. I thought to myself: perhaps I’m lightening his load in some way, carrying a part of his burden. I had to begin to practice what I’ve been preaching.

But after sending the roofing company the proper funds at the proper email address, I sent this mysterious Jimmy Lee an email saying that I mistakenly sent him $1,380.00 and how that happened. I did not hear back and did not expect to hear back.

I finally came to accept the fact that this money is gone. Now, I happened to have been reading a book on patience by a 19th century bishop who is a direct descendent of St. Thomas More, and it has helped me a great deal in dealing with this frustration. And at Mass that Sunday night, I decided to offer this frustration for a woman who is having cancer treatments. Later I sent Jimmy another email with a bit of humor, saying that if you have chosen not to return this money, then enjoy it. But know that you will have to answer to the Lord one day.

At Mass that evening, I also said deep down in my heart that if by some miracle I get this money back, I’ll give it to my favorite charity, since I hadn’t given that much to charity in 2024. Now, that’s easy to do when you are convinced that you’ll never see the money again, so don’t be too impressed.

Well, lo and behold, the following morning I get an email from Jimmy Lee, who is out of the country at this time, thought my email was a scam until he checked his bank account. He said he’ll be back in Canada later in the week and will arrange to have the bank return the funds. And of course, I did promise to donate the money to my favorite charity, so I’m on the hook–I didn’t want to end up like Ananias in the Acts of the Apostles.

But I told Jimmy that he’s a man of integrity, and that if he is ever in the Toronto area to let me know and I will take him out to lunch. I also expressed my frustration to the roofing company that they would have such a misleading email address. But it is interesting to look back and marvel at divine providence. The Lord knew my regret for not giving enough to charity in 2024, took care of that problem right away, and in some ways restored my faith in humanity. There are some genuinely good people in this world, namely Jimmy the roofer, and this mysterious Jimmy from who knows where.

*

My wife was at the return line in Costco the other day, and next to her was a Muslim woman, and they got talking. This woman lost her husband and raised her three kids on her own. They are doing very well now. But my wife said she was a lovely woman. And this woman said: “It’s all about love. This life is all about love. That’s it”. And of course, she is right.

And love means getting involved in the lives of others. It means willing to enter into the sufferings of others. And this is the meaning of the Incarnation. God enters into human suffering.

*

Let me call attention to something St. Augustine wrote in his Confessions way back in the late 4th century.

O You Omnipotent Good, you care for every one of us as if you care for him only, and so for all as if they were but one!

In other words, God loves each one of us as if there is only one of us in existence, as if you are the only being that exists, the only thing in existence to love. And that would mean that God’s entire attention is on you at every instant of your life. If you knew the love that God has for you right now, you’d die of joy. And of course this life is about learning to receive that love, to experience it, to allow ourselves to be loved like that.

But there is more. Each person in heaven will love you like that, as if you are the only person to love, sort of like the love of a mother for her newborn. Now, it is frightening to think of this. The reason is that we are so far from that point. When I’m standing in line for a Tim Horton’s coffee, that person over there is a non-entity to me, and I’m a non-entity to him. When I walk downtown Toronto, virtually everyone is an It, not a Thou, to employ the vocabulary of Martin Buber. That’s kind of how I like it when I go downtown. I’m surrounded by people who don’t know me and I don’t know them. Now, that may not be entirely true. It is the case that I know virtually no one, but it would be much more beautiful if I knew that I was surrounded by people who cared for me or would care for me if I were to suddenly pass out on the sidewalk. Many years ago on Queen Street one winter my mother slipped on the ice and all she saw were legs stepping over her; no one stopped to help her up. They must have thought she was some street woman passed out on booze.

As finite beings, we cannot really love as God loves us. In other words, we cannot give anyone our undivided attention at every instant of their lives. But in heaven, we will love as we are loved in that I will see and admire the mystery of the other. The other will become for me a Thou, no longer an It. Our love will be divine in so far as charity is a theological virtue, but it will be finite, because none of us are God. Our love will communicate the divine love in a human finite way.

And this life is about learning to love like that. And that affects the way we see people and the world at large. It has intellectual repercussions. The gift of wisdom is rooted in the virtue of charity, says Aquinas. Charity becomes the mother of all virtue, including the intellectual virtues. Our only regret in life will be that we did not love enough.

In heaven, our love will be perfected. The reason is that love awakens love. The love that God has for us awakens us to love as He loves. And so, if God loves you as if you are the only thing that exists, then you will love this person and that person and the other person more than you love yourself, and their happiness will be your happiness, just as a baby’s happiness is its mother’s happiness.

