Articles Tiles

RCC Highlights for the Year 2007

 As the RCC approaches the New Year we all have much to be thankful for as we look back upon the countless graces of a – nothing short of awe-some – 2007. To mark these in their entirety would be to render a Newspaper into a hardcover Volume, and this, we leave to the work of our gifted historian. We would be remiss, however, not to pause in the holiness of this season and bask in the Light of God, bathing us, in recounting some of the most incredible Good News of the past year.

 The Reformed Catholic Church has grown in a way few of us could have even wrapped our minds around but one short year ago. Giant leaps forward have graced us on the local, national and international levels and with each movement of growth we have responded in nurturing what is developing in so many different ways. Wrapped in a box of grace and sealed with the red bow of the Spirit, let us take some time to pause in awe of who we have been this past year and of who we continue to become as 2008 approaches.

The Reformed Catholic Church:  A Review of the Year 2007

It is Right to the give Her thanks and praise?

Gender Inclusive Language: Moving from the Controversial to the Concrete

Father Michael Abair, Jr.

Let there be no question that the issue of “gender inclusive language” is a topic of discussion and debate in nearly every sector of institutionalized Christianity. To worship in [most particularly] Roman, Anglican, Independent and – our very own – Reformed Tradition, of one thing we can be sure: this “issue” is a constant. Ears are – however disguised – quite carefully present to those who employ or choose not to employ what has been termed “gender inclusive language.” The matter, in fact, becomes so ridiculous in some cases that parties on both sides of the “gender inclusive fence” literally turn up the volume in liturgy as a kind of prophetic statement; clarifying where one stands with regard to this issue.

                Sadly, in such cases, while clarity as to who embraces an “inclusive language,” may be ascertained in Liturgy, a battle of semantics – by default – takes precedence over the very heart of Liturgy itself! A place in which Christians in the Catholic Traditions claim to find a common and Holy Center is in the Presence of Almighty God: Three Eternal Persons in One Timeless Being. The Holy Celebration of the Mass qualifies this Center in the second Person of the Trinity; Jesus Christ: the Word of God from ages unto ages, the Word made Flesh and dwelt among us and the Word transubstantiated upon the holy altar of the Divine Sacrifice of the Mass.

                As to each of these aforementioned, emphasis from either position regarding “gender inclusive language” is a peripheral element at best, and, at worst, a terrible distraction amongst the gathered faithful. I have personally experienced many instances of the latter; Eucharistic celebrations in which the Christ of the Gospels in Word and Sacrament all but disappeared amidst a kind of “whoever speaks louder wins the ecclesial prize,” application of the polity over the pastoral; all in the name of? All in the name of egocentrism, and moreover, anthropocentrism.

                I was given the distinct honor of studying at the institution in which the pre-eminent systematic theologian Elizabeth Johnson, CSJ, renowned as the foremost sought out Roman Catholic feminist theologian internationally, continues to teach. Dr. Johnson’s classic in the field, “She Who Is,” remains the primer in feminist theology in Catholic circles of academia and far beyond. The text is explicitly applicable to the issue of “gender inclusive language,” by even the very title of the book. “She,” Johnson refers to as the Holy, the Transcendent, and the “I AM.” Hence, “She Who Is,” is an argument for the theological grounds to refer to the Living and True God in the feminine.

                Johnson draws much of her theology from that of the late and brilliant Karl Rahner, S.J., who was among the first to begin to wrestle with the controversy surrounding “gender inclusive language” from a viewpoint of his genius systematic theology. What is most interesting in looking at the findings of Rahner and the application in the work of Elizabeth Johnson is that, in conclusive findings, the consensus among the two –and many Catholics who have adopted this position [myself included] – is quite a simple theological argumentation. Where offensive shouting may be heard in parish communities split over the issue of utilizing God-language that is inclusive or – more explicitly – feminine, the answers to such a seemingly “complex issue” is really quite simple: refer to the fundamental aspects of what we hold as the Catechism.

