But regardless of the source, heredity or environment, this disorder can be and is healed (though very rarely) by prayer, because “What is impossible with humans is possible with God” (Luke 18:27)–even for those born blind (John 9:19-20). In my 60 years as a priest, with 43 years in the charismatic healing ministry, I’ve seen more cases of miraculous healing of blindness (13) than healings of homosexuality–about five cases, as I recall.

The reason I maintain that homosexuals are born with that disorder is because Jesus said so himself in Matt. 19:12. That chapter 19 deals with Jesus’ teaching about eligibility and non-eligibility for marriage. Those ineligible for marriage were called eunuchs. (Remember, the word homosexual didn’t exist until this last century; formerly the term “eunuch” was used.)  Jesus speaks of three kinds of eunuchs. The first kind of eunuch consists of those “born that way from their mother’s womb,” as one translation has it.

The second type of eunuch, Jesus says, consist of those “made that way by man” (i.e., by human intervention, such as castration, sterilization, etc.).

The third type of “eunuch” consists of those who, called by God in a vocation, “renounce marriage voluntarily for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (that is, non-eligibility for marriage by reason of celibacy, as required of priests, nuns, religious brothers, monks, etc.). This type of “eunuch,” said Jesus, is “for those who can accept it”–by free choice.

We know that Jesus was speaking about homosexuals as the first type of eunuch in the context of marriage ineligibility–since normal marriage is repulsive to most homosexuals (and some bisexuals). What other persons are “born that way,” maintaining a powerful life-long sexual attraction toward the same gender that makes them ineligible for normal husband-wife marriage?

Of course, I agree with Jesus, who spoke of them as “born that way from their mother’s womb,” and I therefore I must respectfully disagree with any priest or anyone who thinks otherwise. The vast majority of professional therapists and the entire American Psychiatric Association accept the hereditary explanation–though not relying for their opinion on the words of Jesus.

To be a homosexual is certainly not a sin, just as any close and intimate non-sexual friendship is not a sin, as St. Alphonsus says, but homosexual activity, such as sodomy, is “an abomination to the Lord,” just as adultery is for heterosexuals. (See Romans 1:24-28 for detailed condemnation of acts of male and female homosexuality, as well as many relevant Old Testament passages.

Gay people are called to the heroism of chastity, just as non-re-married widows and widowers, but they will not go unrewarded for their heroic chastity.

Twice—in Isaiah and in the book of Wisdom—God’s word promises the most extraordinary heavenly reward for eunuchs who live a life of chastity. A chaste homosexual is truly precious to God, and their sexual deprivation is rewarded beyond anything one can imagine. This is Catholic doctrine, and is expounded by the splendid organization for Catholic homosexuals, called COURAGE. +++

John H. Hampsch, cmf

The post Homosexuality—Hereditary or Acquired? appeared first on Claretian Ministry.

I applaud you for the fact that you are theologically correct in your description of both species of Communion. Being identical in substance (the one undivided person of Christ) there is no difference or distinction of substance at all between the two consecrated species; the only distinction, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, arises “vi verborum”–that is, by reason of the two distinct and separate consecrating words used, namely, “my Body” and “my Blood.” Hence this non-intrinsic distinction is merely semantic, not substantive.

But to respond to your question we must look a bit deeper into the four essential aspects of the Mass itself, as exposited in Vatican II: a meal, a memorial, a sacrifice and a thanksgiving.

 First, the Eucharistic celebration (Mass) is a meal, often called “theLord’s Supper,” because was the “last Supper” in which Jesus instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist, using typical Passover food and drink—bread and wine—with the precept to “take and eat…take and drink.” This portrays ingesting spiritual nourishment—life-sustaining “food that endures to eternal life,” as Jesus promised (John 6:27).

Since the Eucharist was instituted in the context of a meal—the ceremonial paschal meal, as for any meal, one would typically presume that the serving would include not just food, but food-with-beverage. Hence the Catholic Catechism says that receiving both species of Communion better portrays the meal aspect of the Mass, in liturgical anticipation of the future heavenly banquet, which Jesus himself anticipated as he looked forward to sharing the Communion cup in the coming eschaton, “when I will drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Matt. 26:29). The Catholic Catechism (art. 1390) says that Christ is present under the species of bread alone, enabling one to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace, but “since the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds in that form the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.”  This is the usual form of receiving Communion in the Eastern rites.” (Sometimes, for pastoral reasons, this may be less appropriate.)

Secondly, the Mass is a memorial. Why? In his final Passover meal, which had previously always memorialized Moses as the “rescuer-redeemer” of God’s people from Egyptian slavery), Jesus now proclaimed “Do this in memory of me.” He proclaimed this new injunction inboth consecrations—that of the bread and of the wine, as Paul states in 1 Cor. 11:24 and25. Thus, it was in consecrating both the Passover bread and the wine that the Eucharist’s new covenantal and memorial aspects were established. Since the celebrant, following Jesus’ command, confects two species, not one, in the consecration at any Mass, it would seem appropriate for the laity to receive two, not one, species of Communion. This remains an ideal—even though there is no obligation for the laity to fulfill this ideal.

