My Story, Chapter 2.3 – Not my body

April 30, 2008 at 2:11 am (Artificial Birth Control, Contraception, Marriage, catholic converts)

[I haven't written an installment of My Story in a long time. Here's the first of a couple I've had in the pipeline but hadn't had time to finish...]

***

A week or so after my emotional after Mass reaction to our visit to the Catholic Church Scott and I attended one of the We Believe classes taught by the associate pastor, Fr. Palka. In this class Fr. Palka taught directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) paragraph by paragraph.

 

Now I know what some of my Protestant friends who read this might be saying to themselves. It probably sounds something like this:“Well, there you have it. That’s the problem with those Catholics. If they’d just study the Bible then they’d know they’re wrong. But no, they go and study some book written by men.” 

 

Believe me, that thought even crossed my mind. But the time I spent examining the doctrine of Sola Scriptura taught me something. I knew that the Catholic who studies the CCC is in many ways no different than the non-demoninational church member who sits underneath the teaching of their pastor or the Presbyterian who studies the Westminster Confession. That person is learning how that pastor or leaders of their church interpret the Bible and what that church believes about salvation, baptism, communion etc. 

 

In a real sense all of the pastor’s sermons make up his own little catechism that he uses to teach his church members how to interpret the Bible and what to believe on matters of faith and morals.  The Catholic who studies the CCC is learning how the Church interprets the Bible on such matters. One big difference of course is that the Catholic Church unabashedly tells it’s members that this is the teaching of Christ’s church and it’s not up for debate or personal interpretation and what one may think is God’s special revelation to them. This of course is based on it’s belief that God never intended for each individual to study the Bible alone and come up with their own personal theology or truth but instead desired for His Church to be the “pillar and foundation of truth” (I Timothy 3:15).  

 

With this in mind I came to class ready to hear (not necessarily agree with) what the Catholic Church taught from a Catholic priest who was teaching not his own personal interpretation of scripture but instead the official teaching of the Church. I was both curious and cautious in my approach to this class. I was genuinely interested in hearing answers about the Catholic faith but I found myself carefully scrutinizing everything this priest said. I’m a somewhat expressive person (don’t laugh too hard at the understatement Dad!).  I’ve been told that sometimes what I’m thinking is written all over my face. I have no doubt that Fr. Palka could see the scrutiny in my expressions. Especially when it came time for the week devoted soley to questions and answers.

***

The first class was rather benign in it’s subject matter. Nothing was addressed that was controversial or really any different than what I believed as a Protestant. It was the second class that ruffled more than a few of my feathers. Scott couldn’t attend this class because of work so I went with my parents. At one point the subject of birth control came up. Because it was outside the scope of the subject matter for that class Fr. Palka really didn’t fully address the topic. I’m not sure I heard much of the teaching after that point. All I could think about was how some old celibate man who lives in Italy is not going to tell me what I should do with my body.

 

I had no problem expressing this opinion to my parents once we were in the car and headed home. In retrospect my thoughts sounded a lot like the thoughts of all those pro-choice women who claim no one should tell a pregnant woman what to do with her body. But at the time, I didn’t have the knowledge or understanding to even make that connection. I just remember feeling like “how dare this Church or anyone think they could control this area of my life.” My parents were wise enough not to say anything except something about going home and studying the subject. 

 

I knew I wasn’t alone on my views on birth control. I could have polled any one of my married Protestant girlfirends and I guarantee they had used or were using some kind of birth control. It just wasn’t a question or issue for us and our Protestant faith. Afterall, it was my Protestant pastor who sat down during pre-marital counseling and awkwardly asked about our “family planning” measures (in others words, were we planning to use birth control for a while?). There was no discussion on the morality of this decision. It was a given that artificial (unnatural) birth control was an acceptable practice.  

 

So there I was, at a place where I’m questioning many of the assumptions I’d made about my faith over the years. The morality of birth control was one assumption I would have been fine with leaving alone. But once again the Holy Spirit wouldn’t let me just accept what I’d been taught. So, I reluctantly studied this subject.