                God bears no gender at all; he transcends any such categorization that the human person can think to “bind him in, by title.” Pure Eternal Spirit, Timeless and Infinite; God is – if we may really “say” anything at all as to the core of his nature – Holy Mystery. The work of the theologian is to study various aspects of The Holy and Triune Mystery as these have been, and continue to be, made known to us through Revelation. It is in this arena that many adjectives have been used to describe God throughout the ages. The term “Father,” a translation of the Aramaic “Abba,” which is far more akin to “daddy,” than anything bearing the kind of formality of the title “Father,” is perhaps the most fundamental example of the way in which semantics confuse theology. Sadly, examples such as these have been the cause of many a distorted “God-image,” perpetuating an unhealthy spiritual life with a vision of a very human, angry, male, and authoritarian “God as Judge.”

                It is quite clear in a prayerful reading of the Scriptures that Jesus of Nazareth never intended for such a God-image to be perpetuated. The Gospel of John speaks of what I believe may be the most cogent application of “Who God is,” namely: “God is Love.” THIS is the adjective that holds steady throughout the course of the history of Christian Spirituality and it is upon this rose that many a further petal in word form have come to blossom [i.e. God as: Bridegroom, Lover, Mother, Wisdom/Sophia, Beloved, Delight Himself, etc.]. Next to these are innumerable other “names for God.” History speaks for itself insofar as it is clear that some of these “names” have been more closely aligned with a God who is Love Itself than others. What the sum total of all of the “Divine Names*,” renders perfectly clear is the message contained in the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius under this very title*.

                This mystifying theologian of the 5^th Century issued a work in which he – exhaustively- in the form of prose, issued the manifold names of God and the way in which they do, in essence, “capture” something of the Divine nature. Conclusively, however, Pseudo-Dionysius states in The Mystical Chapter that while God may be said to contain, in God’s fullness, ALL of the attributes rendered unto him in the treatise; the totally incomprehensible Mystery that S/HE IS swallows the attributes whole and we are left with little more than what Rahner, Johnson and other contemporary theologians frequently refer to as “mini-portraits of the Divine nature.” We cannot bind God is the essential thesis running through the works of the ancient and the modern theologians and mystics; more specifically: we cannot bind God by gender or any language that would seek to qualify his/her gender. What then, can we do with regard to the issue of gender inclusive language?

                Here is where contemporary theological study is most helpful, and, in fact, simplifying. By acknowledging that God both contains the fullness of maleness and femaleness as the Creator of both and transcends each of these categories, we may lay grounds for either term to be used in reference to God liturgically. The limits of our human tools of communication prohibit us from attaining to anything even bordering on speaking to the Holy Trinity with “just the right words!” Instead, by acknowledging that we do not possess these words – limited as we are by our own humanity – we find freedom in the use of those words which we do come to understand as attributive to God.

                That the words chosen will vary dependent upon the minister of the Liturgy and the congregation is quite obvious, and, I might add, not particularly problematic in the Reformed Catholic Church. There is, however, but one area in which I believe we would all do well to examine more prayerfully prior to seeking to “gender neutralize,” and this pertains to the Sign and Blessing of the Cross [or wherever God is referred to specifically as Three Persons]. Alternatives to the traditional “Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” are many; the most frequently used being: “Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier.” While on the surface such a postmodern “translation” does not appear to be anything other than three “divine names” which speak more to the concerns of “progressive Christians” while all being true theological statements [indeed: God is Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier] there is an absolutely essential aspect missing here: the inherently relational Triune God. To speak of the Father, in eternal relationship with the Son through the Holy Spirit [as traditionally held with little room for debate; this is a core article of the Catholic faith] is to underscore the grace of imago dei; we are created in the image and likeness of a God in Eternal Relationship. In this way, we are also called to embody the nature of our God through living relationally in love; this is the epicenter of the spiritual life of the Christian. Where this becomes problematic in terms of “gender inclusive language” is insofar as any alternative to the formula of blessing that is explicitly Trinitarian must contain this element of the relational God so as to be true to who we understand ourselves as being created in the image and likeness of.