In other words, the joy of heaven is simply unimaginable. It’s unimaginable because we’ve never experienced anything like that here. Again, it is comparable to the love of a mother for her child. But it is even greater than that: “Can a mother forget her baby, or be without tenderness for the child of her womb? Even should she forget, I will never forget you. See, upon the palms of my hands I have engraved you” (Is 49).

Every person in heaven has absolute significance for you, and you have absolute significance for everyone. So, heaven is not like a Club Med vacation where you are still living in this world and where you are enjoying Pina Coladas on the beach, because on the beach, you are still a non-entity to others, and they are a non-entity to you. In heaven, you are the opposite of a non-entity. You are looked upon as having a significance as though you are the only being that exists, which is how God looks upon you.

And this life is about learning to love like that, but more to the point, learning to be loved like that, to allow God to love you like that. And we cannot love like that unless we allow ourselves to be loved like that. And that is the perennial problem with human beings: they don’t believe they can be loved like that. All they see is their flaws and imperfections. And so many devoutly religious people drift back into the Old Testament legalism where they feel they have to earn this love by works, by obedience to the law, by moral perfection, by measuring up to some standard. But we are not saved by our works, as St. Paul says. We are saved by grace. We are saved by faith, which is a grace. He writes: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Eph 2, 8-9).

The good news is that God looks upon you and me with rose colored glasses. Yes, he sees our faults and imperfections, but he also sees us as we are going to be, in all our perfection, when we have finally received perfectly the love he has for us and have become what God has intended us to become from the beginning. We will have a beauty that is inconceivable at this point.

But, how are we going to get to this point? That’s the frightening question. I am a long way off from this point. It’s easy to pay attention to people you don’t know, but when you get to know them, I’m happy to say goodbye and leave them on their way. Of course, we will see them in a different light when in heaven. They will see us in a different light, and vice versa. But it is important to think about how far we are from that point and how easy it is to treat others as non-entities. Compared to what we will be in the kingdom of God, we are rather loveless at this point. Our love is rather minimalistic. It’s certainly not heroic, at least for most of us.

But I do think we begin by paying attention to ordinary human beings. Looking for the extraordinary in them. Seeing them from God’s point of view. This is the advantage you have as members of the St. Vincent de Paul Society, serving the most insignificant people in this region, insignificant from the world’s point of view. But this is the entire purpose of theology, liturgy, sacramental preparation, life in the Church, etc. What is it all ordered to? It’s ordered to the service of the least of Christ’s brethren. That’s why the parable of the Last Judgment is so important. We are not going to be judged on our orthodoxy, nor are we going to be judged on our piety or our liturgical choreography, etc. We are going to be judged on how we achieved the very purpose of the Catholic faith, which is to find Christ in the poor and the forgotten and serve him there. He identifies with the least, hides himself in them, they are his disguise, and very few people have the eyes to see behind the disguise. It’s like a father dressing up as Santa Clause and fooling his children. But with a bit more experience and a sharper perception, the older child sees that this is not Santa, it’s her own father, but she says nothing. She plays along.

*

You are the finger-tips of the body of Christ, so to speak. The muscles exist to move the humerus, which moves the radius and the ulna, together known as the forearm, which moves the hand, which moves the fingers, and the fingers actually do the work, they feed, or they provide medication for the patient, or clean the patient, etc. What can a nurse without fingers do? What is Christ’s Church, his Mystical body, without you? It’s like a hospital of nurses without hands and fingers. What good is that? All the medicine stays in storage cabinets, and everyone remains sick.

*

Some people love pomp and ceremony. I don’t, personally. I avoid it. That’s why I loved Pope Francis. He knew poverty, he lived in the midst of poverty. He rejected bourgeois Catholicism, which is really a type of Catholicism that caters to the values, comforts, and economic structures of the middle and upper-middle classes and does not in any way challenge such values. But it is here, in the very unromantic service of the poor among us, in parish groups like yours, where you find faith and charity and the wisdom that stems from the supernatural virtue of charity.

