Like everybody else, I bowed my head at Mass during the consecration of the bread and wine, lifted my eyes to the raised host and the raised chalice. I believed (whatever it means) that a change occurred: I went to the altar rails and received the mystery on my tongue, returned to my place, shut my eyes fast, made an act of thanksgiving, opened my eyes and felt time starting up again. It was phenomenally refreshing and, when I began to admit to myself that I was losing faith in it, I was very sorry. Intellectually speaking the loss of faith occurred offstage, there was never a scene where I had it out with myself or with another. But the potency of those words remains for me, they retain an undying tremor and draw; I cannot disavow them. Nor can I make the act of faith. In ‘Station Island,’ I arranged for John of the Cross to help my unbelief by translating his ‘Song of the Soul that Knows God by Faith.’

Seamus Heaney,
Stepping Stones: Interviews with Seamus Heaney, Dennis O’ Driscoll
(Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008), 234

Song of the Soul that Knows God by Faith

How well I know that fountain, filling, running,
although it is the night.

That eternal fountain, hidden away,
I know its haven and its secrecy
although it is the night.

But not its source because it does not have one,
which is all sources’ source and origin
although it is the night.

No other thing can be so beautiful,
Here the earth and heaven drink their fill
although it is the night.

So pellucid it can never be muddied,
and I know that all light radiates from it
although it is the night.

I know no sounding line can find its bottom,
nobody ford or plumb its deepest fathom
although it is the night

And its current so in flood it overspills
to water hell and heaven and all peoples
although it is the night.

And the current that is generated there,
as far as it wills to, it can flow that far
although it is the night.

And from these two a third current proceeds
which neither of these two, I know, precedes
although it is the night.

This eternal fountain hides and splashes
within this living bread that is life to us
although it is the night.

Hear it calling out to every creature.
And they drink these waters, although it is dark here
because it is the night.

I am repining for this living fountain.
Within this bread of life I see it plain
although it is the night.

Station Island, XI

It’s my turn on the bLOGOS rotation at The Ekklesia Project to write this week’s lectionary reflection:

The Second Sunday in Lent, Year C

Revised Common Lectionary:                                  Lectionary for Mass:
Genesis 15:1-12, 17-18                                                Genesis 15:5-12, 17-18
Psalm 27                                                                       Psalm 27
Philippians 3:17-4:1                                                   Philippians 3:17-4:1 (or 3:20-4:1)
Luke 13:31-35 or Luke 9:28-36                               Luke 9:28-36

The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the stronghold of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

Psalm 27:1

The gospel reading for the Second Sunday in Lent differs significantly for Protestants and Catholics. The Revised Common Lectionary appoints four pithy verses from Luke 13 which reveal a rather astonishing range of reactions in Jesus as he reckonsVan_Gogh_-_Starry_Night with both his imperial pursuers and his faithless kinsmen.

To Rome’s proxy ruler, Herod, he sends a message of combative confidence (“go and tell that fox for me . . .”). To Jerusalem, “the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it,” he speaks with surprising, maternal tenderness:

“How often have I desired to gather you children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings . . . “

The fox and the hen. Herod the stealthy predator; Jesus the protective mother.  Power versus vulnerability. And we know where this confrontation is headed . . . .

To read the rest click here.

“It’s been a difficult year to be Catholic,” a friend said to me recently.

I felt her pain.

Controversy has abounded, to put it mildy: the HHS contraceptive mandate; tension between the Vatican and the Leadership Conference of crucifixWomen Religious; the coming-to-light of sexual abuse by priests during the tenure of Archbishop Mahoney of Los Angeles (in the midst of similar decades-long scandals).

All of this has been compounded by pretty relentless scrutiny of a pretty unpopular pope.

In the American media and in parts of American Catholicism, Benedict XVI is routinely labeled a conservative (and worse)–a  rigid, humorless leader leading the Church backward in time, not forward.

(It says something about Americans’ impoverished political discourse when all we can think to call this pontiff, who is opposed to gay marriage but is also a virulent critic of laissez-faire capitalism and a staunch enviromentalist, is conservative”).

And we’ve never quite been able to forgive him for not being like his predecessor. Charisma and compassion are not words that spring readily to mind when thinking of Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict.

Morever, the missteps of his papacy, some of them egregious (like the speech at Regensburg in 2006), have not endeared him even to many who were predisposed to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Still.

Soundbite journalism can never fully and fairly chronicle the complex legacy of any world figure. For instance, as Carol Zeleski observed earlier this week,

With his distinctly nonfundamentalist interpretation of the Book of Genesis; his sophisticated handling of recent trends in biblical criticism (most notably, though least noticed, his book “Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life”); his role in the creation of the modern Catholic catechism; and his papal writings on faith, reason and love (beginning with his extraordinary first encyclical “God Is Love”), Pope Benedict has opened a new era in the dialogue between religion and secular reason.

