About Me

My photo
I am a Roman Catholic convert from Protestantism. My wonderful wife Tenille and I live in Louisville, Ky., with our daughter Esther, and two sons, William and Ezra. We attend Mass at the beautiful St. Martin of Tours Catholic Church on Broadway Street.

Saturday, December 25, 2010

Cause and Effect Part II: The Red Garden

This is the second part of an essay that was begun a little over a week ago. I hope to have Part III up this coming week. As always, please join in. Comments are very welcome.

In the first part we looked at Communism and some of its effects. The proposition that a certain form of atheism, or anti-theism, was the root cause of Communism was stated. At the end of part one I also proposed that the denial of God inevitably causes the value of mankind and of the material universe to be lowered, leading eventually to horrible abuses of both man and nature, as witnessed in Communism and many other philosophical and political systems. In this second part I wish to examine the reasons for this more carefully, and attempt to demonstrate this proposition through a comparison of Christian and atheistic thought, particularly by reflecting on the first chapters of Genesis.

First, however, I would like to clarify and refine the intention of this essay in a more specific way than was stated in Part I.

To begin with, let me state what this essay is not about; what it does not intend to do.
1. This essay is not fundamentally about Communism. It is not a thorough or scholarly examination of Communism. That would be far beyond the scope of my knowledge and abilities. Communism in Part I represents an ideal example, or historic "proof", of the destructive effects of a certain form of atheistic, humanistic materialism. Thus it simply serves as a starting point for a comparison.

2. This essay does not intend to prove that atheism is the only cause of the historic rise of Communism. To ignore or deny the economic, social, political, and other factors that contributed to its successful dominance would be naive and inaccurate. I merely propose that atheism is the fundamental cause. I doubt that all the other causes put together could have effected Communism without its atheistic backdrop.

3. In addressing atheism I do not intend to try to prove the existence of God. I believe that God's existence has been masterfully demonstrated many times by far abler minds and writers than myself. I hope that the thoughts expressed in this essay will be seen to offer a convincing possibility to the reader's mind, but in no way does this essay set out to be as a series of philosophical propositions, leading to a logical proof of God. St. Thomas Aquinas and many others have hashed out conclusions from those methods for centuries.

4. In the following comments on Creation, I am not attempting to address the problem of evolution, except in so far as it opposes traditional Christian dogma. This is not an attempt to avoid a difficult and often inflammatory discussion; my research on this topic has been limited and my own beliefs concerning it are poorly formed. I am aware of the proof of certain forms of micro-evolution, and am also aware of how limited and still uncertain are the proofs for macro-evolution (witness the changing hypotheses from Darwinism to the more recent punctuated equilibrium theory). As a Catholic, I also note that the Church has, as of yet, offered no official statements on many aspects of evolution. The Church has basically confined herself to three necessary tenets of faith on this subject. They are: 1. That God originally created all the material universe ex nihilo, 2. That God directly created(s) the human soul in His own Image, thus making man religious and answerable to God, 3. And that the human race sprang from one set of original parents (as opposed to polygenism). The methods God may have used in forming the contents and creatures in the universe are very much open for debate.

So what is this essay about? It is principally concerned with accomplishing two things:
1. It is fundamentally a comparison between Christian and atheistic thought as they relate to the subjects of man and matter.

2. It will attempt to demonstrate that the denial of God necessarily results in a humanism that destroys man, and a materialism that abuses nature; and that Christian philosophy offers a positive, constructive, and life-giving alternative in its treatment of those two subjects: man and matter.

Since the central thesis is concerned with the proposition that the denial of God leads inevitably to the abuse and/or destruction of man and nature, let us go to the beginning of the great Christian story of the history of man and nature.The story of Creation and the Fall as set out in the first chapters of Genesis offers us in a compact, kernel form a foreshadowing of all religious and atheistic history.

We have already seen how God created man in His own Image, and how He created and declared good the material universe. A few thing may be noted here concerning the original state of man.

First, man walked with God, a simple statement of pre-Fall religion, so to speak, of man's relationship to his Creator.