 

***

One of the first things I read really surprised me. It might surprise you too:

 

Up until 1930 when the Church of England held it’s Lambeth Conference, no organized Christian church had every formally permitted the use of unnatural methods of birth of control. In other words, up until this time the universal teaching among Christians had been that unnatural birth control was immoral and against the will of God.

 

That fact alone made me stop and wonder…How does a behavior go from being immoral to moral overnight?

Does this mean that for all those centuries Christians had been misled by the teaching against unnatural birth control and denied some right to control their bodies? Or, could it be that in 1930 the relativistic nature of the doctrine of Scripture Alone had finally had its impact on this moral issue? I’d seen the ramifications of “Scripture Alone” on doctrinal “truth” as it’s taught in different denominations. Was this just the logical extension of that doctrine applied to a moral issue?

 

After the decision at the Lambeth Conference it was only a matter of time before the acceptance of artificial birth control (ABC) became the norm for most Protestant churches.  In most churches today it’s just not an issue that is discussed.  Artifical birth control methods, including sterialization methods like vasectomies and tubal ligations, are all pretty much accepted.  The one church to hold on to the belief that these methods are not the will of God for men and women was the Catholic Church. But why?

 

Or, as I wanted to know, why not? Why not permit artificial contraception? What’s so wrong with it? Afterall, isn’t it my right and my husband’s right to control our family planning? What right does the Church have to try to tell us what we can and cannot do with our sex life? And hasn’t modern medicine given us great advances through artificial birth control and sterilization procedures?

 

In many ways I was ignorant. I’d never heard anyone in the Protestant churches I attended talk about the morality of birth control. And, while I’d always known the Catholic Church was against artificial birth control, I never knew why. All that was about to change.

 Tomorrow…The “why” behind the “not”

 

Leave a Comment

Recovering…writing

April 30, 2008 at 1:05 am (Misc., henri nouwen)

I haven’t written much lately. I’m recovering…

…from four weeks of being either sick or taking care of sick kids

…from two weeks of continual practicing to lead 100+ women in worship music at a really cool retreat

…from four very calloused and sore fingers

…from four nights of sleeping in a strange bed at a youth camp without the creature comforts of home.  Well, I did have my own coffee pot and coffee. There are some things you can’t live without! :-)

…from five days of eating chocolate and breaking all the healthy diet habits in which I profess to believe

…from five days away from my family. I confess I only started missing them on day number three. :-)

…from three wonderful and exhausting days spent playing the guitar and worshipping the Lord with sisters in Christ whom I’ve grown to love over the years and some new sisters that I’m gettting to know.

and finally

…from six months of sweating it and wondering what I’d gotten myself into by agreeing to learn to play the guitar and lead music.

***

I’m really glad that I stepped out and made some progress in my guitar playing. I needed a deadline to force me to play in front of people and get some of the basic skills down. I still have a long way to go but this was a significant hurdle for me.

That being said, it’s good to be in recovery mode. I’ve put some things on the back burner while preparing for the retreat. Now I can get back into the routine of life and catch up on few things. I’m hoping to find time to write more. I’ve missed it.

Henri Nouwen has this to say about writing:

Writing can be a true spiritual discipline. Writing can help us to concentrate, to get in touch with the deeper stirrings of our hearts, to clarify our minds, to process confusing emotions, to reflect on our experiences, to give artistic expression to what we are living, and to store significant events in our memories. Writing can also be good for thers who might read what we write.

Quite often a difficult, painful, or frustrating day can be “redeemed” by writing about it. By writing we can claim what we have lived and thus integrate it more fully into our journeys. Then writing can become lifesaving for us and sometimes for others too.

I think this is true for me and is in large part why I write. Maybe the coming months will allow me to recover writing.