                In closing, and on a personal note, I maintain that “it is right to give Her thanks and praise.” Dependent upon the Liturgical setting, as God both contains and transcends gender altogether, “gender inclusive language, ” or even liturgically feminist language for that matter, do not present a problem theologically. Where there is much further thought and reflection to be had is in relation to a “gender inclusive” application of a Trinitarian blessing. I’ll sit upon my….porch [honesty is always best!] and ponder. I’d invite those of you with an interest to do the same. Let me know, better yet, let us know what stirs in your heart examining this question.  

In the meanwhile: May the Blessing of God All-Compassionate: +The Eternal Bearer of Light, the eternally begotten Light made Flesh and the Spirit of Light making all things shine with the splendor of Love be amongst you and remain with you forever.  

The Catholic Church Reforming

A Communal Reflection upon the Spirit of the Reformed Catholic Church

Rebuild my Church ~ God, to Francis of Assisi in 1182

Rebuild my Church ~ God, to the Reformed Catholic Church [LOOK TO YOUR CALANDAR DAILY!]

 Marking the first stages in the new millennium, The Reformed Catholic Church is an embodiment of the Universal Catholic Church for a new age. Rooted in Tradition, grounded in sound teaching, open to reason and innovation and truly “catholic,” in its universality, the Reformed Catholic Church marks a new paradigm in Catholic Christendom. The R.C.C.,  as it commonly referred to, is the response of the faithful to a new injunction – once held to be spoken to Saint Francis of Assisi from a Crucifix in San Damiano – to the People of God today: “Rebuild my Church.” Much like Francis, The R.C.C. quite literally began with the sweat, blood, laughter and tears of those men and women who are the founding pillars of what is now an international movement and a “fifth pillar” of the Catholic faith. Through trial and tribulation, bigotry and violence, as well as in the disproportionately numbered times in celebration of the sheer graces bestowed upon this Church, The R.C.C. is a community of courage; boldly proclaiming:  

We are Men and Women of Tradition and of Reason

                The R.C.C. prides itself as a new rite extending from that most ancient of rites, instituted upon the “rock,” the very foundation of the Church in human history. Given the breadth of manifestations of the meaning of “Church” throughout the ages, much has changed and we can foresee many more changes in the Roman Church under her present See. The R.C.C., therefore, underscores the essential elements of the early Church, particularly as recorded shortly after the post-Resurrection period. It is in these writings in which we are privy to the words of those closest to Jesus of Nazareth himself. Our Christian ancestry, in this form, helps us to understand the theology behind the forms of earliest Christian worship and the method of discernment in the construction of Tradition and doctrine. As a people of reason, the R.C.C. understands also that the “rock of Peter,” at this time in human history is far more “rough than diamond,” and thus, goes to great lengths to always seek clarity as to the roots of our Tradition and its relevance in our lives today.

 We are a People of Sense and Spirit, Word and Sacrament

                The R.C.C. inherits and preaches the Gospel in such a way that supersedes a simple “reading” of them.  We seek, moreover, to live into the Gospel so as to live “Gospel lives” ourselves!  How is it that we can proclaim the Living Good News while only opening ourselves to dead ink; we cannot. Thus, encountering the Risen Christ in his Holy Gospel, we proclaim him in our daily living. From the beginnings of the Scriptures in which woman and man are created in the imago dei – in the image and likeness of God – the R.C.C. recognizes the gift of Creation as God’s affirmation of the physical. The theology of the R.C.C. regarding the body is therefore very much rooted in the Incarnation, always seeking the mark of God in all things and celebrating the human body; tasting and seeing the goodness of the Lord! Those things which can be tasted and seen, among the most simple things, are what identify us as distinctively Catholic in our understanding of the grace of God imparted upon us spiritually through the means of Creation. Through water and oil, bread and wine, person to person, bishop to priest; in each of the Seven Sacraments the R.C.C. holds as present the Extraordinary God manifest in the most ordinary of things. 

