Newspaper Page Text
\
»
*
1
Leisure Activities
Learning from Tourists
By Fr. Carl J.
Pfeifer, SJ.
Washington changes about
this time each year. Hundreds
of thousands of camera-toting
tourists arrive by plane, train,
bus, bicycle and car. They
come from every part of the
United States. They come
from Europe, South America,
Africa, Asia. They come in
every size, shape and
combination. But they all
have one thing in common -
in addition to tired feet -
they want to see.
They want to see the
monuments, they want to see
the President, they want to
see Congress. They come with
eyes wide open, looking for
everything of interest.
The same phenomenon
occurs all over our country
and in much of the civilized
world. Summer is the time of
the tourist. Europeans
sometimes laugh at the
typical American tourists,
swarming from tour buses,
expecting everyone to speak
English.
Occasionally, tourists laugh
at themselves, as they realize
a bit self-consciously how
they are gazing intently at a
stone or house that the local
people are passing right by.
There is something
ridiculous about the frantic
pace of the modern tourist.
But there is something
admirable and instructive as
well. Someone wrote
sarcastically that most of us
run through life superficially
like a tourist. It seems to me
that a quite different
interpretation of the tourist is
equally possible. We can learn
from the tourist how to go
through life - not necessarily
so frenetically and heavily
laden with travel gear, but
with our eyes open.
The tourist sets out to see,
to wonder, to admire. He
wants to get a glimpse of the
marvelous world in which he
lives. We may laught at his
trappings -- walking shorts,
straw hat, shopping bags,
cameras, travel bags, sun
glasses -- but we might well
imitate something of his
eagerness to see, to notice, to
wonder.
A wise Catholic writer
wrote about half a century
ago that we need never fear
God’s punishment for wasting
time looking at a butterfly,
but we might eternally regret
never taking the time to
notice the beauty of a
butterfly. In the hectic pace
of twentieth century life we
simply fail to even notice so
many beautiful things around
us. The tourist’s set purpose
is to notice - but usually far
away from home.
Last year I went back
home for several days -- home
being in St. Louis. One day
my parents and I decided to
take a day and see St. Louis
as if we were tourists. It was a
remarkable experience. I saw
things that day that I had
grown up with, yet never
noticed. A world of natural
and man-made beauty and of
American history was right
there all along and I had
hardly given it a glance.
In suggesting that we learn
to look at what surrounds us
as if we were tourists, I am
merely recalling a very
traditional practice. One of
the first steps in the
traditional approach to God
is to learn to open one’s eyes
and see.
St. Thomas Aquinas felt he
could prove God’s existence
from the beauty of the world.
St. Francis of Assisi learned
to appreciate the beautiful
creatures of God long before
the drug culture set out to
expand consciousness. St.
Igantius Loyola begins his
famous “Contemplation to
Attain Love of God” from
the starting point of the
marvel of creation. His
spirituality was characterized
by “seeing God in all things”
- which implies that one first
learns to look at things.
Contemplation is nurtured
on wonder, which begins with
learning to look at, to notice,
to see. “To live at home like a
tourist” is simply a way of
calling attention to the
traditional path to God by
way of the visible, tangible
world which He keeps in
existence for our good.
Scripture In The Life
Of The Church Todav
On Not Belonging
to this World and
Being Thankful for It
By Fr. Walter M.
Abbott, SJ.
In Chapter 3 of St. Paul’s
Letter to the Colossians the
basic facts of Christian life
and ideals are set forth. In the
middle of the chapter there is
some consideration of the
problem of sin among
Christians. Then, after
recalling the positive fact that
God loved them and chose
them for his own, Paul
exhorts his readers to help
and to forgive one another.
At this point he tells his
readers three times to thank
God for their call to
Christianity and the other
gifts they have received from
God (3:15-17).
The chapter begins wit!
the assertion that Christians
share the life of the risen
Christ. Therefore, Paul
continues, they should set
their hearts “on the things
that are in heaven, where
Christ sits on his throne at
the right side of God” (3:1).