*

There are three priests in my life who are widely beloved. One day I decided to reflect upon why that is. What makes them so widely beloved. The one is a retired priest who now lives in Guelph. The other is a well-known priest from the archdiocese of Washington DC, who picked me up hitchhiking when I was a teenager–I told you about this story last year. And the other is my spiritual director, Father Frank Kelly, S.D.B., who died this past December. Why were these priests so widely loved? The answer is very simple. They were people who were interested in you, genuinely interested in you. They asked about you when they met you. They were interested in the work you do, in your perspective on things. I can’t tell you how many priests I’ve met in my life, who I’ve known for years, but who know virtually nothing about me. Why? Because they are not interested. They were not taught to be interested. This is what Pope Francis referred to as a self-referential Church. That’s one of the negatives of clerical status. The cleric begins to think he’s important, or has an importance that is greater than the non-cleric. The reason is that everybody treats him as such. And this is something Pope Francis exhorted the faithful not to do: put clerics on pedestals. Soon we begin to believe what others believe about us. But these three were not like that. They were interested in people, genuinely interested.

But this is where you come in. You awaken others to their own goodness by taking an interest in them.

*

I used to point out to my Theory of Knowledge students that you could be standing in line at a Tim Hortons and you see this old guy sitting alone with a coffee, and as I mentioned earlier, he’s a non-entity to you, and you are a non-entity to him, but if you were to sit down in front of him and ask him to tell you about himself for the next hour or two, a whole new world would open up before you and you wouldn’t see that person the same way again. He’d have a definition and a life that would radiate.

And think of a cemetery, so many tombstones, but each one represents a rich world that is beyond us. Even if a thick biography were written about one of them, the biography would not capture all there is to know about this person, but only slivers of that person’s life. And yet there are billions of tombstones.

There is no doubt in my mind that the first few eons of heaven, which will be joyful beyond our imagining, will consist in the reading of biographies, not necessarily in print, of course. We will spend ages of ages, eons, (the Greek word is aionios) revealing our world to others and receiving their offering of their world to us. Just think of how much fascination there is in reading a good biography, and yet the ones we read are always so incomplete. We don’t even know ourselves, except very imperfectly. And think too of the joy of being understood, of having someone pay serious attention to us.

*

The joy of heaven is inconceivable. But the way we begin to prepare for that joy is to pay attention to the forgotten, the unrecognized, the ones the world pays no attention to. We need to begin reading biographies now.

Thoughts on Scripture and the Complexities of Interpretation

Deacon Douglas McManaman

There is no doubt that Scripture, the word of God, has mixed within it the “word of man”. The latter is very often culturally and historically conditioned, that is, not always right, certainly not absolutely and universally. But in order to come to some understanding of how Scripture can be the word of God without falling into fundamentalism, consider the following. As an analogy, think of a person who is in a state of grace (divine grace is the indwelling of the Trinity). This could be you, or your devout and faithful grandmother, etc. Since grace is a sharing in the divine life, such a person is “divinized” or “deified”–for there is a very real sharing in the life of God, which is supernatural. The person is human, but also more than human insofar as he or she shares in the divine nature. That sharing in the divine life brings about a certain illumination, a light of faith, and the gift of wisdom (which is one of the 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit) has its roots in the theological virtue of charity. So this person does not simply see the world from a merely human point of view, but also from a “divine” point of view, as it were. However, such a person still makes mistakes; he or she can be wrong about a particular matter, i.e., geography, or a scientific matter, or about what constitutes the best parenting strategies, or even about the will of God in this or that situation, etc.,. The overall direction of this person’s life, however, will be right. 

Such a person will grow in his or her understanding of God through a well developed prayer life, and through his or her own life experience, as well as through an increase in the light of faith and the gift of wisdom and understanding, and so what this person might have believed with great conviction earlier on in his or her life may undergo serious modifications later. We see such a development in the history of Israel. Our understanding of Scripture and our ability to distinguish between the word of God and the culturally/historically conditioned word of man develops in time through a kind of dialectic. We reflect upon our experience in the light of scripture (in particular, the life and teachings of Christ), and we reflect upon scripture in light of our own experience, and we reflect upon our life in light of insights gained through prayer and dialogue with others. This leads to growth in understanding, which is a kind of change. 

We certainly see this kind of development in the history of the Church, but we also see such development in Scripture itself as it moves towards the New Testament. For example, Scripture affirms the sacredness of human life (i.e., Thou shalt not kill), and yet we see in 1 Samuel 15 that King Saul was reproached by the prophet Samuel for failing to “put under the ban” (which means utterly wipe out) all the inhabitants of the Amalekite town. Do we really believe that it was God’s will that Israel destroy all the inhabitants of the Amalekite town? Some people believe that, but we certainly do not. The biblical writers were anthropologically limited, as all of us are. The word of God is there, but it must be extracted out, and doing so is not always easy, contrary to what many on the fundamentalist spectrum tend to believe.