Thirdly, the Mass is a sacrifice, as manifested, not just in the celebrant’s consecrating with a double consecration, but in a lesser way by the laity’s receiving of a double species Communion. Paul emphasizes the sacrificial aspect of receiving Communion. “Whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim the Lord’s death [his redemptive sacrifice] until he comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). In referring to the cup of his blood, Jesus speaks of it in reference to its being “shed for the forgiveness of sin”—clearly framing its reception in the context of sacrifice.  And in Matthew’s account of the Last Supper, Jesus almost seems to mandate the sharing of the cup of his precious Blood to complete the twofold sacrificial element of the sacred service: “Drink from it, all of you” (Matt. 26:27). In the consecration he emphasizes that it is not just his Blood, but his “shed Blood” which implies sacrifice, the most important aspect of the Eucharistic service.

But more importantly, there’s an even more basic reason for the liturgical dualism in the very wording of the consecration formula, directed to the twofold consecration of bread and wine. This touches on the very basic theological reason as to why the celebration of the Eucharist is called “the sacrifice of the Mass.

Most Catholics are not aware of this fact: The Mass is not a repetition of Calvary’s sacrifice, since Christ can die only once (Heb. 9:28), as our Protestant friends keep reminding us in objecting to our extolling “the Sacrifice of the Mass.” We must convince them that we doctrinally consider the Mass to be simply a “re-enactment” of the sacrifice of Calvary, not a repetition of that sacrifice. Jesus’ “death” (sacrifice) on the altar is mystical (symbolic) “death,” not a real death, , says St. Thomas. But Jesus’ post-consecration corporeal presence is real.

In all this controversy and misunderstanding, we must not forget what actually caused Jesus’ death. It was the shedding of his blood from his body–that is, the separating of his blood from his body. That’s why Jesus at the Last Supper,(and all priest-celebrants) need two separate consecrations in each Mass—the bread and the wine—symbolizing the separation of the blood from the body—the “shedding” of blood, which was the very atoning sacrificial cause of our redemption, as Paul says in Romans 3:24-25; 5:9, and elsewhere.

Thus, when consecrated, the bread and wine are no longer two things but are then one and the same Person in two forms or appearances. Both species are then simply one Person with a doubled appearance; one Person under a multiplied substantial Eucharistic presence–not only on the altar at any given Mass, but also throughout the world–in every existing consecrated host and every chalice of consecrated wine.

 Each species, that of bread and that of the wine, comprises, after the consecration, the entire person of Christ, i.e., his body, blood, human created soul and his uncreated divinity.

Being identical in substance (the one undivided person of Christ) there is no difference or distinction of substance at all between the two consecrated species; the only distinction, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, is difference in appearance and difference in the formulas of consecration. This external differentiation arises “vi verborum“—that is, by reason of the two distinct and separate consecrating words used, namely, “my Body” and “my Blood.” Hence this non-intrinsic distinction is merely semantic, not substantive.

That having been said, the question arises: what caused his death that made it to be the God-chosen means of our redemption? It was the shedding of his blood from his body–that is, the separating of his blood from his body. That’s why Jesus at the Last Supper,(and all priest-celebrants) need two separate consecrations in each Mass—one of the bread and one of the wine. The two separate consecrations, using two separate elements, symbolize the separation of the blood from the body–the “shedding” of blood, which was the very atoning cause of our redemption, as Paul says in Romans 3:24-25; 5:9, and elsewhere.

Thus, when consecrated, the bread and wine are no longer two things but are “transubstantiated” (essentially changed) into one and the same Person in two forms or appearances. Both species thus become one Person with a doubled appearance; they become one Person under a double (or multiple) substantial Eucharistic presence–not only on the altar at any given Mass, but also throughout the world–in every existing consecrated host and every chalice of consecrated wine.

Fourthly, the Mass is a form of thanksgiving—the very meaning of the word “Eucharist.” In early Greek, the very word Eucharist” meant “good gift”; later it came to mean “gratitude or thanksgiving for a good gift.” As a sacrament the Eucharist probably originated from the fact that Jesus incorporated a prayer of thanksgiving into the very act of instituting both species of that sacrament (Matt. 26:26-27; Mark 14:22-23; Luke 22:19), just as he did before feeding the crowds with the miraculous meal of the multiplied loaves and fish. One   antecedent for thanksgiving in the Eucharistic sacrifice is the “sacrifice of thanksgiving” mentioned in Psalm 116:17. Liturgically, in David’s time, priests were officially assigned to give thanks to the Lord (1 Chron. 16:41).

Aside from all that has been said here about the double-species Eucharistic presence, there  are other forms of the Lord’s presence that are not Eucharistic. The Eucharist is not always available to us through the hours of every day. But we are assured of other types of the presence of Jesus that are with us at all times, for he promised, “Surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matt. 28:20).  This promised post-ascension presence of Jesus with us today—his “Emmanuel, God-with-us” presence (Matt. 1:23)—takes several forms, including his indwelling presence (John 14: 23), his communitarian presence (Matt. 18:20), his altruistic presence (Matt. 25:40), etc.

But this special Eucharistic presence of the living Christ (not a corpse or mummy) is the only form of his presence that is physical, corporeal.  Amazingly, it is not just a vaguely spiritual kind of presence; it is the living person of Jesus, “I am the living bread that has come down from heaven…this bread is my very flesh which I will give for the life of the world” (John 6:51). You can thus see why the Eucharistic presence is the most dramatic of the many modalities of divine presence in the world.

To sustain this spiritual life in the world, the Lord must remain in the world and available to us—that is, present to us.  Our response to that presence, namely the degree to which we are contemplatively aware of this divine loving presence—and respond to it in love—tells us the degree to which we have attained personal spiritual maturity.