Secondly, man was given dominion over creation, not through tyranny, but by a right order of Divinely formed Government. This dominion was intended to be life-giving and natural, not oppressive and disordered.

Thirdly, man was intended to work, even before the Fall. It is a mistake to assume that work is part of the curse. The curse indicated that both the nature and the purpose of work would change, not that work was inherently unnatural to man. The work of man pre-Fall was in tending, keeping, and being fruitful. Hence, work was fundamentally creative, life-giving, and positive. Work in the era following the curse not only involved corruption, disorder, and suffering, but was now primarily concerned with survival. Dorothy Sayers brilliantly demonstrates this point in The Mind of the Maker. She explains that the statement that man now eats his "bread by the sweat of his brow" indicates that work is now fundamentally related to survival, to necessity. Work now becomes a necessary means of continued existence, not the creative and loving impulse of the Divine Image.

The subjects of man's relationships, procreation, and sexuality before the Fall are also important, but I would refer the reader to Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body. Although they are involved in this story as well, they are fundamentally outside the specific scope of the topics to be considered here.

Now we will see how the original state of man was corrupted and destroyed by the atheism of Adam and Eve. Yes, the Fall was fundamentally atheistic. Remember, there are many forms of atheism. It is not necessary to deny God's existence intellectually; atheism may be effected in a practical way by simply denying God's action in our lives, or by misunderstanding God's "character" or nature, to such an extent that we may be considered as virtually not believing in God. The temptation of Adam and Eve resulted in both conditions.
First, God's sovereignty was denied by man's rebellion. In his refusal to accept God's authority in his life, man came to act atheistically. God was no longer God to Adam and Eve.

Secondly, the Tempter led our first parents to misunderstand the nature of God. The highest forms of philosophy, and the basics of theology, teach us many things about the nature of God: omniscience, omnipotence, simplicity, eternity, transcendence, immanence, etc. In the minds of Adam and Eve the truths concerning God were twisted to such a degree that I believe it could be rightly said that they had nearly ceased to believe in the same God. They were told that God had lied ("you will not surely die"). It seems also possible that a very human form of jealousy or fear was imputed to God ("God knows in fact that the day you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods...."). It is written that the Tempter was subtle, and these passages would clearly indicate the truth of this. It would have been ridiculous to attempt to get Adam and Eve to deny God's existence. After all, they had walked with Him and known Him already. But through destroying their understanding of certain truths about God, and assisting them to refuse God's authority in their lives, the Serpent had effectively caused our first parents to become practical atheists.

And so the stage is set: the denial of God has entered the Garden. What will be the result? When God is denied, something must take His place. Nature (including human nature) abhors a vacuum. St. Augustine writes of the interior need for God, "Our hearts are restless, O God, until they rest in Thee" (The Confessions). The heart of man will necessarily seek another god to replace the One he left. I believe that the Genesis account offers us an example of every form of atheistic God-replacement that mankind has ever pursued. There are four options:

1. Humanism. "...you shall be as gods...." Man attempts to replace God with the elevation of himself, but the denial of his life-giving source ultimately results in his death. "The criticism of religion ends in the doctrine that man is the supreme being for man...." (Karl Marx)

2. Rationalism "...it was desired to make one wise." There is nothing wrong with seeking after wisdom, but just as a house with a faulty foundation is doomed to collapse, so too a wisdom that was already founded upon a lie is doomed to result in false knowledge. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that we are told that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

3. Hedonism. "...it was a delight to the eyes...." I suspect that this could cover both physical and emotional pleasures. Adam and Eve were naturally meant to experience both. But the disobedient pursuit of them causes two effects: slavery to the object desired ("...and he shall rule over you."), and the self-centered, lustful grasping of that object which results in its abuse, seen clearly in rape and theft, but elsewhere in less extreme examples as well.

4. Materialism. "...it was good for food...." Mankind is here reduced to basic, animal level. His concern is no longer even as high as wisdom or pleasure. Naked survival rules his action. Food, profit, and utter selfishness become his only motive; the material world his only point of reference. In falling this far man reduces himself to a mere economic principle, as witnessed in the severe materialism of Marx where the value of each individual is nothing more than an economic function.