“Keep your minds fixed on
things there, not on things
here on earth,” Paul writes
(3:2).
If you take that last
sentence literally, by itself,
out of its context, and try to
live by it, you can have many
problems, since, of course, a
number of things of this
world will keep asserting
themselves for some of your
attention, for example, wife,
children, job, community
problems, race relations, and
all kinds of other things.
Remember the basic
principle for interpreting the
Scriptures: take account of
everything on a topic in the
sacred books to reach the
correct and harmonious
understanding of the
different passages about it.
Since we’re dealing here with
the conduct of life itself and
the proper attitude to it,
there are many passages to
consider.
The easiest thing to do in
this case, however, is to look
at the immediate context. It
is mose likely that Paul’s
comments relate to what he
has just written at the end of
Chapter 2, in verses 20-23. In
that passage he severely
criticizes some ascetical
practices. Apparently they
were rules of a movement or
organization which some of
the Colossian Christians had
joined.
Paul ticks off some of the
rules: “Don’t handle this,”
“Don’t taste that,” “Don’t
touch the other” (2:21).
From the way he puts it, you
can tell he takes a dim view
of the whole business.
Paul’s attitude is that those
Christians have ended up
living as though they
belonged to this world
(2:20), which he obviously
means to be a disparaging
judgment. He refers to the
practices as “only man-made
rules and teachings.” He
concedes that the programs
those Christians are following
look good, but he insists they
really are no good at all:
“While these make a certain
show of wisdom in their
affected piety, humility, and
bodily austerity, their chief
effect is that they indulge
men’s pride” (2:23).
That translation (from the
New American Bible) puts
the point in a rather
sophisticated way. Here Is
another translation which,
except for the first phrase,
gives more literally what the
original Greek text says: “Of
course they appear to have
wisdom in their forced
worship of angels, and severe
treatment of the body; but
they have no real value in
controlling physical passions”
(Today’s English Version).
As the Jerome Biblical
Commentary says, the Greek
word rendered here by
“affected piety” (NAB) or
“forced worship of angels
(TEV) may be translated
“would-be religion” and may
indicate that the Colossian
error was a type of mystery
cult.
That final phrase about
controlling physical passions
has been interpreted by some
to mean that Paul simply
condemns ascetical practices.
In that sentence and in that
whole passage Paul certainly
hits hard and takes a broad
sweep, but not that hard and
not that sweeping.
The passage cannot be used
to bolster an argument that
true Christianity has nothing
to do with mortification,
practices of penance, etc.
What Paul says here applies
only to the particular context
of the Colossian situation.
If you think the passage
shows Paul is against
self-denial in matters of food
and the flesh, I can give you
some insuperable difficulties.
For example, how do you
explain 3:5, “You must put
to death, then, the earthly
desires at work in you, such
as immorality, indecency,
lust, evil passions, and
greed”? How can it be done
without mortification and
self-denial of some kind?
Consider 3:8, “But now
you must get rid of all these
things: anger, passion, and
hateful feelings. No insults or
obscene talk must ever come
from your lips.”
In achieving all these things
it is obviously a matter of not
handling, tasting, or touching
something. What Paul warns
against is false asceticism, not
asceticism itself. From the
Gospels, of course, one can
quote many passages
indicating that Christ taught
penance and ascetical
practices were needed for a
number of temptations.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. What is meant when
Paul says that Christians share
the life of the risen Christ?
2. What is “false
asceticism”?
KNOW YOUR FAITH
THE ATMOSPHERE which leads to “those magic moments” of childhood, mentioned by Dolores
Curran, can be developed at a reading session when the adult takes the time to allow for the
children to enter into the spirit of learning. (NC PHOTO by Carolyn Wells)
Let’s Take A Break
Seizing Those
Magic Moments
By Dolores Curran
He is five and a half.
(Don’t forget the half. It’s as
important to him as the five.)