John H. Hampsch, cmf

++++++++++++++++

The post Eucharist Question: Why do we have two forms of Communion? appeared first on Claretian Ministry.

Further examination of the biblical texts alone reveals that at least some of these purported “brothers” were not the children of Mary. Indeed, nowhere in Scripture is the Blessed Virgin Mary ever explicitly identified as the earthly mother of anyone other than Jesus. There is additional argument that the “brothers” appear to be older than Jesus, and there is ample scriptural support for the proposition that Mary had no children before Jesus (e.g., Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 1:26-38 and 2:7). And there is an enormous collection of ancient documents showing an unquestioned tradition of this belief

Another objection to Mary’s perpetual virginity is the reference to Christ as being a “firstborn” son. St. Jerome convincingly responds that every child that is an only child is a firstborn child. Furthermore, he notes the Jewish practice of offering sacrifice at the birth of a “firstborn,” with no requirement to wait for possibly subsequently born children. Scripture scholars recognize that prototokos (“firstborn”) is only a legal status meaning only no prior child, and it is sometimes the equivalent of monogenes (“only-born”).

Scripture affirms Mary’s virginity before Christ’s birth; it does not say she lost it after his birth. Matthew 1:18 and 1: 25 are cited claiming that Joseph and Mary abstained from relations “before lived together”) but only “until she bore a son.”) These passages merely assert that up to a definite point in time the marriage was not consummated, but the word “until” does not imply a marital union after Jesus’ birth. St. Jerome cites many scriptural passages that use this form of speech, including Isaiah 46:4: “Even until your old age and gray hairs I will sustain you” (Doesn’t God’s support continue even after we get gray hairs?) In Matthew 28:20 Jesus said, “I will be with you until the end of the age”—the time of the Second Coming; won’t his presence with us continue even after the Second Coming? 1 Corinthians 15:25 says, “Jesus must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet”; won’t his reign as Christ the King continue after that? Psalm 123:2: “Our eyes look to the Lord until he shows us his mercy.” (Don’t we continue to look to him for mercy after he has shown it?; Deuteronomy 34:6 says that “until this day, no one knows where Moses is buried”; our ignorance of Moses’ grave location continues even now—after that “day”); 2 Samuel 6:23 says, “Michal had no children until the day of her death” ((Does that mean she had children after her death?). Likewise, to say that Mary and Joseph had no union until Jesus’ birth does not necessarily imply that they did have union after his birth. +++++++++

John H. Hampsch, cmf

The post Summary Response to Objections to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity appeared first on Claretian Ministry.

Everybody enjoys that endless litany of knock-knock jokes. So let’s try one now. Here goes. “Knock-knock.”

“Who’s there?”

“Art”

“Art who?”

“Artcha gonna let me in?

If that quip seems schmaltzy, it’s because it’s original; I tried to parallel it with a biblical knock-knock that is reminiscent of Jesus’ appeal in Revelation 3:20: “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, Iwill come in and dine with that person, and they with me.” In colloquial paraphrase, Jesus is simply saying, “Artcha gonna let me in?”  This plea is portrayed in the classic painting of Jesus knocking on a cottage door which has no latch or knob on the outside; it must be opened by the occupant from within. It clearly pictorializes the Lord’s way of saying, “Artcha gonna let me in?—because only you can!” God never forces an entry.

By way of counterpoint, there is another “knock-knock” passage in Matthew 7:8: “To the one who knocks, the door will be opened.” This passage depicts God responding to our knocking (the most urgent and insistent form of petition after asking and seeking).

In the first knocking, it is Jesus seeking entry to give; he offers to give of himself in a divine banquet-sharing of grace. In the second knocking, it is we, seeking to receive, not to give; we want him to open the door to our pounding barrage of requests. We knock for him to open the door to come out and provide us with what we have been asking and seeking.  Both forms of “knocking” are good, of course; but ask yourself, which is greater—opening to let Jesus share his divine life with us, or pleading for him to open to us to provide for us our self-focused petulant demands? Prayerfully and carefully reviewing these two kinds of knocking can help us, not to exclude, but to prioritize the various dynamics of our prayer life.

There’s a quizzical Greek proverb that says, “When the gods are angry with a man, they give what he asks for.” That quaintly harsh aphorism may have inspired Socrates to suggest a form of petition that draws a less imperious response: “Pray for blessings in general, rather than in particular,” he urged, “for the Deity knows our needs better than we do.” (That almost pre-quotes the words of Jesus inMatthew 6:32: “Your heavenly Father knows your needs.”)

But even asking for “blessings in general” is a form of petition, and petition (also called impetration) is, unfortunately, almost the only form of prayer in which most people engage. Of course, everyone’s prayer life must certainly include a goodly portion of petition as an expression of dependence on our Creator for our needs. God’s word is replete with countless admonitions to plead with him to keep supplying our needs—to “give us our daily bread.” However, we must never forget that Christian prayer in general entails far more than mere petition, as the section on Prayer (Part Four) of the Catholic Catechism so beautifully explains.

And Jesus spells out this dimension of our relationship with God by showing how we must surcharge our petitions with faith, confidence, humility, etc. Just as an infant depends on a parent for sustenance and almost every basic requirement for life, so we must depend on our Father in heaven, begging him to “give us our daily bread.” (That phrase is a synecdoche for all our needed resources.)

