Tag: Shame

Posted on

The Common Good

Now that we have considered the three foundational truths offered by Pope Leo XIV in Magnifica Humanitas, we can begin exploring his five principles of Catholic social teaching: 1) the common good; 2) the universal destination of goods; 3) subsidiarity; 4) solidarity; and 5) integral human development.

“The common good” is a principle going back at least as far as Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). Throughout the centuries, professors, popes, and politicians have debated vigorously over what it means – or they used to. When is the last time you heard “the common good” discussed in a major Presidential debate? According to AI, the last time that happened was 2004, and it was only a fleeting reference.

Pope Leo repeats the definition of the common good offered by the bishops of the world when they gathered over sixty years ago during the Second Vatican Council: the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily (n. 60).

We are not speaking here of a mathematical sum. As Leo describes it, “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” The common good is always a “more” that transcends the various individuals and interests. When human beings learn to live in healthy interdependence, new possibilities of flourishing emerge, in a way that benefits each and all of the participants.

Leo was a longtime monk in the Augustinian order. He understands how a community with a shared vision can experience far more abundance than isolated individuals. I got a taste of this myself five years ago, during my three months of sabbatical at a Benedictine monastery. In their case, the shared vision comes from Saint Benedict’s Rule for Monks, one of the most-read leadership books of all time.

If you’ve ever read the Rule, you can see that Saint Benedict (480-547) is both idealistic and practical. He offers adaptability and accommodation to the struggles of some, while drawing from the strengths of all. I was amazed at what a community of twenty monks was able to attain, far beyond what twenty isolated individuals could. I think, by contrast, of what daily life is like for a single parent, or even for a diocesan priest living in relative isolation. For those who stay in isolation, life easily sinks into sheer survival, and any imagination of abundance steadily withers.

The monastery was no Eden. If you know me, you know that I am not naïve about human weaknesses.  I noticed plenty of quirks and faults. The monks were a typical cross-section of the human community: saints and sinners, laborers and freeloaders, listeners and chatterboxes, and everything in between. Flaws and lurking conflicts notwithstanding, it was easy to detect a genuine concern for other brothers and a strongly felt sense of abiding together for the sake of a “more.” It stirred desire in my heart.

The cynic might suggest that this is all well and good for an autonomous community of monks, but impossible in a pluralistic society. How can people with diametrically opposed values possibly share a vision for human flourishing?

Pope Leo insists, “we must not lose hope” (n. 64). So do I.

First of all, if you know Catholic communities, you know that there is rarely ideological alignment! The monastery was no different. You could find a full spectrum of political, ecclesiological, and liturgical views. Very often, they agreed to disagree, while choosing to share a larger vision together.

More foundationally, even the most polarized human beings have far more in common than what we allow to divide us. To overcome the contempt and polarization, Pope Leo calls for a “culture of encounter,” in which we learn how to dialogue with those who are different than we are.

My hero in this regard is Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). He was always eager to learn from people who saw the world differently than he did: his fellow university scholars, the ancient Greeks, and his Jewish and Muslim contemporaries. His tendency was to agree with the majority of what each scholar said, and then draw one or two brilliant distinctions. What especially stands out is how well he represents other people’s views. I have never seen a passage in which he sets up a straw man argument against those he disagrees with. I have never seen him resorting to sarcasm, contempt, or name-calling to make his point. He listens attentively, eager to glean all that that is good and true and beautiful. He discerns and makes distinctions, with full respect for the dignity of each human person.

One of my favorite things to do is to meet human beings who are radically different than I am, to hear their story, and to learn why they are so passionate about something. When they realize that I genuinely want to understand, and have zero interest in condemning them, most of them open up with curiosity and interest. Often enough, they shed tears, accustomed to being pre-judged. Every human has a deep desire to be heard and understood. There is no reason why I cannot seek first to understand someone before I begin to disagree. Moreover, my disagreement will be unfounded if I have not really taken the time to listen.

Here we can already see one common point of a shared vision: the golden rule, as applied to listening and dialogue. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Do I desire others to listen to what I have to say, and to understand what I have to say? Then, surely, I can be willing to do the same for others.

I would also suggest the golden rule in place of the weaponizing of shame and contempt that leads to what some call “cancel culture.” If someone else’s views or lifestyle elicits a strong reaction in me, the easy temptation is to think or speak with contempt, to call names, or to exclude them from a place at the table.  This is not a “liberal” or “conservative” thing. I notice people of all ideologies engaging in this kind of weaponized contempt. I notice myself doing it occasionally. Couldn’t people of differing views agree not to demonize the other? Human beings are not the real enemy.