He has just finished
kindergarten and is learning
how to sound out a few
words.
The other evening, I
noticed he was poring over
the large headlines in our
daily paper, “Kee .. .-
keep . . .ing .. .keep-ing . . .-
keeping, Mom, it says
keeping...” He grabbed up
the paper and ran to his dad
with it. “Guess what, Dad?
This word says keeping.” He
glowed with pleasure.
His nine-year-old sister
raised her eyebrows in
resignation and muttered,
“Big deal, it says keeping.” I
lowered my eyebrows at her
raised ones and put down my
magazine to share in Mike’s
new interest. He was
experiencing the first thrill of
reading and, like all of us, he
needed someone to share this
thrill with him.
We spent the next hour or
so sounding out new words,
each followed by some
exclamation of wonder and
awe.
These are the magic
moments of parenthood,
those moments we are often
tempted to ignore because
they interfere with our own
schedules but which can’t be
ignored because of their
briefness.
Mike chose that evening to
read. We couldn’t say to him,
“Mike, we’re busy tonight.
You wait to sound out
keeping until next Thursday
evening when we’re free.”
That was the night of
discovery and if we were to
share that magic moment
with Mike, we had to do it
that evening.
We have many magic
moments in parenthood.
There’s the moment a child
asks, “Mom, is there
something wrong with being
black?” and the moment a
child begs, “Please, Dad, let
me fix that shelf?” In that
instant, each parent eyes the
child and his motivation.
Then he sets aside his own
plans for the day and seizes
the magic moment to teach
his child.
The experienced mother
knows there is a time when
the infant wants to feed
himself. If she seizes that
time to endure the oatmeal in
the hair and the milk on the
floor, she will be able to lead
her toddler to eat by himself
within a reasonable time.
But if the mess is too much
for her and she puts it off,
she may pass up that magic
moment of motivation. She
will still be feeding him at
two because he lost interest
at one.
That’s an obvious stage.
Other stages in a child’s
development are more subtle
and the parent has to watch
for them. When the child
begins asking questions about
goodness and evil and God,
the parent should recognize it
as a magic moment to furnish
some simple and loving
religious information.
Too often we ignore the
moment of interest in religion
and then give up later when
our child doesn’t enjoy his
catechism at our convenience.
When the child begins to
show an interest in nature,
parents who see and seize
upon that interest are able to
implant a love of nature
which might be lifelong. Too
many of us let it pass and
then find it impossible to
recapture “next summer in
the mountains.”
When the child starts
questioning us about sex and
sexuality, we can say, “Wait
until you’re older,” or we can
stop what we’re doing and
answer his questions.
It all comes down to being
open or closed to the needs
of our children. We can’t say
to them, “We will fill your
needs according to our
convenience.” It doesn’t
work that way. When a crying
daughter needs to be
reassured that she is lovable
in spite of her glasses, she
needs it now, not tomorrow.
I wouldn’t give up those
magic moments of
parenthood for anything. To
watch a child learning to
read, to help a child discover
the awe of reproduction, to
share in the scrutiny of an ant
hill - these moments make up
for all those others we spend
folding laundry and scraping
mud off shoes. Those are
important to us, maybe, but
not to our children.
Not long ago, I read
something by a mother who
reasoned that her children
wouldn’t remember her for
her clean home, prompt
meals, or sparkling laundry.
Rather, they would
remember her for the stories
she told, the confidences she
heard and the fun they
shared.
I would like to see us
change our orientation as
parents. Instead of fitting our
children and those magic
moments into a supposedly
well-ordered day. let’s fit our
home life around those magic
moments.
Instead of saying, “No, not
today,” when our children
want to learn something, let’s
say, “Why not today?” and
put aside our routine chores
which will be always with us.
The magic moments won’t.