Petition prayer that is directed to the needs of others is more charity-enriched than prayers for one’s own needs; this altruistic prayer is called intercession. It even enhances the power of our petitions for our own needs, as implied by the words ofJames 5:16: “Pray for each other so that you may be healed.”

It is imperative that we thoroughly grasp the truth that a full and rich spiritual life of prayer requires far more than our prayers of petition—important as they are—and  that petition prayer is not the highest form of prayer. Notice that before we ask for our daily bread, we are taught to pray that God’s name be hallowed, that his Kingdom come and that his will be done. In more mature souls prayer is broad enough to include much that is beyond petition (also called impetration). A mature prayer life includes frequent and fervent “soul surges,” such as the exercise of trust, love, worship, holy surrender, contrition, adoration, praise, thanksgiving, etc.

Here is a maxim that very few Christians ever face with ruthless honesty: If your prayer life consists primarily in prayers of petition, then your spirituality is operating at the kindergarten level.

The great spiritual director, Cardinal Fenelone, recommend this broad-ranged prayer: “Tell God all that is in your heart, as you would unload your heart to a friend—not just your trials and suffering, but also your pleasures, joys and fulfillments.” The prophet Kahil Gibran bemoaned the typical narrowing of the life of prayer: “You pray only in distress and need; would that you would pray in the fullness of joy and in your days of abundance.”

Realistically, we can’t expect either prophets or theologians to enlarge the thinking of the average man-on-the-street, whose entire religious experience consists typically in begging his Maker to give him something. Like an infant, the average pray-er seeks to receive from the Lord rather than to give to him. So let’s accommodate our discussion to that limited myopic view that sees–but can’t seebeyond—the “ask-and-you-shall-receive” promise of the Lord. The all-too-typical kind of soul, locked into the always-asking kind of prayer, an “ever-yearning” type of soul is constantly squandering multiple opportunities to grow in holiness. A closer look at this will show why.

The first problem, says St. James, is not asking at all: “You do not have because you do not ask” (James 4:2). The second problem (more common) is that, when we do ask, we may be asking for the wrong things or with inferior motives: “You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, in order to spend what you get on your pleasures” (4:3). Thus, the “what” of our request will often reflect the “why” of that request. The “why” is the motive, which may be good or bad or even neutral, (neither good nor bad).  All of these factors will generally determine how God responds to our requests (usually, by the way, giving preference to our needs over our wishes; “Your heavenly Father knows your needs” [Matt. 6:32]). (As a pundit once quipped, we are told to ask for our daily bread, not our daily cake!).

There are conditions, of course, for successful petition, such as a high level of expectant faith (Mark 11:24), heartfelt forgiveness of all of our enemies (v. 25), requesting only what God wants, not just what we want (1 John 5:14), etc. (See my booklet or CD album, When God Says No—25 Reasons Why Some Prayers are Unanswered.)

I think it was Norman Vincent Peale who said that God answers absolutely every sincere prayer in one of three ways: “YES,” “NO,” or “WAIT.” If he says “yes”, it may be “yes” to our appeal, but perhaps “no” to our motive—as when we ask for the right thing (e.g., prosperity) but for the motive of avarice or materialism; this is “asking wrongly,” or “asking amiss,” as St. James phrases it.

Conversely, God may say “no” to your request, and “yes” to your ultimate motive, which he sees as good. In this case, he may ignore your choice of “what” and gives you another “what.” For example, he may refuse to heal you miraculously, but he may effect a cure by guiding you to the right doctor, medication or treatment.

The exercise of trust in this type of divine response is most demanding; it’s trusting God to do things his way—ultimately the best way—he agrees with the popular truism, “Father knows best.”

If God says “yes” to both the “what” of your faith-filled petition (for instance, cure of your terminal cancer) and also the “why” behind it (for instance, to convert your agnostic son by this miracle), then God’s “yes” answer comes just as you requested. If the answer is “no,” then your non-cure will result in something better than your hoped-for cure—as Paul experienced when he accepted God’s triple “no” in response to his “thorn in the flesh” problem (2 Cor. 12:9).

If the answer is “wait,” while your faith remains steadfast, then the prayer will be answered in any of thousands of ways, but always in God’s timing, not yours; it may prevent future family disasters, incite multiple conversions, and increase your own heavenly reward. (Incidentally, God’s response is never “wait” when your petition is for the grace of your own sincere repentance.)

If God’s response is “wait”( unprovoked by any faith weakness on your part) then the “hold” period should be used to sustain and increase your trust, like that of the importuning widow of Luke 18.

No matter which approach the Lord uses to respond to our yearning, we are like bears in a salmon rush—the opportunities for growth in holiness are plentiful, though most are missed altogether.

Our deepest yearnings of the heart, such as wanting health, prosperity, friendship, a good job, etc., serve an ulterior purpose. Besides being opportunities for trust; they are designed by God to stimulate even deeper yearnings that reach further than our superficial earthly needs. At this point the mystical words of the psalmist come alive: “As the deer longs for flowing streams, so my soul longs for you, O God” (Ps. 42:1).

That mystical mind-set of the psalmist is not experienced by shallow souls. It is found only in grace-rich souls whose most urgent pleadings are always overlaid with deepest yearnings for God’s will in every aspect of their life. Only in mature souls are the words, “Thy will be done” never eclipsed by a hidden drives that really want to scream, “My will be done!”