Committing to listen and understand, committing to allow each other to have differing opinions, not to expect everyone else to be like me—these are all early steps in what Leo calls a “culture of encounter” that allows for healthy dialogue. He is hopeful that encounter and dialogue open up new possibilities for diverse human beings to embrace a shared vision together.

Without encounter, without dialogue, without putting in the effort to seek the common good, human existence degenerates into a power struggle, fueled by fear, suspicion, and contempt. Whoever successfully seizes power gets to oppress and “cancel” those who don’t. They get to gloat in their “winning.” But they will never experience rest or peace because they are always under the threat of being overthrown and canceled by “those people,” who will now feel justified in seeking vengeance. And the cycle goes on and on.

“My brothers and sisters, these things ought not be so” (James 3:10). Humans were gifted with a capacity for communication and speech so that we could lift one another up and experience “more” together—not so that we could tear one another down.

We cannot expect AI to contribute to the common good. Each of those models is trained to adapt itself to what each user wants. Each model operates by aggregating data and using mathematical probability to apply that data to the “dialogue” it simulates with the user. Developers can attempt to keep their models fenced in with rules. Rules are not the same thing as the human perception that something is truly good or truly evil. The common good is not an aggregate of rules. It is a “more” that is achieved when diverse human beings commit together to a shared vision of flourishing in which all can benefit. Each and all of us have a choice to make about whether we will commit ourselves to the common good.

Posted on

Letting Shame Give Way to Grief

“Shame can never do what grief can do.”

I once heard a wise woman speak these words, before sharing stories about her family’s experiences during and following the Nazi regime in Germany. The collective shame over the Holocaust had enormous impact on the next few generations.

She shared an image of a propaganda poster from the occupying Allied Forces at the end of the war. It depicted the gruesomeness of the concentrations camps and bore the headline, “These Atrocities – Your Fault!”

Her grandparents contended with shame throughout the latter years of their life. Their happiest memories (falling in love, marrying, and raising their children) felt forever tainted because so much of their comfortable lifestyle coincided with Hitler’s rise to power, and was in part made possible by his willingness to oppress and exploit the vulnerable. When the war was over and the evils were more fully exposed, many felt like they had colluded to some degree. There had been warning signs of the atrocities being perpetrated. Some had ignored the cues; others felt powerless to do anything to change it. The result? A culture of shame that pervaded many families for three to four generations. When children are fed with guilt and watered with shame, they will struggle to bear joyful fruit later in life.

As I listened to her sharing, I wept with empathy. I felt the connection of her family story and my family story. My great-grandfather in Poland was executed by the Gestapo. Two of my grandfather’s brothers survived a concentration camp. My great-grandmother died amidst all that heartache before the war ended, not living to see the day of her sons’ release. My grandfather learned of all these events from afar, having moved back to the United States in the late 1930s (he and his older brother were American-born citizens shortly before the family moved back to Poland in 1918). No doubt, he contended with his own unspoken “survivor’s guilt.”

Tears flooded me as I imagined her grandparents and my grandparents, her family and my family, all of us still suffering in the wake of those two great wars. I found it easy to feel compassion. I found it healing to perceive everyone involved as normal human beings, bearing God’s image, both beautiful and broken. I felt her invitation into grief over what it really was like for everyone.

When betrayal or heartache feel crushing—especially when there are feelings of collusion with an abusive perpetrator—shame often steps in. Shame pretends to be powerful, as though it can prevent bad things from ever happening again. This was the motive of the propaganda posters – if we stir up enough collective shame, it will unthinkable for the unthinkable to happen again.

There are two problems here, one more obvious and one more subtle.

The more obvious problem is that bad things still happen. No amount of shaming or fear-mongering can stop them from happening. It’s a hard-to-accept truth that our human existence in this fallen world is indeed that vulnerable that we cannot actually stop bad things from happening.

The more subtle problem is the opening line: “Shame can never do what grief can do.” In the face of unspeakable harm, it feels far easier to seize control of the situation with shame and fear. But shame and fear do not allow space for grieving to happen. Maybe that’s why they are so appealing to so many for so long.