And as a priest friend said to me this week, in illness and frailty Pope John Paul II chose to remain in office as a witness to suffering; in resigning the office under similar personal circumstances, Pope Benedict XVI offers a witness of humility.

Yet can our media-saturated views of this controversial man allow us to see such nuance, such complexity?

* * * * *

All of this matters to me in more than just an academic way.

When my friend made her remark a few days ago, I replied with: “It’s been a difficult year to be converting to Catholicism.”

Because that’s what I’m doing.

And as the questions have come (and as more will likely come), here’s pretty much all I’ve got:

I am at home in the mass.

I need the Church’s historic liturgy in my life: the familiarity of it, the poetry of it, the predictability of it, even the tedium of it. I am weary of the Protestant way of  “engineered” worship.

I attend Saturday afternoon mass at the Catholic church in the town where I live, a community I’ve fallen in love with, a community that will soon welcome me into full communion at this year’s Easter Vigil. Of course it’s possible that I may someday move and not have St. Brendan Church to love. But the worship there – along with the gifted priest and the beautiful people – will have helped to make me at home in Catholic life and liturgy wherever else I might land. (I don’t think my first tradition, Methodism, or Protestantism generally, knows very much about how to do this).

Related to this is something else I’ve always been deeply moved by (and appreciative of) in Catholic worship: there’s no hovering or smothering when a visitor like me shows up at mass. In fact, it can sometimes feel “unfriendly” to someone used to the Protestant way of welcoming committees and strategic follow-up with newcomers. What I observe, however, even though I don’t think many Catholic laity would articulate it this way, is the sense that in the mass it is Christ who does the welcoming; the people’s task is to never interfere with that.

Of course there’s the big thing — the elephant in the room for those like me undergoing RCIA: how can you join such a messed up church, with its abusive priests, prohibition of women priests, bullying bishops, and all the rest?). Part of me would say, rather impatiently, show me a church that isn’t messed up. And part of me would like to say (as the poet Mary Karr did when she became Catholic from nothingness), and I’m paraphrasing: I’m not joining the pope’s team; I just love the worship and the people.

But I’m not sure I can do that.

I am, in some sense, joining the pope’s team (or rather I’ll be joining the new pope’s team). I don’t have to love everything he says and does, but I have to somehow see that I am not my own authority as a follower of Jesus. I know how this can be perceived and how, as a woman, I might be seen as the messed-up one, the deluded one: relinquishing my autonomy, my identity, etc.

But what I believe, and what I believe to be at the heart of a Catholic anthropology, is that genuine freedom is always exercised within limits, and limits are not confinements but are, rather, “inducements to fullness of relationships and meaning.”

* * * * *

It’s been a difficult year to be Catholic. And to convert to Catholicism.

But I’m hoping and praying for grace–for the current Pope, for his successor, for myself, and for a Church bound up in controversy and crisis, that in all things it might bear witness to the way of suffering, the way of humility.

And in these ways my hope and my prayer is that the Catholic Church and the church catholic might be Christ’s welcoming, light-filled body in and for the world.

I have written elsewhere (here and here for instance) about Martin Luther King, Jr. Today, this poem from Mary Oliver, who is often regarded (dismissed) as a starry-eyed nature poet, offers as fitting a tribute to King and his prophetic witness as I know of.

Of The Empire

We will be known as a culture that feared death
and adored power, that tried to vanquish insecurity
for the few and cared little for the penury of the
many. We will be known as a culture that taught
and rewarded the amassing of things, that spoke
little if at all about the quality of life for
people (other people), for dogs, for rivers. All
the world, in our eyes, they will say, was a
commodity. And they will say that this structure
was held together politically, which it was, and
they will say also that our politics was no more
than an apparatus to accommodate the feelings of
the heart, and that the heart, in those days,
was small, and hard, and full of meanness.

Mary Oliver
Red Bird, p. 46

Much has been written about the theology of Les Miserables–the book, the stage musical, and now the play-based film by British director (The King’s Speech) Tom Hooper.

Eddie Redmayne as Marius, Les Miserables

Richard Beck‘s blog, for instance, notes the two distinct political theologies depicted in the movie and embodied in the characters of Javert and Valjean.

Charles Klamut writes poignantly about encountering Monseigneur Bienvenu, the bishop of Digne, in the novel twenty years ago, and having his own life and vocation radically and irrevocably transformed.