3 Comments

In response to lingo South…

April 10, 2008 at 7:34 pm (Catholicism, Church Hierarchy, Church Leadership, Jesus, Pope/Papacy, catholic convert)
Tags: ,

I received a comment the other day regarding my post on church hierarchy and Matthew 16. I’ve moved the comment and pasted it below. It’s brings up an interesting point because it addresses a part of the passage that I didn’t focus on in my post. Because I don’t have another post in mind for today and I’m homebound with two sick kids I thought I’d take the time to address the comment and the part of the passage where Jesus changes Simon’s name to Peter.

Lingo South’s comment:

 

Hi I agree with your love….unconditional
BUT
I sincerely believe you hve missed the original language of Matthew 16…
The rock the church is buiit upon is not Peter,but the revelation of who Jesus is…
Peter was a tremendous man of God, but Paul wrote the gospel to adn for the gentiles…the rest of the NT was to the Jews…FOR us too, but TO the Jews.
I would ask you to consider taking a look at this link

http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/council_of_nicea.htm

Truth is what we should all seek…denominations are not in what Jesus called truth…although belonging to a certain church is not a problem, for me at least, but lets get our allegiance correct. thank you for the work you do.
Blessings
Lingo South

 

Dear Lingo South:

 

Thanks for dropping by and commenting. And thanks for the link. I checked it out and what I read was familiar. I carefully considered many positions just like those put forth on that website before choosing to become Catholic. But I still appreciate the link because it always helps to know where someone is coming from when they post comments on my blog.

 

I really do understand why you wouldn’t agree with the Catholic interpretation of this passage in Matthew. The implications of this interpretation challenge one to re-examine their theology regarding Church leadership and authority and perhaps their beliefs about the Catholic Church.  However, I am convinced that this interpretation of Scripture is logical and consistent. It’s not an effort to somehow distort the text so that it fits a pre-conceived idea or belief system. I believe this because for many years I twisted this passage so that it fit my Reformed beliefs. I twisted it so that I could argue that what Jesus really meant to say was that “the rock” was the revelation about Him instead of letting the passage stand on its own. But that’s not what is going on in this interaction between Jesus and Simon.

 

In this passage (Matt. 16:17-19) Jesus changes Simon’s name to Peter, Jesus says “you are Petros (or Kepha in Aramaic – both mean rock) and on this rock I will build my church.” Jesus calls Peter the rock and then says he’ll build his church upon this rock. He doesn’t say that the revelation that Peter was given about Christ’s identity is the rock.  He calls Simon the rock. If you were trying to make the point that the rock was Peter’s revelation about Jesus, then your average high school English teacher would tell you the sentence doesn’t work or make sense. I respect that you disagree with me but the interpretation you’re suggesting isn’t even correct grammatically.  No where does Jesus call Peter’s response “the rock.”   The only noun he calls a rock is Simon when He changes his name to Peter.

 

There is huge significance in the fact that Jesus changes Simon’s name to Peter.

In scripture when God changes someone’s name it was a sign of a significant event [think Abram/Abraham]. The significance of this event:  Jesus is establishing His Church upon  Peter and his leadership. [Note: Peter’s primacy among the disciples is pretty clear in scripture]. Jesus declares Peter as the rock upon which the church on earth would be built. Of course this in no way supplants Christ’s authority nor does it mean that one’s allegiance is now to a human instead of God. It’s a both/and kind of thing. Jesus is the head of the Church and as such He can give His authority to anyone He wants. He gave HIS authority (the keys) to Peter and is guiding, leading and protecting His Church through the leadership that He established. He makes it clear that He’ll protect His Church when He says “the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

 

Why would Jesus tell Simon he is now called Peter (the rock), then say the church will be built on another rock, but then give Peter the keys of the Kingdom and the power to bind and loose? That just doesn’t make sense. Unless of course, you’re trying to avoid the conclusion that Jesus set up an authoritative position of leadership on which He would build His church.