In replacing God with these things man has not emancipated himself. Rather he has left the great liberty to be found in the Eternal One, and has become a slave to lesser masters, a worshiper of little gods. He defines himself by what he chooses to serve. If a man serves drugs, for example, we notice that he comes to have a very low self-image. This should come as no surprise. The lesser should naturally only be ruled by the greater. The drug addict has silently announced that white powder is greater than himself, that a pill is worthy to be his master. Understood in this light, we can see why the servants of God realize their true potential and experience their great dignity when they place themselves under their Maker. Obedience to the highest Master of all is not demeaning, but rather an honor. Which indicates greater dignity for mankind: to say that only the Almighty and Eternal Trinity has the innate right to rule man for his own good; or to say that almost anything else (money, pleasure, tyrants, etc.) has the right to be placed above him and demand his obedience?

Thus, we see two reasons why atheism leads to the destruction of man:
First, because man is no longer viewed as God's child, is no longer seen to be a creature made in the Image of God. The denial of the cause results in the denial of its proper effect. If God is denied, then there cannot possibly be anything divine about man. "God is dead," cried Nietzsche "we have killed him!" And, I would answer, you have therefore killed yourself. If man is not a child of God, then he is only an animal, or something less. Man's self-image, man's definition of himself steadily falls to a lower level with the onset of atheism, and his abuse and destruction at his own hands cannot be far behind.

Secondly, we have seen how man chooses to replace God with lesser objects of worship that are demeaning to himself. These new masters tend to be unkind, as history and reason show us. They cannot offer us life, participation in divinity, security, or any of the deepest wants and needs of humanity. And these tyrannous masters of humanism, materialism, hedonism, and rationalism tend to turn on their subjects in time and devour them. Slavery to man and material leads automatically to war, taxation, and tyranny. Rationalism that is founded on the Original Lie leads to ignorance at best, or madness at worst. And pleasure leads to gross slavery as well, with its helpless servants led to whatever end at its caprice.

Returning briefly to Communism, which example served as the starting point for this essay, we notice how closely it parallels the Fall. The human heart has been seeking Paradise ever since the Fall, but, without God, it sets up barren deserts rather than gardens. Communism offered a future paradise for mankind by destroying class distinctions. But its Utopian future was founded upon some of the basic principles that we noted in Genesis. It denied God. It set up humanity for its future goal and present worship. It offered no reality but materialism.

The Paradise of God was the place where man was robed in his Original Dignity, granted the opportunity to realize his calling, and offered a true future of endless Joy. The Red Garden of Communism is stained with the blood of countless of our brothers, still crying out from the ground.

God is our All, we are taught. If this is true, then when we leave Him we are left with nothing. Except perhaps ourselves....

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Cause and Effect Part I: "In the day that you eat of it...."

 Every effect has a cause. This is one of the fundamental principles that we learn in science, philosophy, and every other area of our lives. While we are most directly familiar in every day experience with effects, there is great value in examining and understanding causes. When we come to see and understand that a particular cause is good, we are enabled to pursue it and encourage the increase of its good effects in our lives and in the world. If we understand a cause to be bad, or evil, we will be better prepared to avoid it or root it out. The essay that follows is designed to examine a particularly evil effect evidenced in recent history, and to examine its causes. It will also include an examination of an opposing good effect and its cause. Due to the complexity of the topic, and to the constraints of time and space, what follows will be broken up into several parts. I hope to post the remaining parts within the next week or two. Your comments are always welcome.

  It has not been that many generations ago that one of the most horrible and pernicious philosophies of modern times acquired political power and asserted itself in several countries with the result of virtually countless deaths, both spiritual and physical. I am, of course, speaking of Communism. Although Communism's place in the world may have somewhat lessened in recent times, it still exercises its dreadful doctrines and practices over millions of persons worldwide. For those of us who were born and grew up after the Cold War, Communism may be largely forgotten, misunderstood, or go completely unnoticed. Yet, it as real now as it was many decades ago.

