Christ the King
I have struggled for many years with how one discerns God's will. It has always seemed to me that the extreme of God micromanaging the universe is as wrongheaded as thinking God never intervenes. Recently, as I have considered my life and the things that have happened in my life, I have considered occurrences that resulted because of actions I have taken and then those that have happened despite what I have wanted. It is too easy to simply think, well, everything that ended up happening must have been God's will for me. God, allowed it to happen.
But God allows lots of things to happen that are not God's will. Allowing something to happen is not the same thing as willing it, wanting it. For instance, I may allow my adult child to go bankrupt or go to prison when I have the means to prevent this. I am certainly not willing that my child experience this. I would much rather that my child had avoided the actions that have led to what is now going to happen, but I am allowing something to happen that I could prevent because my intervention will be less healthy for my child in the long run.
Regarding God allowing really bad things to happen without intervention, unless God is going to micromanage the universe God has to allow evil to exist. God controlling everything would mean there is no human freedom. Without the freedom to hate, the freedom to love does not exist. We are, as B.F. Skinner suggested, nothing more than the result of our genetic makeup, the environment in which we have existed, and the positive and negative reinforcements of our predetermined behavior. My point here is that if God allows all sorts of things to happen that God does not directly will, then my life is not necessarily completely the result of God's will, but a combination of God's will and the circumstances that have been in opposition to that.
Where I am going with this is that I have come to realize that it was God's will for me to be a monk and a Carthusian. I won't get into all the specifics and I will also tell you that God's will changes to adapt to new circumstances and God knows about this in advance. So, I am not a monk or even a practicing priest, but I believe I have done some good things with my life that, I hope, have been in conformity with God's will as it has adapted to changed circumstances.
Where I go from here is what really matters. I can't rewrite the past, and living with regrets is beneficial to no one. What is so very interesting is that as I enter the final chapter of my life I see an opportunity to recapture God's original intention for me. A conventional monastic existence is no longer possible, but an unconventional one certainly is and is, actually, falling into place. I have recently decided to retire from my full time job. When that happens, I will be able to establish a monastic routine and live a quasi-eremitical existence. The most unconventional part will be living with my husband, but I have already built a chapel in our basement for the celebration of the Liturgy, have a fully outfitted workshop (also in the basement), and I have plans to renovate a second floor room as a place of reflection and study. These are the essential elements of the monastic/eremitical life: liturgy, study and manual work. Structure, both in schedule and physical arrangements, are also critically important. I began work on defining documents to spell out this life some time ago. While being outside any particular observance has the advantage of "customization," I also know that I must follow rules. The alternative is to wallow in self indulgence.
May God be praised at all times and in all things!
What’s Really Happening in the Worldwide Anglican Communion?
After a “panel discussion,” following the celebration of
the Eucharist at St. Mark's Episcopal Church in New Britain, CT, someone else who used to attend Saint Maurice
Catholic Church in the same city asked me how our experience had been there as a gay couple. Was
that the reason we were now attending Saint Mark’s? Actually, I was able to
say, we were completely accepted at
The “panel discussion” held in the Library was deeply
disturbing to me. In the first place, a “panel discussion” implies
“discussion.” With a “lecture” or a “presentation” there will not necessarily
even be an opportunity for questions. You are there to hear what the presenter
or lecturer has to say and if there will be an opportunity for questions it is
very frequently explicitly mentioned. Not so with a panel discussion. If you
need convincing, consider how you would feel if you came to church and instead
of the Eucharist, a movie was shown, or if you went to the movies and the
Eucharist was celebrated. Expectations matter. Words matter.
In this instance expectations are even more important because they are involved with ecclesiology, with how we understand ourselves as a Church. Curiously, I had just the previous week enjoyed a conversation with our seminarian, Carolyn Sharp, and others helping her critique her sermons. We talked about whether the traditional “sermon” had perhaps outlived its usefulness, that congregational dialogues might be more appropriate considering the level of literacy, education, and experience of so many Christian congregations. Whatever the future of the sermon in the liturgy, a series of four sermons masquerading as a panel discussion was actually offensive to me. Why? Because it was dismissive of the feelings, thoughts, concerns, perspectives, knowledge, and experience of the People of God gathered in the Library for a discussion. We all know that if there had been more time others in the room would have had the opportunity to speak. That is the core ecclesiological issue. Why were the insights and perspectives of the non-clergy such a low priority?
For me this is very personal. My husband, Mark, and I were the only
openly homosexual persons in the room. It was very akin to having a panel of
white people talk about racial prejudice with black people in the room who are
only allowed to listen. Perhaps even more poignantly it was like what probably
did happen in the Episcopal Church as all male panels of clergy pontificated in
the presence of women about the appropriate role of women in the Church.