 

A more consistent and cohesive interpretation is this: Jesus tells Simon he is now to be called Peter (the rock). In the next breath he says His church will be built on this rock and promises to protect His Church from the gates of hell. Then he gives Peter the official authority, the keys of the Kingdom, along with the power to bind and loose so that he can fulfill this role.

 

I’d like to remind you that it’s about Jesus and His Church, Jesus and His authority. It’s about how Jesus will establish and manifest His church and His authority here on earth. It’s not about humans exacting some authority over the Church independent of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Peter is nothing a part from God. Jesus tells Peter that “this was not revealed to you by man but by my Father in heaven.” God, not man, gave this revelation to Peter. Jesus, not man, gave Peter and the Church it’s authority. And our God is certainly big enough to protect this gift of leadership for the church.

 

I think some protest against this interpretation of Matthew 16 because  it just doesn’t fit with their preconceived ideas about how the church should look and because they can’t imagine that the Catholic Church could be right on any matter. The implication that the Catholic interpretation might be correct means that one might have to accept their teachings. Because there’s so much misunderstanding about what the Catholic Church really believes it’s easier to outright dismiss the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16 rather than honestly examine the Catholic faith. It’s easier to twist the text to mean something else so that it fits with one’s preconceived theological worldview. I did that for many years. I would read Matthew 16 and even thought at times that something didn’t seem right with my Reformed interpretation of that passage and yet I never dared to really question it. Well, not until six years ago.

 

When I first realized that Jesus was calling Peter the rock and saying He would build his church on this rock I struggled. I didn’t blindly accept this conclusion and therefore accept all the teachings of the Church. There were far too many theological hurdles for me to overcome at that point. But I couldn’t deny that I’d been twisting that passage to make it fit my beliefs. So, as I examined what this passage meant I also studied the teachings of the Church on matters of faith and morals. I soon realized that much of what I thought I knew about the Catholic faith was based on distortions, misperceptions and even a few lies I’d been taught. Eventually I became convinced of the teachings of the Church and its authority.  

 

It’s important to understand that the Catholic Church does not believe that Peter or his successors are personally impeccable and without sin. However, when it comes to official declarations on matters of faith (like the one Peter made in front of the Apostles) and morals (like in Matthew 18), Catholics believe that God has and continues to fulfill His promise to protect His Church. He protects the truth of the faith so that His children will not be led astray by all kinds of teaching that tickles their ears and appeals to their flesh. Without this protection, truth becomes relative. It’s each Christian out for himself coming up with their own private interpretations of scripture and declaring that their interpretation is truth because, well, “Jesus told me so.” This of course leads to the chaos we see in the Christian faith. I don’t believe that this chaos was/is God’s plan for His Church. Truth is not relative therefore each private interpretation of scripture on matters of faith and morals can’t be truth.

 

The early church constantly battled the heresies of their day. Why? Because it was and still is important to preserve the unity and truth of the faith. I believe the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth like the Bible says. It’s not a contradiction to say that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and to say His Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. If that were the case then the Bible would be contradicting itself. The Church is the foundation of truth because Jesus made it so and because God is leading it and guiding it.  I believe it’s a stable foundation meant to hold believers together in unity as a light for the unbelieving world to see. An invisible collection of believers who believe contradicting truths cannot be a pillar and foundation of truth and light for the world to see. Jesus didn’t establish His church so that it could be invisible and hidden like a lamp in a jar or under a bed. What’s the point in that?

  

There are those who claim the Catholic Church has changed its doctrine which would make its claim to uphold the faith false. I’ve not seen definitive evidence of those changes. I’ve seen claims supported by faulty evidence but nothing substantial. I have seen how an understanding of a doctrine has been developed and clarified throughout the centuries but never changed or invented.