 It is no longer an intellectual proposition existing only on paper or in the mind. It passed from that stage over a hundred years ago. The spectre that was haunting Europe, to borrow Marx's opening lines of The Communist Manifesto, in the latter part of the nineteenth century, ceased to be a disembodied ghost. It took a real and awful form, crushing and destroying both the souls and bodies of its subjects, and subjugating science, literature, the arts, and the material world to its tyrannous ends.

 I am not here strictly concerned with the fact of Communism, either its philosophical and economic principles, or its actual behavior resulting from those principles. These facts, which demonstrate a dreadful effect, will simply serve as a framework or springboard for the actual point of this essay, which is their cause(s). Rather, I wish to draw attention to the historical and philosophical conditions that produced Communism's totalitarian success, in order to both comprehend those causes, and through that comprehension to create an awareness of their potential effects, should we see those causes again, here and now. Therefore, the two subjects to be considered here are the following: the philosophical context or climate that allowed, and to a large extent, caused Communism to exist; and the necessary connection between those philosophies and the destructive results of their actualization.

 In regards to the first point, the precedent climate, it should be noted that political and philosophical systems rarely, if ever, simply spring up from nowhere. Such ideas do not occur in a vacuum. Certain preexisting conditions must be in place to enable their growth. These conditions, or climate (perhaps the broader French expression terroir, used in wine making, might be a more accurate word), may be ascertained from a study of history. In the case of Communism it is not necessary to look very far. While it is very likely that its roots reach back much further, I only wish here to examine the immediate philosophies from which Marx's thought arose.

 Marxist thought sprang up in the fertile intellectual soil of nineteenth century Germany. A certain philosophical atheism had come to exist in Germany, witnessed in Feuerbach, Nietzsche, et al. Looking back just a bit earlier, we also find that many German philosophers of the time were greatly influenced by the teachings of Georg Friedrich Hegel. Hegelian thought (though not necessarily atheistic) exerted its influence on Feuerbach, Strauss, Marx, and many others. The connection between Georg Hegel and Karl Marx is no stretch at all:  Marx's adoption of Hegelian dialectic is clearly evidenced in his own dialectical concept of history (past and present, but especially future).

 Having mentioned the philosophical atheism of the times, I find that it is important here to note that the atheism of Ludwig Feuerbach, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Karl Marx, was not so much atheism as anti-theism. By this I wish to draw a distinction between various forms of atheism. Atheism, like some forms of religion, may be a purely private and personal form of thought or belief, based upon any number of reasons, emotions, or influences. While I believe that some of the following concerns may also be directed towards private, non-militant atheism, I am not here particularly concerned with that form. The intellectually and/or physically militant anti-theism of Feuerbach, Nietzsche, and Marx is a completely different matter. Not only did these men not personally believe in God, but they were firmly convinced that religion stood in the way of mankind's future fulfillment, or almost divine self-development. Belief in God kept men from realizing their tremendous potential, and as such must necessarily  be eradicated for mankind's own sake. Hence, this particular brand of atheism was set to utterly remove religion and the notion of God from the world and public consciousness. For further proof of these facts, and a cogent analysis of them, I would give my unhesitating recommendation to the brilliant and scholarly book by Jesuit priest, Father Vincent Miceli, The Gods of Atheism, from which much of the material for this essay is drawn. If you can find a copy of it, buy it, read it....

 So why out of all possible causes  target a form of atheism as the fundamental cause of Marxist doctrine? What about oppressively bloated Capitalism and economics? What about the Bourgeois and private property? Above all, what about the search for a Utopian, classless society? And couldn't Communist economic ideals and social structures co-exist with religion? Actually, the destruction of faith and religion cannot be removed from Communism, for at least the one reason stated above. "Atheism is not an accidental accretion to communist humanism. It is intrinsic and essential to both its creed and conduct." (Fr. Miceli The Gods of Atheism). There is plenty of evidence in the actual words of Marx and Lenin to corroborate this. "Marx was an atheist before the was a Communist, historically and logically. The intrinsic relation between the two he noted as follows: 'Communism begins where atheism begins.'" (Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, Communism and the Conscience of the West)

 But why? Does atheism lead necessarily to such destruction and inhumanity? In the individual atheist it may not. But overall, I believe that it is eventually bound to, for two particular reasons. These two reasons are completely antithetical to much religious thought, particularly the doctrines of Christianity, and may be understood by a comparison to two basic Christian dogmas.