Persons who are that intimately aligned with the will of God find that their list of petitions almost miraculously grows shorter and shorter, since God runs to fulfill their needs even before they can ask—especially when they yearn for God’s will as their highest priority. At that point, petition prayer becomes less important to them, while prayers of praise, thanksgiving, adoration, worship and love attain priority in their relationship with their Creator. That’s when they experience the ineffable joy and peace of God’s will being done in their life on earth “as it is in heaven.”

Persons who follow Paul’s injunction (Col. 3:2) of remaining always heaven-focused more than on earthly needs, will find less and less need to ask for things, as they find greater and greater fulfillment in union with God himself. Their prayer life moves less and less toward  anxious begging of favors, and more and more toward praise, thanksgiving, adoration, trust, holy surrender in all of their adversities, sickness and hardships. Their prayer becomes less and less of asking what God can do for them, as it shifts to seeking more and more of what they can do for God. Suffering morphs into holy abandonment, anxiety morphs into ineffable peace, anguish morphs into a type of love that can only be called ecstatic.

At this stage, the soul does less knocking at God’s door, and more opening to Jesus knocking at the beloved’s door. When welcomed through that door into a joyous encounter with his treasured one, the gentle Master settles in to share with such a soul, as he did in visiting Martha and Mary, a banquet of ineffable love.

The experience of such a super-enriched prayer life brings needs that aren’t even sought, wishes that were never requested, and a fulfillment in the life of grace that is utterly ineffable.

Witnessing souls in that state of prayer leaves the angels of God gasping in celestial amazement!  For humans in that state of prayer, nothing is more humanly fulfilling this side of heaven itself!

+++++++++++++++

Claretian Teaching Ministry

20610 Manhattan Pl. #120
Torrance, CA 90501-1863
Phone: 1-(310)-782-6408

The post Prayer of the Amateur—the “Gimme” Response appeared first on Claretian Ministry.

John H. Hampsch, cmf

Just as each person favors a certain lifestyle, preferred types of food, or choice of entertainment, so also every praying Christian has his or her own “personalized” modality of non-liturgical private prayer. It is morally imperative that we recognize that –every authentic prayer is good in the eyes of God.

Yet many of these “prayerful” Christians look with disdain on others whose prayer forms differ from their own—somewhat like the Pharisee  belittling and denigrating the publican, in the parable of Jesus (Luke 18:11). Such arrogance negates the effectiveness of their own prayer when they deride the prayer that others find appropriate for them in their relationship with God.

Peter’s advice is timely: “Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God’s grace in its various forms” (I Pet. 4: 10). Such gifts include various forms of prayer, such as levels of the gift of praying in tongues, meditation, contemplation, rosary prayer, etc.  Peter addressed those “xenophobic” Christians who isolated themselves from others whose prayer or lifestyle differed from their own, when he wrote, “Live in harmony with one another, be sympathetic, love as brothers and sisters, be compassionate and humble…that you may inherit a blessing”(1 Pet. 3:8-9).

The scriptural basis for this “individualism” in prayer is fourfold: First, Jesus’ words about the Holy Spirit in John 3:8, ”The wind blows wherever it pleases…So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” Second, St. Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 2: 15 states that “The Spirit-filled man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any other man’s judgment.” Third, Paul says in Galatians 6:4, ”Each one should test his own behavior… without comparing himself to somebody else.” Fourth, this “individualism in prayer” is limited, not absolute; it requires variety, says Paul, in its expression. “Pray as the Spirit leads you on all occasions, with all kinds of prayers and petitions.” (Eph. 6:18). Paul thus reminds the Ephesians that Spirit-spawned prayer includes not only petition, but “all kinds of prayers.” Thus, a Spirit-guided prayer life is far more than saying “please. Merely begging favors of God will never make you holy. +

The post Prayer Preference—and Its Limits appeared first on Claretian Ministry.

One day a colleague of mine heard the devil say during an exorcism, “Every Hall Mary is like a blow on my head. If Christians knew how powerful the Rosary was, it would be my end.”

The secret that makes this prayer so effective is that the Rosary is both prayer and meditation. It is addressed to the Father, to the Blessed Virgin, and to the Holy Trinity, and is a meditation centered on Christ.”

I write in addition to the above:

Please enunciate each word of the Rosary clearly and distinctly. Do not trample on the heels of the words of anyone with your words. Do not speak over the leader if you are following or the respondent if you are leading the Rosary. Remember that they also are having a conversation With Mary Our Mother and it is not polite to speak when someone else is speaking.

In the case of the public Rosary there are only two people speaking: the Leader and the respondents. Each is speaking to the Blessed Mother and listening carefully to her response within their hearts as they meditate on the scene before them in their consideration of the mystery being spoken of and interpreted and translated into their lives.

Spread this powerful prayer of exorcism, the Rosary, which contains the Our Father, the Perfect Prayer, prayed five times in the recitation of each set of the Rosary’s Mysteries, backed up by the powerful prayers of Our Mother who prays with us as we pray 53 Hail Mary’s.

The Eternal. Father described to a group of us, through a Visionary Friend of mine, what happens when we pray the Rosary, saying, “When you pray Holy Mary Mother of God, pray for us sinners now ….. , the Blessed Mother comes instantly to your side to pray with you. And she does not come alone. She brings angels with her. And not just one or two for she is the Queen of Angels, so choirs of angels come with her. And she and Jesus are joined at the heart and cannot be separated so she brings Jesus with her. And Jesus cannot be separated from the Trinity so He brings the Father and the Holy Spirit with Him. And where the Holy Trinity is, all of creation is, and you are surrounded by such beauty and light as you cannot imagine in this life.