 

Of course, just like no Pope is personally impeccable, not everything done by individuals in the Church or in the name of the Church is/was right. However, I firmly believe God protects His Church and the truths of the faith from error when it comes to official teaching on faith and morals. Richard John Neuhaus, a former Lutheran pastor who converted to the Catholic faith, points out in his book Catholic Matters that at some point in a convert’s studies he/she finally takes a step of faith and stops worrying about the “what ifs” such as what if the Church did change a doctrine. There comes a point in time when you see the cohesiveness and beauty of the Catholic faith and its interpretation of scripture . At that point the “what ifs” don’t compare to the hope and love you have in this faith.

 

Based on the website you sent me to it’s clear you don’t agree. We could easily get into a scripture interpretation war. But in the end, for me it would always come back to this question: “Why is your interpretation right and my or the Catholic interpretation wrong?” If, as many Christians believe, God didn’t leave us an authoritative church to lead us in truth on matters of faith and morals, and all believers are to come up with truth on their own (either from Scripture or through some direct revelation from Jesus), then why does your personal “truth” trump my “truth?”

 

The bottom line is this: If there is no authority besides the claim that “this is what Jesus tells me and this is how I interpret scripture” then no one can really claim that their beliefs are truth. No one can tell someone else their beliefs about communion are wrong or their beliefs about baptism are heresy. If there is no authority then we can’t know the truth about these things. We can offer our personal convictions about what we think Jesus is saying to us and our private interpretations of scripture. But, it would be pretty arrogant of us to claim our personal convictions and private interpretations of scripture are the truth and those who don’t agree with us are missing it and in error.

 

However, if Christ did give His authority to the Church beginning with Peter and the Apostles and following with their successors then we can have confidence that the truth on matters like communion, baptism, artificial birth control, homosexuality, the church, marriage and divorce etc. have been protected from the gates of hell and can be known and declared to the world. All believers can be unified and speak with one voice instead of the fragmented and divisive voices we hear among believers.

 

Yes, I believe God intended for there to be one authoritative voice and He gave us that voice (His voice) in His Church. And He established that Church on Peter, the first Pope. Without that authority the Church is reduced to an invisible group of individuals, each one doing what is right in their own eyes. The believer and his individual belief system is just one opinion or interpretation among many different Christian belief systems.  

 

Based on your comment I can only conclude that do not believe in an authoritative church when it comes to the truth on matters of faith and morals. If that is the case, perhaps you can offer a reason for why your beliefs are “more right” or authoritative than mine or those of the Catholic faith?

 

In the meantime I suppose we are left with having to respectfully agree to disagree. And I say that with sincere respect for you as a brother in Christ. Some of my dearest friends do not agree with me, nor I with them, but we have great love for one another.

 

As I see it, it’s up to each Christian to inform and follow their conscience. We do not live in a vacuum with Jesus. Truth matters, it mattered to the Apostles and the early Church and it should matter to us. History matters. The history of the Jews matteres God and should matter to us. The history of the early church matters. It’s our family tree. In my opinion this means that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit we should inform our conscience with an objective and prayerful examination of Sacred Scripture and Church history (which includes Sacred Tradition). Each person must follow his conscience. But, we he has a responsibility to inform his conscience.

When I stepped out of the Reformed theology bubble I’d created for myself and began to objectively examine the faith I came to believe that God established and protected a visible authoritative Church here on earth. I believe that Church is the Roman Catholic Church. And lest you think that it’s simply about denominations and allegiance to something other than my Father in heaven let me make it clear that it’s the visible expression of Christ’s love and who Christ is that I’ve seen through the Church and it’s teaching that daily draws me closer to my Jesus. Slowly the Holy Spirit is transforming me into Christ’s image, the image of love. And for me, this is what matters most.

 

Thanks again for commenting and asking me to look at that link. It’s always good to be challenged to think about the reasons for my faith in Christ and His Church. Peace to you.

 

Amy

 

2 Comments

I spoke too soon…

April 8, 2008 at 10:57 pm (Uncategorized)

…I haven’t managed to avoid the flu bug afterall.  