At the core of Christianity's understanding of man and the world is the belief that God created man in His own image (the Imago Dei), and that God declared the universe He had created was good. The first of these two fundamental principles enables us to see the great value and dignity of the human person, a point repeatedly brought to light by Pope John Paul II and others in our own times. If man is in God's own Image, then even fallen, corrupted, and sinful man is imbued with a an awesome dignity that arrests our attention and demands our respect. To a lesser extent this same principle applies to the second doctrine of the value of creation. If God created the universe and declared it good, then even in its present state, the material universe is of great value, and we should adjust our treament and use of it according to this doctrine. If God is denied, if religion and dogma are done away with, then these two great principles (the dignity of man, and the value of creation) are necessarily denied and done away with as well.

 Cause and effect. If the Good God is the cause, then the effect (man, nature) must be considered as good and treated as such. If God is not the cause, then we begin down the dark path of first undervaluing the effect, then manipulating it to our own ends, and eventually destroying it. These points will be examined more fully in Part II.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

The Sacraments of Middle Earth

"...those who have dwelt in the Blessed Realm live at once in both worlds, and against both the Seen and the Unseen they have great power." "Yes, you saw him for a moment as he is upon the other side: one of the mighty of the Firstborn." Thus Tolkien has Gandalf describe the Elf-lord Glorfindel in The Fellowship of the Ring. 

I have long suspected J.R.R. Tolkien of being one who lived in both worlds at once. Witness his keen perception of and appreciation for both physical and spiritual realities. But I think that this is a common trait that is (or should be) shared by all Christians. And, if  I may say this without unseemly predjudice, I find that this is especially observable in the Catholic Church. The Mass is seen as heaven on earth, the realities of the spiritual world intersecting and mingling with the clear realities of time and space. For example, during the Sanctus we are called upon to realize that our voices singing "Holy, Holy, Holy" are truly joined with the voices of the angels as they sing in another realm. We are made to realize that we are living "at once in both worlds."

Perhaps this is nowhere more true than in the Sacraments, those great mysteries of our Faith. We see the material reality of water poured out upon one's head, as Grace is simultaneously poured out into one's soul. A person can smell the incensed "oil of gladness", and  feel it upon upon one's hair and skin, while being confirmed interiorly in the Holy Spirit. We know that the Priest that absolves or consecrates is simply a stand-in; it is Christ absolving, Christ consecrating. And most of all, we may hopefully come to see our Lord hidden under the appearance of bread and wine.

What does all of this have to do with Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings? Simply this: I believe that Tolkien's works are fundamentally sacramental. I believe that a sacramental understanding of reality underlies and breathes through page after page of Tolkien's works. It is easy to go to extremes in reading him. We may be tempted to deny any hint of allegory, since the author denied that his works were allegorical. But remember, he was insisting upon this in response to the idea that one of his chapters was meant to be an allegory of post-WWII England ("The Scouring of the Shire"). After all, in another place, Tolkien says that the books were "at first unconsciously, then later consciously Christian, and specifically Catholic." (Take the quotes loosely here, I'm quoting from memory, but I think it's fairly close.)  It is also possible to go to the other extreme and read too much into Tolkien's intentions and make the books strictly allegorical. But I do not think that it would  be at all wrong to recognize the underlying sacramentalism of the Trilogy.

I was deeply attracted to The Lord of the Rings as a boy, but for years I knew nothing about the author. There was an atmosphere that was almost indescribable about the books, but I was not aware of what it was, nor was I then aware that Tolkien was a Catholic. Even once I knew, it still took time to realize more fully that I liked the books specifically because of their "Catholicness". (Is that a word?) Tolkien's writing stands apart and above most other works in their genre. The hauntingly beautiful scenes of the Trilogy have some sense of a gripping and glorious reality that distances them from mere fantasy. One feels in reading them that these things are not only how one would want things to be, but perhaps the way things ought to be. Perhaps, if one could see clearly enough, they express the way things really are.... 