Your Mother comes as Our Lady of Grace with her hands outstretched. Rays of light emit from her hands piercing your body, healing you and filling you with graces. This is your inheritance, which was poured out from the heart of Jesus on the Cross, when the centurion pierced His Heart with the spear, into the only pure vessel ready to receive such graces at that time, Your Mother.

Now as you pray the Rosary, or even just recite one Hail Mary, you receive your portion of these graces.

He also said at this time, “Anyone who goes to Mary and prays the Rosary cannot be touched by Satan.” Is it any wonder that anyone who prays the Rosary from the heart is so blessed and protected and powerful in their prayers for others?

The post Beautiful Reasons for Praying the Rosary Even More Often appeared first on Claretian Ministry.

After one of Bill Cosby’s performances a young couple went backstage hoping to get the comedian’s autograph on the baby book that was to chronicle the infancy of their newborn son. Cosby’s aide brought the book to him for his signature, but when it was returned, the couple was disappointed to find no signature inside the cover. Days later they found Cosby’s scribbling on an inside page, under “Baby’s First Complete Sentence.” It said, “I like Bill Cosby.”

Hollywood celebrities, sports heroes, politicians and others in the public spotlight are fulfilled—and some almost intoxicated—by the admiration of their devotees; red-carpet adulation is one of the most powerful driving forces behind today’s viciously competitive and increasingly sophisticated sports and entertainment industries. Of course, celebrities need fans, just as vendors need customers; without fans, very few would pursue the acting profession or professional sports.

Hence, simply being an admiring aficionado of a TV, movie or sports celebrity is certainly not a moral issue in itself. But, if cultivated to an extreme, it can become at least a behavioral and social distortion. That is almost implied in the etymology of the word “fan,” which is derived from the word “fanatic.”

Witness the all-night sidewalk campers before Oscar or Grammy night, waiting for a fleeting glimpse of their screen idols attired for their annual fashion contest. God help me for thinking this, but I can’t help wondering—perhaps with some rash judgment—what percentage of those mesmerized screaming, clapping, camera-flashing groupies have ever in their entire life spent even a single hour in prayerful adoration and praise of their very Creator. It’s more common for people to idolize talented humans than to honor their creator who bestowed that talent on them.  Often the celebrities are more noble-souled than many of their fans. (It was spiritually refreshing to see 30 of the celebrities themselves thanking God publicly at the 2012 Grammy Awards.)

Viewing the over-all issue of “Hollywood-ized hero-worship,” especially as practiced by those as fanatical as the overnight “camp-out” fans, it’s hard to imagine most of them (or for that matter, even most religious devotees) spending a cold and sleepless night at curbside awaiting a more sublime event, such as a pro-life march, or a papal entourage, or even a Corpus Christi procession. The celebrity-extolling function in our society, though valid in its basic purpose, seems somehow to reflect an axiological displacement. The psychosocial need for hero-worship, methinks, has become even more distorted and frenetic than it was in the past.

Along with entertainment and public sports technology, especially in our contemporary TV epoch, hero-worship has remarkably expanded and evolved—some would say devolved—as a social phenomenon. The innocent era of Jeanette MacDonald and Maurice Chevalier, and the “comic strip” period that vetted Mary Worth and Dick Tracy as enviable icons for adults, have long since evaporated. Yet, I recall a not-too-ancient high school survey in which Elvis was voted as the top-of-the-list idol by teens, while Jesus Christ rated 37^th on the same list of imitable candidates. If society’s moral status could be calibrated by accolades, what would that survey tell us?

In the divine plan, as God’s word reminds us, all human talent and gifts are to be received gratefully and humbly, while directing the resulting admiration of such human abilities to their source—which of course, is the Creator of those gifts and talents. If God is taken out of the picture of celebrity admiration, the result is merely superficial flattery, and, on the part of the celebrity, a shallow vanity in embracing that adulation.

Peter outlines this theology in common sense language:  “Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others…with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory…” (1 Pet.  4:10-11). Jesus phrased it even more succinctly: “let your light shine before men that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.” And Paul reaffirms the mandate that we must do everything, even eating and drinking, ultimately for the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31).

The Art of Admiration

Nature itself exposits countless activities that spawn our wonderment and awe. For instance, the origin of the universe 13 ½ billion years ago, starting with the  Big Bang—the now accepted theory proposed in 1927 by the abbot-astronomer, Lemaitre. Easterbrook’s fascinating book, Beside Still Waters—Searching for Meaning in a World of Doubt, says that astrophysicists have ascertained that, with a slightly less violent “Big Bang” explosion, the cosmos would have collapsed back upon itself, while with slightly more violence it would have left the cosmos too thinly dispersed to permit the aggregation of matter into stars and galaxies. The very nature of that unimaginably condensed pinpoint of matter allowed for an extremely small “margin of error” between too much and too little explosive energy. That “margin of error” was about one-quadrillionth of 1% of the ideal!  How could one not be amazed at that?