We are a Church Without Walls and a Sanctuary without Rails

                The Reformed Catholic Church, whose first Cathedral was built by the very hands of the faithful was “Church” long before any “officially” ecclesial structure was built. Much like the earliest of Christians, worship in the R.C.C., while more commonly assuming physical worship space today, prides itself as “BEING CHURCH,” as opposed to going to it. This ancient theology has brought about worship in homes, in fields, in schools, in streets, in slums and in any place where the spirit of Christ seeks to re-form community. Our Sanctuary, whether architectural or symbolic, is open to all. The word “inclusion,” does not even apply to the R.C.C.,  as in an authentic Catholic Christianity none are excluded. All are welcome to the Banquet of the Living God, and, not in some “new fashion,” including those cast out, but rather following in the footsteps of Christ in welcoming especially the most marginalized populations who feel as though they have lost a spiritual home. Every R.C.C. Community lives by a credo of welcoming the stranger, affirming the outcast, and, in so doing, both seeing and being Christ in the encounter with the other.

 We are NOT Christian Radicals, We ARE Radically Christian!

                The R.C.C. is not a political movement with an agenda. The Church is not a banner bearing Church for- and only for- “progressives.”  Neither are we a Church to turn away the traditional conservative due to some area of disagreement amongst clergy and laity. We are both simply and radically: Family. For us, family in the spiritual sense is the place where we can be most comfortable discerning the deepest part of ourselves within our faith tradition. In light of careful discernment and prayer, lines of distinction are drawn with regard to certain aspects of Church polity. We understand the exploration of this deepest dimension to manifest in some of our married members and sisters who feel called to priestly ordination and administer this Sacrament therefore to both men and women [married or otherwise]. So too, in the embrace of all, without a patronizing exaggeration, we welcome the gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender person, at whatever stage he/she may be spiritually, into the life of this Church.

These “controversial issues,” as they are termed in most mainstream Churches are for the R.C.C. absolutely peripheral.

 HERE is what the Reformed Catholic Church understands as a controversy set to turn the world upside down in the words of Our Lord, “ I give you a new commandment,” says Jesus shortly before his death, “love one another as I have loved you.” THIS is radical, THIS is controversial, THIS is what turns the ordinary life into the extraordinary; listening to and responding to these words! Church polity melts before the intensity of such a bold proclamation and call; and it is in living ever more deeply into this call from Jesus Christ that we continue to re-form his Church.                                                    

St. Benedict's Chapel - Lubbock, Texas

Downtown mission serves 300 welcome meals each week

Article by: BETH PRATT  A-J RELIGION EDITOR - The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal

A former soldier, retired golf pro and pastor recently opened a downtown mission in Lubbock that is Catholic but not Roman Catholic.

Since St. Benedict's Chapel opened at 1109-B Main St. on May 27, Bishop Barry A. Ferguson and his wife, Anne, have served 7,000 meals.

"We feed an average of more than 300 meals a week," Ferguson said.  Before coming to Lubbock in the spring to start the mission, he had done similar mission work in San Antonio with the Good Shepherd Parish.

Ferguson is an auxiliary bishop in the Diocese of Divine Mercy, Reformed Catholic Church.

He answers to Archbishop Philip Zimmerman in Columbus, Ohio. Texas churches are in San Antonio, Fort Worth and Dallas.

"We love the pope, but we're not Roman Catholic," Ferguson said. "There are 200-plus Catholic churches not Roman."

He retired as a golf pro in 2000, and in 2004 he took vows with the Benedictines.

Ferguson received a medical discharge from the army in 1971. He was ordained a minister in 1978 at a Disciples of Christ church in West Virginia. He grew up Catholic. They also lived 15 years in Germany.

The first five months here, his wife cooked everything, but the last two months they have had help from the community, including St. Stephen's Episcopal Church and St. Paul's Episcopal Church. Ferguson also cooks everything but the eggs for the neighborhood breakfast that St. Paul's offers.