Neither this woman nor I are faulting the massive wave of shame that tends to follow the storms of trauma. How do you face the heartache of something as big as the Holocaust? It feels impossible. It’s easier to cast blame or to attempt seizing power over the situation. These ways of coping and bypassing the atrocities make sense – for a while anyway. Over time, they become increasingly unbearable. Healing cannot happen without facing and grieving the harm and the loss.

There is a reason why we Catholics fruitfully meditate on the “Sorrowful Mysteries” rather than the “Shameful Mysteries.” Shame can never do what grief can do. Our tears and grief become the very path of redemption and restoration. There are no Glorious Mysteries without the Sorrowful Mysteries. There is no Resurrection Sunday without the agony of Good Friday, and without the waiting of Holy Saturday.

In the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:4), Jesus teaches that those who grieve and mourn will be comforted. The Greek actually says “paracleted.” The Holy Spirit anoints the brokenhearted, if we will allow ourselves to abide in our heartache and receive divine remedy. He brings comfort, encouragement, and peace. God’s love heals.

This healing does not mean that the heartache goes away! It brings love and truth, meaning and purpose into the midst of what had seemed to be only chaos and absurdity. Jesus reveals himself as Lord even in the darkest places of our heart. I find, in fact, that the more glimpses and tastes I receive of the goodness of God, the more I will suffer in aching for more. I see the same experience in the lives of the Saints and the prayer of any great mystic in our spiritual Tradition.

So what does happen when others kindly witness my heartache, and the Holy Spirit anoints me in my grief? The most important change is that I am no longer alone. What once was trapped in isolation and fragmentation is now set free. What was frozen begins to thaw (which sometimes hurts!). What was rigid and inflexible can now flow and move toward wholeness and connection. I begin to experience love and communion in places which (I thought) love could not possibly enter. Only love did enter. That’s the entire point of Jesus’ rescue mission – to become flesh and go to the deepest places of human agony, conquering with a love that is both human and divine. Jesus duped the devil, concealing his glory in human flesh and bringing his love into the depths of sin and death.

Without Jesus’ suffering, death, and burial, the dark side of our human existence is indeed unbearable. Now, however, no matter how deep I go into my own heartache or the heartache of another, I will discover that Jesus is already there. He’s already descended deeper. He’s already issued the summons to come to the heavenly wedding celebration, in which all God’s scattered children, and all the scattered fragments of our hearts, will be gathered at table for the feast. Then, at long last, there will be no more weeping and no more death.

In the meantime, on our pilgrim journey through this “valley of tears,” grief becomes a guide far more reliable than shame. Shame will show up – especially in the wake of abuse, betrayal, or atrocity. Shame helps us to survive – for a while. Then it begins to isolate us, exhaust us, deplete us, and slowly kill us. We can appreciate how hard our shame has worked to try to protect us from agonizing heartache. Then, if we dare, we can ask it to take a seat and allow grief to do what only grief can do.

Blessed are those who grieve. They will be comforted.

Posted on

A Mood Change

What is life like when we change our mood from “imperative” or “subjunctive” and learn to live in the indicative?

If that question makes no sense to you, don’t worry – I’ll explain along the way.

I love language. I love learning new languages. I love the experience of connection with someone else’s insights, beautifully expressed – all the more so when the words bridge a gap of time and culture. In another life, I could have been a philologist, like Tolkien or Lewis.

I even love grammar. I’m grateful to my high school teachers, who placed such great emphasis upon it. It served me well later in life when I was wrestling with Latin or Greek or German. With my own writing, being grounded in grammar is not unlike the months of training that Daniel underwent with Mr. Miyagi in Karate Kid. Good grammar doesn’t make good writing, but it lays a sturdy foundation, without which creative expression will stagger and stumble.

During my many years of study, I had nine semesters of Latin and five of Greek. I answered hundreds of questions about declension and case, gender and number, tense and mood. My Latin Composition class in 1998 was at times a torture. Dr. Petruccione relentlessly and manically drove us through Bradley’s Arnold, always sporting a bowtie. Twice every week, we submitted our elaborate sentences, translated from English into Latin. If you missed one time, you dropped a letter grade. If you missed a single class, you dropped a letter grade. Late every Friday afternoon, I would wistfully watch my friends go to goof off, while I plodded off to class. The professor could tell that my mind was wandering, but could never catch me!