When king Theoden charges across the Pelennor Fields, to his death, against the armies of darkness, white flowers blossom in the gloom around his horse's hooves. I do not feel that this is merely charming or poetic. Rather, the sense is that white flowers ought to bloom at that moment; nature expressing the truths we cannot see. When a horrible monster is slain and no grass will ever grow upon that place, I clearly feel that no grass ought to grow there. And reading about the miraculously light and sustaining lembas bread calls to mind the Eucharist. Time and time again we see sacramentalism imbuing the pages of the Trilogy.

I am aware that the Sacraments have been a point of division among Christians for many years now. Of course, the Orthodox still have valid Sacraments; and Anglican, Lutheran, and other Christians still hold certain sacramental beliefs. The complete eradication of sacramental theology occurs principally in fundamentalist thought. The Sacraments are viewed with suspicion or even antipathy, as superstitions, even as some base belief in magic. They represent to the fundamentalist mind a corruption of pure spirituality. I am not concerned here with discussing the specific Sacraments, nor attempting to prove them by Scripture and the Tradition of the Church Fathers. I hope to write more on those matters in a coming series of posts. I simply want to make one clear point here. The Sacraments are not rooted in superstition. They were not invented out of thin air in response to some pagan urge for magic. No, their root is elsewhere. They spring from one great and glorious Fact: the Incarnation. They have their source in the God-Man Jesus, and from Him they flow to form the Church, as the Blood and Water flowed from His side on Calvary, as Eve was taken from the side of Adam.

If the unintentionally, yet subtly Manichean tendencies of fundamentalism are repulsed at the concept that God would use matter to accomplish His Spiritual purposes, let us remember that He became man for that very reason. The Sacraments go with the Incarnation. If it is too much to believe that water is used to cleanse us of our sins, then it is too much to believe that Blood can cleanse us either. If we cannot imagine God becoming our Food, then how can we imagine that He became a man? If Grace cannot come through matter, then how did God work through a body? If we deny the Sacraments we are in great peril of misunderstanding the Incarnation. Christianity has been sacramental from the start. Body and Spirit, Grace and Matter. God has not abandoned nor been ashamed of His Creation.

And going further back, we remember, as we see the Church standing against the Manicheans and their relatives through the centuries, that in the beginning God created. And He said that it was good....

I said earlier that Tolkien's books tell us much of how things ought to be, or perhaps really are. I am reminded of the Incorruptibles, the saints whose undecomposed bodies remain inexplicable, testaments to God's work. I am reminded of the English confessor (whose name I do not remember), who was beheaded by a king for his refusal to reveal a secret told him in confession. He held his tongue to the death. When his body was later exhumed for examination during the careful canonization process, it was discovered that all of his corpse was decomposed.

Except for his tongue. It was still fresh.

So the flowers grow forever on Theoden's grave, and the Incorruptibles remain as they were. Perhaps we would do well to remember Creation and the Incarnation as we ponder the Sacraments. It may even change the way we see things, the way we live. Whether we are talking about the Seven Sacraments, the sacramentals, or simply the Creation that shows forth "the handiwork of God", let us remember that we truly live at once in both worlds, walking with both the Seen and the Unseen, living in mysteries too great for our comprehension.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

First Sunday Of Advent

We were a little late getting to Mass this past Sunday. Something about having a baby makes timing a little challenging sometimes.... Anyway, for that or some other reason I found myself having a difficult time concentrating, keeping focused, being internally still. And it was the first Sunday of Advent, which is all about waiting, preparing, and expecting; three things I wasn't really accomplishing at the time. I did get most of Father's homily though, in part of which he discussed the change of mood or understanding of Advent over the years. It used to be that Advent was a sacrificial, penitential time of preparation with fasting and self-denial, much like Lent a little later in the Church year. Now the Church views it more as a time of joyful expectation, awaiting the coming Messiah at Christmastime. More positive, less fasting. I don't know why the Church changed this, maybe She knew that two periods of sacrifice and self-denial a year were too much for most of us weak children. Or maybe She understands that while the old pagan world awaited its Savior with sorrow and despair, we now await the coming of our Lord with joy and longing.