I really don’t like to be sick. (I know, who does?) I don’t like how weak I feel. I don’t like how unproductive it makes me. And I definitely don’t like how my flesh rears it’s ugly head when I’m tired and not feeling well. It’s at times like these that I have to rely on Him moment by moment. Not because this flu is anything that bad, but because when I’m sick I can be so bad and so very selfish. So God and I have been real tight today. Lots of opportunities to depend on and rest in Him.

 

Ella’s doing a little better today but she’s still pretty tired. Claire is just miserable. She finally feels bad enough to where she’s not pretending she’s ok when some opportunity for fun comes along that might distract her from not feeling so good (i.e. playing with the neighbors, swimming etc.) Both girls just want to sit in my lap and cling to me.  Although I hate that their feeling bad there’s a sweetness in the way they need me.

I wonder if that’s how our Abba Father feels when we’re  physically, emotionally and spiritually exhausted. I have to believe that He hates to see us feeling bad. But He must just love it when we finally stop trying to distract ourselves or make our flesh feel better and we crawl up onto His lap and rely completely on Him and His strength.

Leave a Comment

Sick Kids

April 7, 2008 at 2:14 pm (Flesh)

***

My kids have been sick for the last five days. Ella started with an earache last Tuesday, then came the a non-stop runny nose, cough, sore throat etc. Time to break out the tissues, popsicles and Tylenol. Claire’s symptoms started Saturday night. Ah the joys of sharing in family life. If only they’d share their toys as well.

 

So far Scott and I have managed to avoid getting sick. We’re just exhausted from having the girls slip into our room at night and keep us up with their sneezing, wheezing and snoring. [Ella is even out-snoring her dad. No small feat!]

So everybody is tired in the Simmon’s household this week (and the week has just begun!). Of course, it’s all just part of parenthood and I know I’m not alone.

 

One of my good friends spent most of her nights last week awake with her newborn, first at home and then later in the hospital. In her exhaustion she found herself frustrated by her son’s constant crying. Then God reminded her that the little guy is miserable and this is his only way to express it.

I have to admit, Ella’s whining has challenged my patience over the last few days. In those moments I’ve thought about my friends’s reminder from the Lord: “the little guy is miserable and this is his only way of expressing it.” It’s made those whiny moments a little easier and the ones where she climbs into my lap for comfort even sweeter.

 

My friend’s reminder and my sick kids have made me think more about showing compassion. And I had these thoughts…(actually it’s more like the Holy Spirit planted these thoughts)…

What if I treated everyone who tests my patience with whining, complaining, and neediness with the same compassion that my sick kids need from me? 

What if I saw their whining and complaining as a symptom of an illness, pain or woundedness in their soul? How might I respond differently? Would I see with eyes of the heart and offer love and kindness as a soothing balm instead of judging them or avoiding their presence?

 

Really, aren’t we all like sick kids? Aren’t we all in need of being healed of the wounds and sickness of the flesh?  It’s like we have a fleshly flu that lasts year-round. Granted some have been taking their medicine longer. They’ve spent more time in the healing presence of God and they’re more mature in the way they express their discomfort. But, many people are like my friend’s newborn; they’re miserable inside and have no other way of expressing it. Sometimes that expression can be exhausting to put up with and rubs us the wrong way.

 

If only we could see one another’s irritable behaviors for what they often are: Signs that we are each in need of someone to come along side us and offer compassion, merciful correction and the gentle yet powerful healing love of Jesus.

Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick…I desire mercy, not sacrifice. For I have not come to call the righteous, but the sinners.”

Who needs your compassion today?

 

 

1 Comment

Only by grace…

April 3, 2008 at 3:50 pm (Saints, st catherine)

gaze at cross 

*** 

Eternal goodness,

you want me to gaze into you

and see that you love me,

to see that you love me gratuitously,

so that I may love everyone

with the very same love.

You want me, then,

to love and serve my neighbors gratuitously,

by helping them

spiritually and materially

as much as I can

without any expectation of selfish profit or pleasure.