“And what mood is that, Mister Sakowski?” At the sound of my name, my distracted brain jolted to attention, frantically poring over the last 10 seconds. Somehow, I always come up with the answer. “Subjunctive!” He screwed up his face with a look of “I’ll get you next time!!” But he never did. What can I say? My body pays attention even when it’s not paying attention. I guess hypervigilance has its advantages.

What kind of overachieving college student enrolls in a challenging elective class on late Friday afternoons? The same kind, I suppose, as the high school student who spends four weeks of her high school summer vacation learning Latin, along with seven of her peers. In 1999 and 2000, home for the summer, I taught Latin upon the request of students at my alma mater. We had a blast.

Most of the students were highly competitive overachievers, but one struggled significantly. Honestly, he only passed because I found creative ways to give him points on his tests. It wasn’t hard, because he made up for his lack of Latin prowess with a wicked sense of humor. One section asked them to parse different words. I had to give him bonus points as I howled at his answers:

  Person?  Magister   [“Teacher” – the name the students called me]

  Tense? Very

  Voice? Sometimes mumbles

  Mood? Depends on the day…

As some of you know, verbs can have different “moods” – indicative, imperative, subjunctive, etc. The indicative mood describes or asks about matters of truth (what actually is, was, or will be the case). The imperative mood gives commands. The subjunctive mood expresses the “woulds” and “coulds” and “shoulds.”

When it comes to discipleship and morality, moods also matter! I’ve come to appreciate living in the indicative mood, rather than the imperative or the subjunctive. Eagerly pursuing the good is much more possible when we can tell the truth with kindness, when we can name particularly what actually is without judging it or pressuring it to be a different way. I wrote recently about this calm noticing and accepting of what is as a prerequisite for virtue.

I remember my early years as a pastor. I was overwhelmed and putting all kinds of pressure on myself. I had just returned from Rome, where I had been researching and learning in seven different languages in the writing of my doctoral thesis. Now I was shared as a pastor of two previously separate parishes, and ministering to the Latino community in the region. I had 5-6 Masses each weekend and felt impossibly pulled in three directions. I lived daily with a fear of failure and a felt trapped in powerlessness. No matter how many “shoulds” I checked of my list, it was never good enough – not for many of the people I was trying to serve and not for my harsh inner critic.

Those first several years, I wrote out my Spanish homilies. One memory that is clearer amidst the blur is my struggle to find effective ways in Spanish to translate “should.” That should say something about the content of my preaching at the time – both to others and to myself!

It was only a matter of time before present pressures and past unhealed wounds converged in an unbearable torrent. When I finally reached out for help, I found myself swept away on a journey of transformation that continues nine years later.

I definitely experienced a “mood change” along the way. I’ve been learning and re-learning the joy of living and relating in the indicative mood – accepting what is and engaging it with curiosity and kindness. Then deciding what to do.

Advice is overrated. It is exceedingly rare for me to tell people what to do. I’ve learned to be with, to notice, to point things out, or to pursue by asking curious questions – all in the indicative mood. When I show up that way, the others can tell that there is no judgment, no pressuring them to be a different way than they are now. They feel my genuine curiosity, wanting to get to know them, and delighting in them as they are now.

To those driven by moral imperatives or living in a “should” fortress, this approach seems madness. In their view, you have to get people to do the right thing, or you’re not being a good Christian. Can you feel the fear there?

How  can we discern what is truly good if we don’t slow down, be with, and perceive what truly is? And how can we see what truly is when shame and fear are in the driver’s seat? They literally and figuratively narrow our field of vision.

I’ve learned to pay attention to what shame is up to. Where there’s contempt, there’s shame. When I notice self-contempt or other-contempt coming up, I get curious. I acknowledge the shame (if I don’t, the shame will power up even more!). But I ask if it’s ok to look at what actually is, setting aside judgment for the moment. Can I just be with you in what’s coming up now?

One would think that all the shaming and pressuring to do what you “should” would be a place of greater truth-telling, but it actually isn’t. When shame is talking, we utter strong-sounding and vague statements like “totally messed up” or “wacko” or “off the rails.” We speak in language of always or never, all or nothing, good guys and bad guys, us versus them. If we calm down and slow down, we can look more honestly at what is really happening – often surprised in the discoveries we make! Pretending like certain emotions aren’t there (or wishing they weren’t there) is not truth telling. Pretending like we can live reaction-less lives is not truth-telling. It’s dehumanizing.

Calming down and slowing down, wondering about what really is (even if it seems unglamourous or “bad”), also allows room for desire to breathe and grow.