Leah Libresco (“geeky convert”–atheist turn Catholic) ponders Javert’s pelagianism and God’s infinite mercy.

These appreciative takes on the movie (and book) stand in contrast to some theologically astute critics who didn’t like the film so much ( Jeffrey Overstreet, for one), who wish that the “relentless embrace of Christian iconography” had been less “heavy-handed.”

(I think Overstreet’s review is right about a few things, and wrong about many others, but that’s a post, perhaps, for another day).

Much has also been written about Hooper’s decision to have the actors sing live on set (almost unheard of in filmed musicals), a tiny ear piece piping in a just-off-set keyboard accompanist who was able to adjust to each singer’s in- and of-the-moment interpretive choices. And there’s very little unsung speech in Les Mis the movie. Noting that even in the most musical of musicals, there is always that jarring moment when, after long stretches of spoken dialogue, a song breaks out, Hooper felt that

there’s something creatively and intellectually more honest in saying ‘this is a world where people communicate through songs.’

These breaks with movie-musical convention are accompanied by yet another of Hooper’s artistic decisions: to film the musical’s principle players in relentless close-up. (This feature of the film may also be its most mocked). And that some of the movie’s main characters are not classically-trained singers: also the subject of much disparaging ink. Russell Crowe, especially, as Inspector Javert has been heavily criticized in the American media, though I agree with Peter Bradshaw of the London Guardian who suggests that Crowe

 offers the most open, human performance I have seen from him. His singing is so sweetly unselfconscious that there is something paradoxically engaging about his Javert, even when he’s being a cruel, unbending law-officer and royalist spy.

It was also Crowe who offered an insight to Hooper early on in the movie’s production when he noted that many of the musical’s sung sililoquies are like prayers (“people praying out loud or in their head”). As such, it seems all the more important–even urgent–that the audience observe these pray-ers in intimate proximity (as only film can make possible), not at a safe and spacious distance. By the time Valjean reprises the song/prayer “Bring Him Home” we have seen his tears many times, witnessed grief and regret, repentance and resolution, peace and contentment on his face. We have seen the raw physicality of prayer: the wrestling with God (Fantine’s I Dreamed a Dream), the doubt and despair (Javert’s Suicide); we have been moved by the tenderness, the vulnerability of such prayer (Eponine’s On My Own and Marius’s exquisite Empty Chairs at Empty Tables).

Which is why the imperfect voices of some of Les Miserables’s cast are perfect for this vision of Victor Hugo’s masterful story. Desperate prayers from desperate hearts don’t always sound beautiful to the ear. But perhaps at the heart of Hugo’s and Hooper’s story of the poor ones, the wretched ones, the miserable ones is the (theological) truth that imperfect voices raised in song and prayer to God are always, always beautiful.

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

4,329 films were submitted to the 2012 Cannes Film Festival. This blog had 32,000 views in 2012. If each view were a film, this blog would power 7 Film Festivals

Click here to see the complete report.

On this day of celebrating and looking back and looking forward, I’m thinking on these things:

merry christmas and happy new year 20121.that good friends can save your sanity, your self-respect, your life . . .

2. that the teaching life is a privilege, despite misguided bureaucrats who would rob it of its joy . . .

3. that my students are neighbors I’ve been given to love and my task is to love them well . . .

4. that some days I forget this  . . .

5. that I want to learn to listen like a cow . . .

Those of you who grew up in the country know that cows are good listeners. And barns are great contemplative places–at least the old ones were. I recommend to you this kind of dairy barn listening. We don’t need fixing, most of us, as much as we need a warm space and a good cow. Cows cock their big brown eyes at you and twitch their ears when you talk. This is a great antidote to the critical listening that goes on in academia, where we listen for the mistake, the flaw in the argument. Cows, by contrast, manage at least the appearance of deep, openhearted attention.

If you are listening, if you are turning your big brown eyes or blue eyes on somebody and twitching your ears at them, you are earning your silage. You are listening people into existence. You are saving lives. You are producing Grade A.

Mary Rose O’Reilley

6. That my work in this world is mostly standing still and learning to be astonished . . .

7. that good poetry, and a good poem, can change your life . . .

8. that a good poet died too soon (Dennis O’Driscollrequiescat in pace) . . .

9. that good music, and a good song, can change your life . . .

10. that the life of faith (a wholly inadequate way to describe the radical discipleship we’re called to) is about learning to be more human, not less . . .

11. that the life of faith is not separate from life . . .

12. that we need exemplars–neighbors, witnesses, friends–to show us how to be more human, not less . . .

13. that good friends can save your sanity, your self-respect, your life . . .

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 89 other followers