"Without St. Paul's, I wouldn't be here," he said.

Tom Walker of NTS, walks by on his way to get a breakfast burrito. He was curious when in June or July he saw the cross and sign in the window and stopped to find out what was going on.

Now, "we probably see him every day," Walker said.

"I told him we don't know how to help these homeless people, and you have provided us a way. I think that's true with a lot of people."

Community members, including several others who work in the downtown NTS building have volunteered to help, he said, emphasizing that it is not a company project but individuals who volunteer in various ways.

"I thought (the mission) was kind of a noble thing to do," Walker said. "We felt like it was something we could help him with because it is so conveniently located. I've met some of the people, and they seem so grateful to have a place to go and get a meal."

It is easy to for people with a mainstream job, three hot meals a day, a car, a house and a family to take so much for granted, Walker noted.

"We sometimes think we struggle, but the poor literally struggle from one day to the next."

Elaine Florez is among those NTS employees who have adopted the mission. The employees have always had a project to help by providing baskets of items for families of employees who are going through a difficult time. But they are excited about going outside to do something for those who live on the streets.

"We provided a dinner, fleece blankets and sleeping bags, things like that," she said. "The more we started to talk about it, we found there were no plans for Thanksgiving."

From their own pockets, NTS employees provided food.

"We had a tremendous outpouring of employees," she said, "so much that they ate Friday and Saturday (after Thanksgiving) as well."

Ferguson said the need in Lubbock is greater than the city leaders want to admit.

"Probably 15 percent of the population of Lubbock is two paychecks away from being homeless," he said. "The average pay in this city is less than $500 per week.

Add up the cost of rent, a car, two children and food, and that combination is going to put you on the street, he said.

"I've got at least four people who eat here every meal and live in a car."

When faced with such reality in a global economy, he said, the response in this culture is to ask whose fault is it.

"In the Japanese culture, the response is how can we fix it," he said.

"I've been doing this 30 years. Maybe 10 percent play the system, but the vast majority don't want to be there (in poverty), and they can't get out."

Some issues the poor deal with are systemic, such as not having an address when they apply for a job or need to access services. One of the first things he did when he arrived was go to the post office to find out if he could legally allow people to receive mail at the mission. That is allowed, he said, so it is a service he can provide.

 Courtesy of The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal -  LubbockOnline.com

“A Bowl of Mysticism, Hold the Flakes please.”

De-mystifying Christian Spirituality and Mystical Theology

Father Michael Abair

                Spirituality. The very word conjures up a misuse of images too innumerous and contradictory to even begin to analyze in a general reflection. For this I am thankful that I am neither an anthropologist nor a sociologist. From a theological perspective, however, I believe the ambiguous term is in need of a great deal of clarification as it applies to the study of God.  For the term Spirituality in a general sense I  propose a working definition as a movement of integration within the depths of the human person connecting him/her with the Transcendent. The language here is quite intentionally broad. Spirituality which is truly integrative is inclusive of the whole of human experience consciously present to the Spirit of God; hence the Ignatian maxim: “Finding God in All Things.” Spirituality, in this very general and unqualified application, relates more expansively to human experiences of connectedness and integration; hence both the need for grounding the term and dismissing the altogether exhausted phrase “’I’m spiritual but not religious.”           

These words, sadly commonplace these days and un-grounded, simply do not bespeak an authentically integrated spirituality; rather per many of the “new age” materials in print on the topic,  I see little more than a superficial narcissism masked as “spiritual.”  “Buy me,” says this “spirituality,” as if to be selected window shopping at the nearby Mall. An authentic Spirituality, in its purest form, may never be purely autonomous. Liken to the shimmering leaf-draped branches extending from a rooted tree, each form is contextualized; molded and shaped by the traditional instruments from which each has come forth. This insight begs the question: can we speak of a “Spirituality without Religion” at all were it not for the religious traditions within which spiritual discipline was initiated and historically woven into the fabric of the human experience? This question, however, cannot be treated with brevity and so we continue to examine the implications of the said “Spirituality,” in our own lives today.                              