And how could anyone not admire the divine wisdom and divine power that engineered the drama of creation, drawing matter from non-existence into existence?  Amazement at that great cosmic event overshadows our amazement at any human talent into a mere ho-hum observation. If you have a need for hero-worship and you’re looking for an awesome celebrity, you would do well to start with the Almighty himself. Then you’ll view all human celebrities as fragments of a broken mirror, with each reflecting his splendor.

Amazement gives birth to admiration—the emotion that appreciates and extols the one in whom a talent is manifest. That’s what makes a celebrity to be the cynosure of our attention. Amazement relates to an ability or attractiveness, while admiration is directed toward the person manifesting those qualities. Admiration is thus a kind of awe or wonderment in recognizing someone’s “amazing” ability or attractiveness. That’s the simple dynamic of “hero-worship.”

This sort of amazement-admiration was often directed to Jesus during his earthly sojourn—an admiration observed in his human nature. The amazement that triggered the admiration he received was, for instance, in response to his incisive and awe-inspiring teaching—even as a 12-year-old discussing theology with the rabbinical elders. “Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers” (Luke 2:47).  Later, his “render-to-Caesar” teaching and his miracle working and healing educed the same response. But it was at his healing of the paralytic that the witnesses effectuated the ultimate purpose of human amazement and admiration: “Everyone was amazed and gave praise to God,” while the patient himself “went home praising God” (Luke 5:25-26).

The transition from amazement to admiration requires some degree of spiritual insight and maturity. A child can be amazed by a magic trick without admiring the magician. A spiritually immature adult, such as an atheist, can be amazed by the wonders of nature without adverting appreciatively to the Creator that caused those wonders. Amazement without admiration is truncated insight.

Once the amazement is person-focused, it becomes admiration for that person; it may be termed hero-worship or a marveling, that is, admiration of the person. But a third stage is called for, namely articulating that admiration. When articulated, one’s admiration becomes an act of glorifying the person who is admired for his greatness. Every creature with a functioning intellect is morally obliged to glorify the Creator with what is theologically referred to as “formal glory.” It is classically defined by St. Augustine as clara cum laude notitia (full acknowledgement with praise).

A simple example of this theology of glorification can be found in the above-mentioned case of the miraculously healed paralytic in Luke 5. The gospel says that “he went home praising God.” The onlookers, it says, by “seeing incredible things that day were seized with astonishment” and “glorified God.” Thus, they grew rapidly through three stages—from amazement to the admiration of Jesus, to glorifying God. Hero-worship of Jesus thus eventuated in glorifying God.

To glorify someone is to praise that person. When one’s praise is directed to God, either directly in a specific prayer of praise, like Psalm 89, or indirectly by adverting to the gifts and talents of his creatures, you can be sure it is incipiated by the Holy Spirit, as Paul says in Romans 2:29. And the Holy Spirit as the Sanctifier, fashions that praise into a sanctifying experience,

Take a moment to excite amazement at your own talents and gifts, whether limited or outstanding; then observe the talents of others around you. You and they are all celebrities in God’s eyes, having God-breathed gifts and talents designed to be used for the glory of the Divine Celebrity of the cosmos.

You may still be a fan, but you’re better than that—you’re a celebrity!

The post The Theology of Hero-Worship appeared first on Claretian Ministry.

John H. Hampsch, cmf

One of the many purposes of suffering—one seldom recognized as such—is its ability to equip us to comfort and encourage others effectively; it fashions us into more refined instruments in the hands of the divine Comforter. As with so many insights into suffering, this one is primarily Pauline: “The Father of compassion and the God of all comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God…Through Christ our comfort overflows” (2 Cor.1:4-5).

All self-help groups are really the afflicted comforting the afflicted. Alcoholics Anonymous has proven that no one can help an alcoholic as well as one who has struggled with that same problem and compassionates the victim in his struggle. This one-to-one comforting ability is enormously enhanced when, as Paul says, our comforting overflows “through Christ.”

But this first requires that we have learned to suffer with Christ, whose sufferings “flow over into our lives” (verse 5).  Peter says, “If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength that God provides…through Jesus Christ” (1 Pet.4:11). Those who are most effective in providing spiritual and emotional strength to AIDS or cancer patients or the elderly infirm, the bereaved, or any distressed person, are those who have had the maturity to recognize in their own adversities the love of God, his wisdom and the grandeur of his sovereign will.

Such wounded comforters, in channeling God’s soothing love to his precious children languishing in misery, transmit Jesus’ own presence to a suffering humanity. They happily share in his prophesied messianic calling “to comfort all who mourn and provide for those who grieve…to bestow on them the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair” (Is. 61:3).

The post THE AFFLICTED COMFORTING THE AFFLICTED appeared first on Claretian Ministry.

Remember, forgiving is not condoning an evil; it is accepting the evildoer with a spiritual love, which is not necessarily an emotional friendship love, or a romantic love  or marital love, etc., but a “benevolential” love, as St. Thomas calls it. To use the words of St. Augustine, “you must hate the sin, as God hates the sin; but you must love the sinner, as God loves the sinner.” This obligatory type of love is also called agape love. ” It is exercised by the will, not necessarily the emotions; it is an interior act of  “benevolence” by which we  sincerely desire good for the person–the good of his salvation, not wishing his damnation; wishing for him the good of his repentance, and growth in holiness. It requires a form of Christian zeal of desiring the good of his repentance as well as his spiritual growth. Hence, forgiveness does not mean that you must like a person who offended you (and more importantly, offended God), but it means that you must love that person with a truly spiritual love—a benevolential love , a kind of  “wishing-well” love, as explained above.