Desire can take us places that shame never will. Some of you have seen Monsters, Inc. – the Pixar film about monsters fueling their power plant by capturing the fear of children. Then they make a revolutionary discovery – that laughter is far more powerful than fear. Similarly, desire for goodness is far more powerful than any amount of fear-mongering or “shoulding.” When Christians feel threatened, it seems like only fear and shame will get results. It is much messier to get down in the dirt and look up at what’s really going on. But that’s exactly what humility does.

When we humbly, calmly, curiously, kindly, and truthfully look at what is, we begin to see a much more truthful narrative. We start to see the ways in which deeper desire has been shamed, silenced, belittled, dismissed, or hemmed in. I find that shame is the loudest when desire feels vulnerable and exposed. Rather than allow desire (yet again) to be abandoned, betrayed, dismissed, or disappointed, shame will take over the controls. Setting down shame feels risky! But only then can desire be untethered to seek and find the good, and in finding it to desire it all the more.

What mood are you in today? Do you put pressure on yourself to be a certain way. Is your life one of “I should…” / “I just have to…”/ “I really need to…”? What would it cost you to dial down that pressure for a while, to be with a safe person, and to look at what is? You just might discover your deeper desires, and how your good Father is inviting you to soar.

Posted on

Idols and Isaiah

As Advent comes to a close and we welcome the Messiah, I offer some reflections from the prophet Isaiah. He’s been a close companion of mine these past four months.

Isaiah invites Israel to repent of its idolatry, and return to the living God (see Isaiah 44). On the one hand, he names idol worship as empty and fruitless, ultimately leading both idol-crafter and idolater to be put to shame. Yet his lengthy descriptions of the crafting and worship of idols have a certain warmth and tenderness to them. There is a felt beauty and hopefulness in the process that leads, ultimately, to so much emptiness, enslavement, and misery.

Idols are not always ugly. They’re often appealing and alluring. They bring beauty and soothing and comfort. They promise security and protection. There is a certain satisfaction in idols because they are the work of our own hands. We can see them and touch them. They offer a transactional relationship. We know what we are dealing with.

And idols ruin us. They leave us miserably alone and exhausted, languishing in increasing fruitlessness. The work of our hands can never save us. Idols ultimately enslave and torment us.

I have some obvious idols in my life – addictive pleasure that leave me unhealthy, exhausted, depleted, and ashamed. But much more frequently, I feel the pressure to produce or perform, the relentless “I have to, or else…” I can be pulled back-and-forth between those two poles in an endless tug-of-war – only to feel more powerless and ashamed.

As I prepared this summer for the public launch of the Rebuild My Church Initiative in our diocese, I was amped up with anxiety and fear and pressure, which sometimes became paralyzing. In truth, the challenging situations our churches are facing (as well as the amazing opportunities that are in front of us) are beyond any merely human stratagem. The deeper invitation is for me and for all of us to be renewed in our secure relationship with the Father and with each other. Mission is a way of being.

If I’ve learned anything in my personal recovery journey, it’s that most of us have far more shame and fear and insecurity than we care to recognize. Shame and fear, when unnoticed and untended, become a hotbed for the weeds of idolatry to take root and take over.

During many moments of overwhelm this past spring and summer, I felt a gentle invitation from Jesus to keep embracing the interior integration he is inviting me to. Any “successful” institutional renewal only flow from my interior renewal.

So, at the end of the summer, I began journaling and reflecting on forgiveness, slowly making my way through Robert Enright’s new book on that topic. I shared back in October how that reflection unexpectedly brought me to Robert Frost’s poem “Nothing Gold Can Stay.”

The Lord had more to show me that day. I suddenly remembered the words of Isaiah – “All flesh is grass.” And I found my way to Isaiah 40.

“A voice says, ‘Cry out!’ And I said, ‘What shall I cry out?’”

“All flesh is grass, and all its beauty is like the flower of the field … The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand for ever” (Isaiah 40:6-8)

And I kept reading. Chapter after chapter, the words pierced my heart. I felt encouraged and emboldened by the invitation to be a herald, about to cry out to thousands during the fall listening sessions. It’s easy for me to see the ways that our Catholic parishes are clinging to a familiar institutional culture that offers a false security and comfort while choking off new life. The Lord was showing me the same struggle in my own day-to-day discipleship. How can I invite institutions to repent of their idols if I don’t look at my own?