Fundamentally, theory precedes praxis and therefore acts as the roots; having both birthed – and continuing to hold- spiritual practice within itself. Insofar as the praxis, the living out of religious tradition in the spirituality stemming from it, is fundamentally both particular to the human person and to the faith community which it rests upon, we may further qualify an authentic spirituality as bearing always a quality of relationality. Relating to the spiritual in light of our Catholic faith, relationality becomes for us a spirituality [while by no means exhausting the application of the term or removing the private dimension] in the living out of our lives as Christians in community. Working from this refining definition - qualifying the spiritual as both rooted in sacred tradition and community – we enter into the realm of Mystical Theology.

As to the term itself, mystical, I concur with the genius [contemporary] work of Bernard McGinn  and others of a far more ancient era in which the mystical has and continues to be  understood as that which is unmediated direct experience of the Transcendent. We may speak of the mystical as that of being touched, moved by the Presence of God in our lives. Mystical Theology and I do hate to disappoint “scholars” of “a new age,” is nothing new in the life of the Church! Neither does “mysticism,” the object of study,  bear a privatized gnostic quality.  Within the written corpus of the Second Vatican Council of the Roman Church was a beautiful articulation of the universality of the fullness of life in the Spirit; of the mystical without prejudice. “[All are] called by the Lord, whatever their condition or state, each in his [or her] own unique way, to that perfect holiness whereby the Father Himself is perfect,” speaks the Council of this gift in Lumen Gentium. In the spirit of the Council this particular statement is reflective of a shift in the way in which the mystical has frequently throughout the course of ecclesial – and human for that matter- history been applied erroneously as a kind of occult gift denoting an implicit grace conferred on only a few. The shift, therefore, is both an affirmation and an invitation to every member of the Mystical Body to a movement of greater depth in the spiritual life; in the fruition of the life in Christ borne in the abundance of graces freely poured out as pure gift.                                      

However radical the aforementioned document’s claims, the question which remains on the minds of many is: if the mystical is pure gift, are there any means by which I may pre-dispose myself to such a level of relationship to God?  The answers, historically, can be at times conflicting and somewhat ambiguous. From within the history of the Church and into the post-modern era, however, I do believe there are significant grounds for the affirmation of proposed positions in favor of varied means of pre-disposition (the works of particular mystics in Church history would certainly seem to convey this). If it is true that God desires to be in relationship with us, it rings perfectly clear from my perspective that – liken to the image of the door in St. Theresa’s Interior Castle – it is a matter of the opening of our hearts which determines the intimacy of the relationship; Knock, Open, Engage!

This position of pre-disposition, however, has been far more complicated in various schools of Mystical Theology throughout the Church’s history. Apophatic mystics [those whose form of prayer is non-discursive; i.e. silent, wordless and totally receptive – liken in many ways to forms of Eastern meditation traditions] in the line of Sts. John of the Cross, Theresa of Avila, the more recent Therese of Liseux and others qualify all of their spiritual writings with the clear understanding that the mystical is pure gift, un-merited grace, and something which we can never “practice,” so to speak, in order to receive or make “perfect.” At the same time however, we find in the very same works of these and other apophatic mystics discourse that is, in fact, instructive and encouraging of particular directives to deepen in the life of the Spirit. Saint Ignatius Loyola offers in his ingenious Spiritual Exercises what I find to be the most helpful approach to the issue at hand; namely that we pray for the desire to experience God, trust in his infinite love and mercy and find rest therein as we journey in the Spirit. This perennial question, at one time such an object of debate [John of the Cross and Theresa of Avila would discontinue correspondence altogether in the end over disagreement surrounding this very question] would seem for us now to be an invitation to explore, digest and – if so moved – put into practice the ways of the Christian mystics.