Nor do you want me to hold back

because of their ingratitude or persecution,

or for any abuse I may suffer from them.

What then shall I do

to come to such a vision?

I shall strip myself of my stinking garment,

and by the light of most holy faith

I shall contemplate myself in you.

And, I shall clothe myself in your eternal will…

St. Catherine of Siena

***

To gaze into Christ and know His love in such a way that I would turn around and love others like He loves me…

Only by grace might this come to pass…

Only by grace do I even desire it.

Leave a Comment

Compassionate Catherine

April 2, 2008 at 5:23 pm (Saints, st. catherine of siena)

***

I’m acquainting myself with the writings of St. Catherine of Siena (1347-1380), the patron saint of our church. My pastor gave me a book of some of her prayers and I’ve slowly been reading and meditating on them. It’s only been in the last year that I’ve learned of this saint. I’m amazed by her passion and piety. I’ve really come to love this sister in Christ.The book of her writings that I’m reading is called Passion for Truth Compassion for Humanity, Catherine of Siena (Mary O’Driscoll, editor).  Actually, the word writings is a bit misleading, St. Catherine was illiterate by today’s standards. Her “writings” were dictated and recorded by others.

St. Catherine was raised in a society and time period where women were mostly uneducated. Her family loved God, His Church and the sacraments, and the saints. Among many things the Holy Spirit used her family and even her study and contemplation of the stained glass windows at her church in order to grow her faith. It’s interesting how in our society, where literacy is the “norm” and households have mulitple copies of the Bible, we place such an emphasis on reading Scripture (which of course is a good thing).  However, here is a prime and powerful example of how the Holy Spirit works through the hearing of the Word in Church and the oral faith tradition passed down in a family. It’s easy for us to forget that for much of Church history this is how the faith was taught and lived.

The wisdom and knowledge exhibited in St. Catherine’s writings are evidence of the power of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the fact that God uses the weak things of the world to admonish and confound the wise. A great example of this is how the Lord used St. Catherine to admonish and encourage Church leaders (even the Pope) during a time in history when women were greatly limited in terms of their spheres of influence. 

There are so many facets of Catherine through which God’s love shines. Too many to share in this post. The title of this book though speaks volumes about who she is.  She is most assuredly passionate about truth and leading others to walking in truth and piety. But, that passion for truth was rooted in her compassion and love for others. I’m humbled and convicted by this compassion and her willingness to care for people who returned her kindness with cruelty.

One of her prayers Your Greatness is Everywhere, has spoken to me in many ways. I thought I’d share excerpts over the next couple of days…

O fire ever blazing!

The soul who comes to know herself in you

finds your greatness wherever she turns,

even in the tiniest things,

in people

and in all created things,

for in all of them she sees

your power

and wisdom and clemency.

For if you had not been powerful,

knowing,

and willing,

you would not have created them.

But you were powerful and knowing and willing,

and therefore you created everything.

O my poor blind soul,

You have never come to know yourself in him

because you have not stripped yourself

of your disordered will,

and have not clothed yourself in his will…

***

You know us Catholics, we believe in that whole “communion of saints thing,” so I can’t close this post without asking our sister in heaven to pray for those of us still on our pilgrimage here on earth.

Don’t freak out my Protestant friends. Let me assure you, this isn’t idolatry. I’m just asking a fellow sister in Christ to pray for us (not any different than asking you to do it, except she’s in heaven and probably won’t forget or get distracted by some menial task like we do here on earth – smile). If this belief troubles you because you think it’s not Biblical then click here and you’ll find a Biblical explanation for why we Catholics ask our brothers and sisters in heaven to pray for us. If you’re interested in Church history and what the Church Fathers thought about this topic this article might interest you as well.

St. Catherine, please pray for us, that we will come to know ourselves in Christ and in his blazing love. Pray that we will look for and see God’s greatness in all things, especially in others. And that we may be clothed in His perfect will.  Amen.

Leave a Comment