Well, whatever the case may be, I kept paying more attention to my surroundings than to the Messiah, and I happened to notice someone who arrived even later than we did. A tall, middle-aged man, with thick glasses, a brown overcoat, and wildly disheveled hair strolled up the aisle and plopped down in a pew near ours. He had a homeless air about him, and he didn't genuflect before sitting down. So I figured he wasn't a Catholic. Just some bum off the streets. I won't say I judged him, but maybe I should have been more concerned with my wandering attention than with his failure to genuflect.

I noticed the nervous, seemingly uncontrollable actions of his hands that hinted at some mental handicap. He took off his overcoat and tossed it carelessly in the seat beside him. Underneath, I now saw he was wearing an old, brownish sweater. On his back still clung two fresh green leaves, probably left over from sleeping in some ditch or yard the night before. They had a certain beauty and incongruity about them that immediately arrested my attention.

My wife, daughter, and I attend St. Martin of Tours off Broadway Street in Louisville. It holds the distinction of being the only church in the area to remain open twenty-four/seven, and to have a perpetual Eucharistic Adoration Chapel. It is also located in a less than desirable section of town. For both of these reasons the church is constantly manned by a security guard and cameras. I guess the homeless gentleman had arrested the attention of the security guard as well, for I saw the guard come walking up the aisle a few minutes later. I don't know the guard's name, but I'll call him Joe for now. Partly for ease of writing, and partly because of some stereotypical prejudice in my mind that makes me think that all aging, part-time security guards at Catholic Churches should be called Joe....

Homeless people like St. Martin's, and I found it kind of beautiful that the man with the leaves was sitting there, but I suspect that Joe was worried that he might disrupt the congregation after Mass. Maybe ask for money or something. I have heard that Pope John Paul II said that we are all beggars, but I would agree that there is a need for order and propriety where the Divine Liturgy is concerned. Joe squatted down beside him and spoke to him in hushed tones for a couple of moments. The homeless man mumbled something inaudible in reply, while the nervous fingers gestured to the front, to the Altar and the Priest, as if to say "I'm here for this." And apparently he was, which from my perspective made me happy. I don't know that man's soul, or what he has been through, or what may have made him the way he is. I do know that the Church teaches us that the mentally handicapped are usually innocent of grave sins, due to a lack of free will and understanding. I am often moved when I see a handicapped person receive our Lord in Communion, for I know that they are innocently held in a Grace that carries them like a child through this "vale of tears." Sometimes it's easy to assume that our knowledge makes us superior, that we have somehow made ourselves worthy of God. But just as an unknowing child is freely given milk by its mother, so too God freely feeds the wounded and the handicapped.

When the time came to go forward to receive to the Eucharist, the homeless man's body language indicated that he would like to enter the line in which I stood. I paused to let him go in front, and all the way up the aisle I saw those two green leaves shining between his shoulder blades. Maybe you will think of fig leaves, but God knows that our own attempts to cover up our sins and sicknesses long ago withered and turned brown. We are all in need of healing, spiritually and mentally. Even our handicaps are but another consequence of the Fall. A sick and broken people we stand in line to receive the "medicine of immortality." The homeless man's apparent ease and familiarity convinced me that he was, indeed, a Catholic. He received the Sacred Host, placed it in his mouth, rammed his hands in his pockets, and strolled back to his pew.

Maybe he shows us a little of what we cannot see about ourselves. That we are homeless; that we are wounded; that we even sometimes smell. Maybe this is what we have been waiting for: healing. Maybe there is an Advent lesson here. We wait for, and we long for our Savior, our Healer. We wait for Messiah to deliver us from bondage and brokenness. I am thinking now of Revelation, where we see the trees of life planted on either side of the great river. And "...their leaves shall be for the healing of nations." And so this Advent we await the coming of the true Tree of Life, Whose leaves do not cover up our nakedness, but rather take away its shame. Even so, come Lord Jesus, come Tree of Life, whose leaves shall be for healing; for our healing and for that of all the nations.

I hope I shall see that man again. If not now, then after. If not here, then on the Other Side.
Meanwhile we wait.