The Lord also spoke promises and assurances (Isaiah 41:8-10). They seeped into a deeper layer in my heart than ever before:

  Friend

  I have chosen you

  I am with you

  I am your God

  I will strengthen you

  I will help you

  I will uphold you with my victorious right hand

For many days, I kept returning to these words in prayer. Meanwhile, I was finishing reading a book about families raising securely attached kids. I was stunned when the author discussed the prospect of grooming and sexual abuse of one’s own children. After many valuable practical instructions on crucial conversations, she calmly and matter-of-factly named the truth that parents cannot stop bad things from happening. Security comes not from the prevention of tragedy, but from knowing that there is an abundance of secure love and connection before, during, and after any bad things that happen.

Here God was answering some painful cries of my heart in the preceding months. Occasionally, I write my own psalms of lament to God (not easy to do, but worth it!). More than once I have written, “How can I trust you?” – along with a list of complaints to God of the ways he did not stop bad things from happening in my life. Where’s the “protection” in that?

Can you see the appeal of idols here? They twist the promises of God in Isaiah 41:

  The LORD – “I am your God”

     Idols –  “Craft your own god”

  The LORD – “I will strengthen you”

     Idols – “You can be strong on your own”

  The LORD – I will help you”

     Idols – “you won’t need to depend”

  The LORD – “I will uphold you”

     Idols – “You can uphold yourself”

  The LORD – “my victorious right hand”

     Idols – “Bad things happen in this world. You need to protect yourself!”

Idols seduce us by appealing to our fear and shame, and distracting us away from our deeper longings of Faith, Hope, and Love. Idols promise protection against those desires getting betrayed, crushed, rejected, abandoned, or disappointed.

Desire is a dangerous thing. It feels dangerous to us. But it is first dangerous to the devil and his kingdom of darkness. He is a liar and a murderer from the beginning, envying what God placed in us and the lofty destiny he has for us. So he assaults and disrupts our secure relationships with God and with each other. He invites us to turn away from our desires, and instead to live controlled, curated, and comfortable lives. He seduces us individually, but especially loves it when entire church institutions can begin living this way. That way, even when some individuals (like the prophet Isaiah) have abundant desire and lively imagination for more, there is an inertia in place to resist institutional change. Prophets tend to be persecuted.

In a fallen world, in which bad things happen (and all flesh is grass that will wither), it is not an easy thing to abide in Faith, Hope, and Love. Holding desire and imagination for abundance means weeping over what is no longer and waiting for the not-yet. It means trusting in the promises of a God who is truly good.

God actually does NOT promise us that no bad thing will ever happen to us. As human beings, we find ourselves in the middle of a story in which terrible tragedy has already struck. Things are not as they should be, and more bad things will happen. Through the prophet Isaiah, the LORD promises to be our friend, to be with us, to be our God, to help us, and to uphold us as He works out the victory that is already assured.

The birth of Jesus at Christmas brings the assurance of Emmanuel, God-with-us. He enters our world, enemy-occupied territory, on a stealth rescue mission. Precious few people realized that the God-man was in their midst – certainly not the rich or the powerful of this world. They only felt threatened and attempted to murder him. Baby Jesus barely escapes.

I love imagining that flight into Egypt. Baby Jesus, even in his frail humanity, felt calm and secure, not because Joseph and Mary were preventing bad things from happening, but because they were connecting again and again to God, to each other, and to him. They had no idea how this all was going to be okay, except that they were being assured by God’s promises.

Jesus brings true salvation and security. Genuine security is not found in managing or controlling. It’s not found in five-year strategic planning or by setting measurable goals and objectives (even when there is a time and place for those). Genuine security doesn’t even mean that you and I won’t experience fear or failure. We will, and often.

The true security that Jesus brings is the one-flesh union of the heavenly wedding feast, already anticipated on the Holy Night that we are about to celebrate. The gap between heaven and earth is now bridged. Humanity and divinity are now one, in the tiny body of the babe of Bethlehem. What God has joined together, no human being can separate.

Come, let us adore Him.

Posted on

Virtue and Friendship

More than 2,350 years have passed since the Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote the Nichomachean Ethics. I find his insights into human relationships as relevant as ever.

As I discussed in my last post, the moral virtues are not a matter of rule-following. They are the kind, patient, and consistent directing of the emotions toward that which is truly good.

How does moral virtue actually happen?