DEMONSTRATORS FOR SOCIAL REFORM - Our literal understanding of Paul (3:2), “Keep
your minds fixed on things there, not on things here on earth, taken out of its context might
cause problems when social action is felt to be needed “here and now . (NC PHOTO)
PAGE 5 — July 1, 1971
Question
And Answer
By Fr. Richard P. McBrien
Q. Now that the American Catholic bishops have
rejected the theological report which spoke
approvingly of the ordination of women, does this
mean that the Synod in Rome will not even be
discussing the issues?
A. Views expressed in various countries before the
opening of the Synod have no binding effect on the
synodal delegates themselves. Since the question of
ordination of women isr germane to the topic of the
priesthood, I should be surprised if the matter is not
raised and discussed in Rome.
Furthermore, the American bishops did not, in
fact, reject the theological report on the priesthood
(which, as you know, was submitted to the recent
U.S. bishops’ meeting in Detroit along with the
sociological and psychological studies on the state of
the American Catholic clergy). The theological
document was only provisional; indeed, its author
submitted it as a progress report and not as a final
statement
Some bishops objected to the content (e.g., its
suggestion that there are no theological reasons which
would prevent the Catholic Church from changing its
law of obligatory celibacy for priests and from
allowing women to be ordained to the priesthood)
and others objected to the methodology, saying that
the report wasn’t scholarly enough.
Still others defended the report on the grounds
that the author had done exactly what could be
realistically expected in the short time allotted him.
The original director of the theological study had
withdrawn from the project only last June.
£
i
Q. I have noticed in the Catholic press over the last
several months discussion on the part of our priests
regarding the status of their senates. Some priests are
now arguing that the senate, in union with the
bishop, should be the policy-making body for the
diocese. I can understand why the priests want this
change. Right now, the bishops seem to function as
absolute monarchs for all practical purposes. The
priests want “a piece of the action.” But isn’t this
desire to make the priests’ senate the policy-making
body for the diocese just another form of clericalism?
What about the diocesan pastoral council? Shouldn’t
that really be the decision-making group in any
diocese, particularly in view of its wide cross-section
of membership: laity and religious, as well as diocesan
clergy?
A Yes, indeed. I agree with the theological and
pastoral assumptions implied in your comment and
questions. The diocesan pastoral council, not the
priests’ senate, should be the principal policy-making
body in a given diocese, in union wit the bishop, of
course, who retains responsibility for the
coordination and integration of all apostolic activities
for the sake of the mission of the Church (see the
Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church,
n. 17, and also the Dogmatic Constitution on the
Church, n. 30).
I should suggest, however, that there might be a
change in the relationship which now often exists
between bishops and their senates of priests. At
present, some senates have little or no influence on
local policy because they are in competition with
other pre-existing advisory bodies, e.g., the board of
diocesan consultors or the episcopal vicars.
The senate might replace the diocesan consultors,
at least on matters pertaining directly to the clergy
(other matters - and even clergy matters insofar as
they relate to the life and work of the whole diocese
- should be of concern to the diocesan pastoral
council).
In a recent survey conducted by the National
Federation of Priests’ Councils, seventy-six percent of
American priest-senators have urged that senates
should, in fact, assume the function of the diocesan
consultors.
V.
X
Q. Are we bound by the teachings of the Church to
believe in the existence of Limbo? Are we not free to
believe that infants who die without baptism are
received into the Kingdom of heaven?
A. No, to the first question; yes, to the second.
Q. I am a Catholic and also a firm believer in the
laws of God given to us through the Holy Bible. We
have only to look in the Bible to find God’s plan for
Christians who wish to confess their sorrow for sin.
Why is the Catholic faith so complex when an easier
means of uniting the world in faith is so clearly
written for us in the Holy Bible?
A. I can answer your question by posing one of my
own: if everything is so clearly and unequivocally
stated in the Bible, why it it that men and women of
intelligence and good will have differed and continue
to differ in their understanding and interpretation of
that Bible?
For some official guidelines in the critical reading
of Sacred Scripture, see, for example, Pope Pius XII’s
encyclical letter Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943), and
Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine
Revelation (Dei Verbum).