Read very carefully and prayerfully the four rules that Jesus proclaims about relating to our enemies (Luke 6:27-36):  1) love your enemy (with spiritual, benevolential, agape love); 2) do good to your enemy, not just refrain from doing evil toward him; 3) pray for your enemy; and 4) call down God’s special blessings on your enemy (things like happiness, good health, peace, joy, prosperity, etc.).

 Those four commands of Jesus are the applications and also the sign of authentic Christianity: “By this will all know that you are my disciples, that you show your love for one another” That includes your enemies! And the love required is the agape love described above. When emotional love or romantic love, or friendship love or conjugal love is almost dead and hard to revive, this agape love is easy for any true follower of Jesus. We must strive, with God’s grace, to exercise that kind of love in every trying situation, and allow our example to show others how they can and must do the same.

 In the words of Pope St. Pius V, “In loving our enemies, there shines forth in us some likeness to God our Father, who by the death of his Son, ransomed from everlasting perdition and reconciled to himself those previously hostile toward him.  Following God’s example, we must desire for everyone eternal life; additionally, every Christian has the duty to respect and try to understand everyone without exception, because of his dignity as a human person, made to the image and likeness of the Creator.”

 Check yourself by this critical test. If some hurtful episode happened not to you, but to a stranger down the street from you,  you should, of course, be saddened that God had been offended by the sin of the assailant—the rapist, mugger, hit-and-run driver, or whatever.  However, since you were not personally offended in that hypothetical situation, you probably would not be indignant or feel bitterness toward the assailant. However, if you were the victim, would you be embittered or hate-filled or indignant? If so, why?  Because you were the victim.  We should be equally indignant toward any sin, regardless of whether we were the victim or another person, friend or stranger. Otherwise the resentment or bitterness would show nothing but self-centered self-pity, rather than a deep concern that God was offended –far more than you were as the victim.

It is hard to forgive when we –not only others—are offended.  We tend to forget Jesus’ words, “Be merciful as your heavenly Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). Or the words of the Lord’s Prayer: “Forgive us as we forgive.”  In the words of James 2:13, “Mercy will not be shown to anyone who is not merciful. “ This mandate is most vehemently expressed by Jesus himself in Matthew 6:15: “If you do not forgive others, your heavenly Father will not forgive you your sins.” Any unforgiving person is not just immature, but remains in a horrible sin-soiled state that leaves their very salvation in peril.

Think about God’s uncompromising demand to forgive on the occasion of the next hurtful thing you experience from another.  Ponder it well, not just now, but every time you are offended by anyone.

John H. Hampsch, cmf

The post To be Forgiven, Forgive appeared first on Claretian Ministry.

Here’s a head-scratcher for you.

Imagine the earth as a smooth, non-mountainous ball, girded by a metal band at the equator. Now imagine enlarging that 25,000-mile band by, let us say, for example, an extra 50 feet, thus loosening it all around. Guess how much space would be left between that band and the earth at any given point. Could you slip your finger under it, or crawl under it or stand or walk under it? The answer? You could walk under it, since the enlarged band would then be about eight feet above the surface—get this—at every point around the globe.

But wait. If the band tightly encircled not the earth, but the moon, or a basketball or a cantaloupe, that band, when expanded by the same amount, 50 feet, would have exactly the same eight-foot separation as with the earth.

The same phenomenon can be considered from another point of view. Thus, amazingly, adding only 50 feet of fencing around any size circular field, even many miles wide, would add room for an 8-foot-wide path all the way around it. Mathematically, the circumference is irrelevant to the radial increase.

Parallel to this remarkable “Euclidean mathematical constant,” there’s an even more remarkable “spiritual constant.” It’s seen in the constancy of God’s loving mercy—in its availability to every sinner (that’s all of us!), regardless of each person’s individual “circumference of sin”—that is, their accumulated guilt.

There are many types of sinners, with many types of “sin circumference.” They range from terrorists, like Saul before he became St. Paul, to immoral profligates, like St. Augustine, to saintly souls like Mother Teresa, whose peccadilloes probably never exceeded that of momentary impatience.

Whether your “sin circumference” is great or small, God’s awesome mercy is equally and constantly available to you. Both the dissolute prodigal son and his faithful but resentful brother experienced their Father’s love (Luke 15:31). Nothing is more constant than God’s love focused on each of us sinners on this sin-pocked planet. And nothing is more constant than his forgiveness and mercy for absolutely every sinner who turns to him in humble repentance. “Whoever confesses and renounces sin finds mercy,” says Proverbs 28:13.

The divine constancy of the Lord’s merciful love can make any person break through the encircling bonds of sin and expand their love of God until it melts into sincere repentance. David’s love of God did that: “Have mercy on me, as you always do to those who love your name” (Ps. 119:132). The unbinding and expanding by repentance is nothing more or less than a heartfelt regret at having offended the gentle Savior who, while hating sin itself, loves, beyond all measure, every sinner, great or small. His limitless, universal, extravagant and unwavering love for each of us adds new dimensions to the word “constant,” for “his compassions never fail. They are new every morning” (Lam. 3:22-23).

With that assurance, it’s inane to neglect the loving invitation of God’s word in Hebrews 4:16: “Let us approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy, and find grace to help us in our time of need.”  ++

The post A Brain-Teaser with a Consoling Twist appeared first on Claretian Ministry.