Modern philosophers (that is to say, Western philosophers of the last 500 years) keep making the mistake of trying to articulate abstract theories of ethics. Goodness is not something you define in a theory. We humans are hardwired to know goodness when we see it. No one has to teach a baby to laugh with delight, or to want to savor the good moments forever (“Again! Again!”).

Aristotle’s point of reference for virtue was not an abstract definition, nor a list of rules, but the virtuous person himself. This approach is so simple that it is often missed, even by Aristotelean scholars. Aristotle explains that most humans (those not too tangled up in their own vices and delusions) will notice virtue when they see it in another flesh-and-blood human. It is through relationship with virtuous persons that we begin to learn virtue. Over time, through the building of healthy habits, our pursuit of the good gets internalized. As we become virtuous, we are eventually able to pursue the good with relative ease, rather than having to struggle every time.

I used to illustrate these points to my high school students by viewing The Lion King. Young Simba perceived the bravery of his father Mufasa, and wanted to imitate him. He first went to the extreme of rushing into danger, and then to the other extreme of conflict avoidance (hakuna matata). Most of the animals readily recognized and followed Mufasa’s brave and just leadership, even if they themselves lacked courage. By contrast, his vicious brother Scar, in his envy and malice, refused to see his brother’s goodness, telling lies to himself and to others about what was good.

Aristotle emphasized that the very earliest human years are the most crucial for virtue formation. The same truth has reemerged in contemporary studies of neuroscience and human development. Infants and toddlers need nurturing caregivers to attune to them and to help them make sense of their emotions. When parents regularly attune to and respond, little ones learn that even their biggest emotions can be regulated. Regulated, not subjugated or suppressed! But if the parents never learned to regulate their own emotions, they will struggle to give to their children what they are not providing for themselves.

In our first moments of human existence, we are utterly dependent. We need another human to respond to us and soothe us. If that attunement and responsiveness is there most of the time, or even much of the time, we become emotionally secure. Through thousands of experiences of distress and response, our brain and nervous system learn to expect abundance and be more resourceful. We establish broad neural pathways between the calmness of our rational brain and the alarm system of our limbic brain. Little by little, we become self-regulating like the caregivers who are there for us.

Aristotle didn’t know about the nervous system, but he accurately observed how crucial early emotional development is. Without it, we will be emotionally insecure, which means that we will struggle to be virtuous. No affect regulation, no virtue. Thankfully, we can rewire our brains, but only if we become again like little children, receive our emotions with curiosity and kindness, and patiently “grow up” now in all the ways we missed earlier in life. To do all of that, we will need wise mentors and companions. In the words of Aristotle, we need to find virtuous people to learn from.

The more I’ve gotten in touch with my own emotions and learned how to engage emotionally with others, the more aware I’ve become that most human beings in our society today (including our churches) have no small amount of insecurity. I would be glad to be proven wrong on this point! But I find it true of at least 80% of the adults I meet, just as I have found it true in myself.

Again, Aristotle said it first. He describes most human beings as being either weak-willed or strong-willed. The weak-willed person sees what is good, but frequently fails to pursue it due to an intense interior struggle. The strong-willed person often does good things, but still struggles interiorly, experiencing unrest.  The vicious person (cf. Scar) doesn’t feel the struggle because he habitually rationalizes his behaviors, calling black white and white black. In Aristotle’s estimation, only a smaller number of humans are truly virtuous, emotionally regulated, pursuing the good, delighting in the good, and rejoicing in the reality that they are pursuing and delighting in the good.

This leads us to Aristotle’s reflections on friendship. The deepest and truest kind of friendship is only possible between virtuous people. Most friendships, he says, are friendships of pleasure or friendships of usefulness. Friendships of pleasure last as long as the fun times last, but dissipate when the shared pleasure passes. When tragedy befalls, it becomes clearer who your real friends are. Friendships of usefulness exist because one or both individuals are getting something out of the relationship. Both of these types of friendship are ultimately transactional. It isn’t necessarily bad to have relationships like these. It can be okay for some relationships to be mutually transactional. It’s just not a real friendship.

I would add a third kind of pseudo-friendship, calling it a “friendship of fear.” If your main motivator in life is fear, you are prone to surround yourselves with other people who feel similar fears. This shared fear-mongering allows you to gang up against “those people” who are the alleged enemy. Such was the vibe of the scribes and Pharisees, who thanked God they weren’t like those other people (Luke 18). Such was the relationship between the older brother in Luke 15 and the servant who joined with him in contempt-filled gossip as they witnessed the father lavishing a feast on the prodigal son. As with friendships of pleasure or usefulness, these fear-based friendship are also highly transactional. Because their fear is not yet integrated and moderated, such individuals are not yet ready for real friendship.