To be fed in the writings of the mystics in the most ample and sustaining manner, I am suggestive of what I might call a “lens of mystical thinking” in the reading of these works. In this sense, to “think mystically” is to  strive to appropriate ancient materials in a spirit that acknowledges the Living God availing himself, through these written fruits of his Spirit, to each of us. To “read mystically” in this sense is to encounter what may seem a daunting “Mystical Theology” as a life long dialogue with our Eternal Friends in Christ. In the spiritual friendship that is developed through the depth of our presence to the works each has left behind, analysis gives way to dialogue and study to communion. This is to read the mystics as their words were intended to be read, as the fruit of their own lives in Christ – ever fresh and prepared for each of us; nourishment for that deepest hunger which Our Lord alone can feed.

That We All  May be One

A MOST Timely Reflection on Interfaith Theory and Praxis

Father Michael Abair, Jr.

More than forty years have passed since these prophetic words appeared in the Declaration of the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions of the Second Vatican Council in the Roman Church; words more relevant today than perhaps ever before in the history of the Christian Tradition:

Religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in it’s own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.

Over the course of the past several days, the People of God, collectively, lay witness to the horrific atrocities we are experiencing internationally; blasphemously, each in some measure “in the name of God.” The first of the news to “hit me,” on the 26^th was that of the desecration of 9 sites of Christian worship by Hindu extremists. I gather we can all relate to looking at the day after Christmas as a prayerful rest after an arduous week of ministry; upon receipt of this email, however, and more than an dozen phone calls with regard to this news, it became quite clear this would not be a day of rest for me.

                    As to a bit of personal background relevant to this piece: for those unaware, my studies are rooted specifically in two distinct areas academically: the first of these, primarily pastoral, is Spiritual Direction; the second, rigorously theological, is contained very specifically in my focus on Inter-faith theory and praxis: my work pertains most specifically to Hindu/Christian relations.

                    Following the completion of my program of studies in this area and ordination into the Reformed Catholic Church, I was most eager in seeking out areas in which I can wed the academic to the pastoral and be a witness of the Catholic faith to our Hindu sisters and brothers. This had begun some time ago in the form of regular speaking events at the local Hindu Temple in Southern, N.J., and has blossomed into a beautiful friendship between myself and the Community where I am honored to be a frequent guest.

                    It was only weeks ago that Burlington County of N.J. finally approved of the building of a Hindu Cultural Center; a vision I have been joint-advocate of since its preliminary planning stages years ago. Plainly said: Hindus have no aversion to Jesus. Quite to the contrary, with each visitation, we deepen our bonds of fellowship and solidarity as members of the human family and children of the Holy. The 26^th was, therefore, a day spent trying to calm the minds and hearts of the Brahmin of the Temple and the Community; rightfully anxious as to what impact this “Hindu extremism” internationally might have on what has finally been approved by the County as the Hindu Cultural Center, to open January 17^th.

                    I left my dear friends that evening without an overly serious concern over  the extremist rage of New Delhi marring the good people of Southern, N.J. and returned home after a long day to further reflect upon the matter. “Hindu” and “Terrorist” are simply oxymoronic; the entirety of the tradition is rooted in Ahimsa; Sanskrit for non-violence. “Extremist” was the obvious mis-placed variable in the equation; I only prayed the words of the Tradition would continue to speak for its people in painting these extremists as rendering blasphemous the very foundation of the Hindu faith.     With some peace on “the Pilgrim’s porch,” I resumed evening work for the Newspaper only to be met with the latest news of the day: Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan had been assassinated with pieces already being put together tying the killing to Muslim extremists. As of 17 minutes ago [it is now 2:33 a.m. on December 29 and I’m keeping with the news in between sections in this article] her death has been confirmed as a “skull fracture” caused by the impact of the suicide bomb blast of the al-Qaida. Needless to say, on the evening of the 26^th and into the morning of the next day, I was unable to sleep. The antidote to this restlessness is what you are reading; something planned for this edition of the Newspaper already – but certainly not predicted as being so very necessary during a time like this.