After the clergy had their say, I was required to reduce my
list of questions and concerns to one. I chose carefully what I thought was the
most poignant issue. It was fascinating to me how no one in the room seemed to
grasp what I was talking about. That tells me something, which is the reason
for the title of this missive.
Especially after Mother Eakins stunning revelation of the
bigamist African bishops, it is perfectly clear to me what is really going on
in the Anglican Communion and elsewhere. A powerful anti-homosexual orientation
is driving people’s sexual theology. That this is not recognized is to be
expected, but this lack of recognition of this anti-homosexual bias is
precisely what prevents it from being addressed. Why everyone loves
homosexuals, don’t they? They are God’s children, aren’t they?
It is fascinating to me that the worldwide Anglican
Communion can tolerate bigamist bishops but not bishops, priests, or even
congregants in same-sex relationships that are fully in accord with traditional
Church teaching about permanence, exclusivity, and faithfulness. I repeat, it
is perfectly clear that anti-homosexuality is driving theology including and
especially the interpretation of sacred scripture.
It is also perfectly clear that heterosexual persons cannot be expected to come to this realization on their own. They need to speak to and come to know homosexual persons. The value of a panel of straight clergy sharing their insights on the way the Church is dealing with homosexual persons was vitiated by what, or I should say who, was left out.
Celibacy in the Service of the Gospel
A sure sign of a faithful disciple of Jesus Christ is the
pronounced desire that everything the person does even in some small way
promote the Gospel. For those who have
the charism to live this way fruitfully, celibacy has been, since Jesus
himself, an especially effective way for Christians to live a life dedicated to
Christ, proclaiming the Gospel and bearing visible witness to this dedication.
But it has never been acceptable within Catholic orthodoxy to suggest that
everyone should be celibate. It has not even been acceptable within Catholic
orthodoxy to suggest that all priests
should be celibate. The practice of the Churches of the East to ordain married
men for priestly ministry has, unlike so many other things (the date of Easter,
type of bread for the Eucharist, filioque), never in the history of theology
ever been a point of theological dispute.
Given the theological and historical facts about celibacy,
it is clear that mandatory celibacy for secular priests is a custom or
practice, no matter how old and venerable, or simply practical. As such, it is
subject to the exact same criteria that any faithful follower of Jesus tries to
apply to everything he or she does: does
this practice help promote the Gospel? In the current crisis within the
Catholic Church whereby millions of Catholics are every day left without access
to the sacraments of the Church it is difficult to justify this. Mandatory
celibacy for priestly ministry is blocking the promotion of the Gospel.
Since everyone is in agreement that mandatory celibacy for
ministry is a custom rather than a theological or moral imperative, it is akin
to other customs. It should be governed by the same standards and principles as
govern other customs. Let’s use an extremely poignant example from Sacred
Scripture: mandatory circumcision. Elucidation of the points and principles is
unnecessary. Circumcision was a cultural custom that had risen within Judaism
to the status of the law. Early Christianity, very reluctantly, abolished it as
a requirement when it became apparent that it would stand in the way of
preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. It is not a stretch to suggest that it
was only because of the courage of the early Church to abandon the requirement
of circumcision that the Church was able to spread so quickly throughout the
Mediterranean basin. It is long past time to do the same with mandatory
celibacy for the secular clergy in the West. It is, actually, a moral
imperative. The reluctance of the leaders
of the Church to make this change is confusing. The laity have never understood
it and it has certainly never been popular among rank and file clergy.
Jesus: Power & Control
Multiple Magdalenes
On the feast of St. Mary Magdalene [July 22], I began morning
prayer as I often do reading a little about the day's celebration. I found
myself embroiled in controversy! Just who was
Mary Magdalene? The West conflates the three Marys—penitent woman, sister
of Martha and Lazarus and the woman at the cross and at the tomb. In the East
these are seen as three separate people. My knee-jerk was to suspect the
Eastern tradition was probably more historical and it was in this frame of mind
I began my morning meditation. Then Mary started weeping at the tomb.
My mind went to that other woman weeping at the feet of her
Christ. Then I considered the sister of Martha, so absorbed in Jesus she was
oblivious to the womanly tasks that were her shared responsibility. What these
women all had/have in common is intense love of Jesus. So, the Western
tradition has a certain attractive sensibility. We are enamored by those who
passionately love our Savior, who fawn and blubber over him. The intense love
of the Marys is inspiration for us all. One can argue whether keeping all this
love together in one person is more or less helpful than having it manifested
in three separate individuals. The important thing is the love, and that is not
lost no matter how you slice it—or don’t. The love is certainly historical, and
because so many of us continue to feel this way about our Savior, not merely
historical, but very contemporary.