First Things First

Homily for The Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ
Deacon Douglas McManaman

In the first Reading, we find ourselves back in the desert. Moses calls attention to the experience of the Israelites: “Remember how for forty years now the Lord, your God, has directed all your journeying in the desert, so as to test you by affliction…” (Deut 8, 2). It was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who led them out into and through the desert: a pillar of fire by night, a pillar of cloud by day. And they had to experience the hunger and thirst of living in the desert wilderness because they had to learn to depend on God. And this is a hard lesson to learn. But the Lord leads all of us, at certain points in our lives, out into the desert wilderness in order that we may learn to depend on Him, to allow him to lead.

Many of us, however, have a very real fear that “if I give my finger to God, he’s going to take my whole hand”. And so, we hold back, unwilling to surrender our entire selves. For many of us it takes a lifetime to learn to give God not just our hand, but our entire body. In the meantime, He does allow us to see what happens when we have Him take a back seat while we take the lead. Imagine if the Israelites were to lead themselves out of Egypt and through the desert. Would they have made it to the land of promise, the land of Canaan? No, they would not have. God has to lead because of three important factors: 1) He is all powerful, which means he can do whatever he wants. Nothing limits God; 2) He’s all knowing, so He knows what is best for us and what conditions need to be in place for us to achieve that end; and 3) He wills the best for us, which is what it means to say that God is Love. He wills our greatest good and happiness, and He knows better than we do what constitutes our greatest happiness and precisely how to bring it about, and He has the power to bring it about, but not without our cooperation. He won’t force himself upon us; for love is not love unless it is freely given, and friendship is a two-way street. He offers us His friendship and waits for our response. And God is patient; He will wait our entire lives if He has to.

So, we have to allow Him to lead, but we are creatures of habit, and we are afraid. That is why He allows us to taste the lifelessness and desolation of the wilderness, which is life as it eventually becomes when we choose to take charge. But we cannot lead, because we are not all knowing, and we are profoundly limited and vulnerable, for all of us are just one freak accident from paralysis and becoming completely dependent upon the care of others or from ending up on the street. But for some strange reason, that isn’t obvious to most people. They seem to believe that such things couldn’t happen to them.

The manna with which God fed Israel in the desert is of course a foreshadowing of the Eucharist. The message is simple: If we don’t eat, we die. I remember watching the 2004 film Supersize Me. The director of this film decides to subsist on food from the McDonald’s menu for an entire month. Soon his energy level drops and he begins to experience horrible side effects. I don’t mean to put down McDonald’s–I think they have the best coffee and fast food is very convenient at times. But notice what happens when he goes from a healthy diet to a steady diet of food that is meant only to have occasionally.

For me, the parallel is obvious. We cannot feed sporadically on the Bread of Life. The Eucharist has to be our staple. It is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, in the act of sacrificing himself to God the Father. We are fed on Christ himself. He is our food. If we neglect that food and instead choose to feed on other things in this world that are good, just not Christ, like entertainment, travel, trips to exotic places, fine cuisine, etc., gradually our spiritual energy level plummets. These things cannot sustain us. We were created for the Bread of Life, Christ himself. Without a steady diet of the Eucharist, we slowly die.

The spiritual life must be first; God must be first; Christ must be first; the Bread of Life must be first. God will take care of the rest. He said it himself: “Don’t worry about what you are to eat and what you are to drink and what you are to wear; seek first the kingdom of God and all these other things will be provided” (Mt 6, 33).

God will lead us through turbulent waters and through the heat of the desert, towards the land of promise. But we must make an act of the will, a commitment to stay the course despite how we feel on certain days, an act of the will to allow him to lead in our married lives, and in our work, so that our work becomes his work, no matter what that is, whether that’s cleaning toilets, scrubbing floors or high finance. It all has dignity because it is work and work is holy.

When we consume the Eucharist, we become what we eat. We become Christ. What this means is that when we leave the parish Church and enter back into our homes and into the world of work, we bring Christ into the home and into the world. A home with Christ in it is a peaceful home, and it is through us that Christ is in the world. And if it is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me (Gal 2, 20), then the way others relate to me and you is the way they relate to Christ, and that becomes their salvation, no matter what religion they are (Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, or no religion at all). In relating to you, who have become Christ in consuming his body and blood, they relate to Christ without necessarily being aware of it. And if they love you, they love Christ without even knowing it.