                    The 27^th brought a series of “updates” as to the assassination and I began the constructs of this article in light of what was becoming clear enough: regardless of details, a second and most devastating act committed “in the name of God” had been committed. It is the nature of this poisonous “God-image” among extremists which I wish to address in the contents of this reflection; encouraging all RCC clergy to unite with our Hindu and Muslim sisters and brothers for whom these heinous acts are absolutely unthinkable [their potential implications in the U.S. and beyond – however – are issues non-Christians are doing much worrisome thinking about in light of these catastrophes]. 

                    This morning I awoke to the third aspect in a most unholy trinity of terror; and this incident is one stemming from our own Christian Tradition. As reported in the Jerusalem Post:

Robed Greek Orthodox and Armenian priests went at each other with brooms and stones inside the Church of the Nativity on Thursday as long-standing rivalries erupted in violence during holiday cleaning.
The basilica, built over the grotto in Bethlehem where Christians believe Jesus was born, is administered jointly by Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic authorities. Any perceived encroachment on one group's turf can set off vicious feuds.
On Thursday, dozens of priests and cleaners came to the fortress-like church to scrub and sweep the floors, walls and rafters ahead of the Armenian and Orthodox Christmas, celebrated in the first week of January. Thousands of tourists visited the church this week for Christmas celebrations.
But the cleanup turned ugly after some of the Orthodox faithful stepped inside the Armenian church's section, touching off a scuffle between about 50 Greek Orthodox and 30 Armenians.
Palestinian police, armed with batons and shields, quickly formed a human cordon to separate the two sides so the cleaning could continue, then ordered an Associated Press photographer out of the church.
Four people, some with blood running from their faces, were slightly wounded.

                    Preparation for Christmas ignites a riot of 80 priests? Is this a form of Advent I’ve not been made aware of? Jesus wept, I said to myself; a phrase I frequently employ. When we are unable to be at peace with one another even within our own Tradition, to the point of violent “medieval style” duels “preparing the way for the Lord [?]” I do believe its MOST timely to take a much needed interior inventory and reflect on the way in which inter-faith theory and praxis have, and, when exercised in forms proven effective, may continue to contribute to that “peace which passes understanding.” In the name of the Prince of that Peace as held within our Tradition, I pray a reflection of this nature will open our eyes, inflame our hearts, and lift our spirits to respond as a Family in Faith to these most relevant issues facing the RCC and each of our sister Churches. Let us examine some of the implications of the interfaith dynamics of which I speak:

{Post Vatican II}

The countless fruits of inter-religious dialogue speak profoundly to a shared wisdom that is embodied in the many expressions of religious experience. As a result of the encouragement of the Council and the cultural climate of the late 1960’s and 1970’s, many within the Church began to enter into prayerful dialogue with non-Christian traditions and the richness of these encounters continue to produce an ever-growing body of literature, ecumenical projects directed at addressing issues of social justice and an articulation of a theology of religious pluralism. A great number theologians and leaders within the Christian community have, with great openness and reverence for those outside of the tradition of the Church, sought to share the teachings of the Gospel in light of this conciliar teaching by way of an inculturation* that is consciously present to the “ray of Truth” the Church holds as “reflected” in the spiritual traditions of non-Christians.

                    This contemporary application of Nostra Aetate’s {document cited at beginning of article} teachings seems to both to confirm the affirmation of the Council in recognizing the Spirit in non-Christian contexts, and, I would propose, suggests an altogether more reciprocal dynamic of grace stemming from this exchange. On the one hand, through the sharing of the Christian faith in dialogue with non-Christian religions, we find that the message of Christ is received by our non-Christian sisters and brothers with greater receptivity in light of a less forced approach; embodied as a gifting of *our own experience of God within the context of the culture of the non-Christian. Secondly, and I will underscore this aspect, by engaging in a dialogical model of inter-religious exchange that is inclusive of shared discipline, we are humbled through our exchange with the other. This humility is present in the opening of our hearts to the presence of God already well at work in the religious experience of the non-Christian.  To share the Christian faith in this way is to offer the gifts of our life in Christ to the other while simultaneously being enriched in our own faith experience