Virtuous people are capable of genuine friendship because of their emotional maturity. They are self-possessed enough that they can freely engage in mutual honor and delight. Aristotle obviously didn’t know Jesus, who was yet to be born, and so he didn’t know the great commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” But his understanding of virtue and friendship provide a solid human foundation for that divine commandment. As I’ve written before, the equality taught in “love your neighbor as yourself” means that you are also invited to “love yourself as your neighbor.”

To the extent that I still have contempt for myself, I will struggle in a genuine friendship of equality. Where there is contempt, there is shame. Most of us struggle with a deeply rooted fear that we are not truly loveable. We fear being dismissed or rejected or abandoned. So we posture or build façades. We compare and compete; we envy and scorn. Show me someone who scorns others, tears them down, or calls them names – and I will show you someone who has an enormous amount of self-contempt, and is terrified of a spotlight shining on the deepest places in his heart.

Of all the emotions, shame is probably the hardest one to contend with and regulate. I do not recall Aristotle speaking on this point, but you can see that he “gets” it in the way he describes virtue and friendship. The virtuous person is happy because he desires the good, pursues the good, and delights in embracing the good. He has a healthy self-love, which is the foundation of friendship.

Friendship then allows this goodness and delight to flourish in abundance. If I am virtuous, I can see that this friend shares the same desire for and delight in the good. We can pursue goodness together and share our delight. I can desire the same goodness for my friend as I desire for myself. I can weep when he weeps and rejoice when he rejoices. My friend can delight in the fact that I am delighting in the same good as he is, and vice-versa. He sees and loves in me what I see and love in myself, and vice-versa. We can truly love our neighbor as ourselves.

As Christians, of course, this love of neighbor can surge to new heights, or descend into the depths of humility. It becomes possible to love Jesus in others, even in the distressing disguise of poverty (to quote Saint Teresa of Kolkata). In Luke 10, Jesus shows us that every human being is our neighbor, no matter how wounded or disfigured. We remain bearers of the divine image. The virtue of Charity (divine Love at work in us) allows us to be moved with compassion like the Father, causing us to move closer to littleness. It allows us to be kind to ourselves and to each other in our poverty. So many of us are still infants in our maturity, and need much kindness and compassion if we are to grow in virtue.

Most of what I share today I learned nearly three decades ago. But in so many ways I did not yet “get it.” Now that I am in a much deeper process of engaging and integrating my emotions, I find myself joyfully rediscovering old treasures. Whether returning to the wisdom of Aristotle or connecting with my earliest human needs for emotional security, it is much like the words of the poet T.S. Eliot: “We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.”

Posted on

Damaged Goods?

“Damaged goods” – what an interesting label that is so often tagged to a human being, a precious child of God.

Perhaps they are words whispered behind someone’s back as a cautionary tale (“Stay clear of her – she’s damaged goods!”). Perhaps we hear the whisper within ourselves in our darker moments (“I guess I’m just damaged goods…”). In either case, the ink on that label is dripping with contempt.

The implication is that this person is damaged beyond repair. She is toxic and will never change. Moreover, she is probably contagious. If anyone gets too close for too long, they too will get infected.

These are exactly the kind of humans that Jesus sought and loved: Zaccheus the tax collector, Mary Magdalene who was possessed by seven demons, Simon Peter (“Stay away from me, Lord, I’m full of sin!”), the woman caught in adultery, the Samaritan woman at the well, Nathanael (“I saw you under the fig tree”), or Saul who became Paul.

With people like Peter and Paul, we get enough glimpses into their story to learn that their conversion was a long and messy process. Sure, there were major moments of conversion. But there were many setbacks.

Peter professes Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of the living God, and in the very next instant wants to flee from the Cross (see Matthew 16:13-24). He promises faithfulness to Jesus at the Last Supper, only to deny him three times before the night is over. He joyfully encounters the risen Jesus, but still decides to go back (quite miserably and unsuccessfully) to his former life of fishing (John 21:1-3).

Paul radically changes his life after his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus. Yet it’s obvious from his writings that he experienced frequent temptations and sins. He describes to the Romans how he does not do the good he desires, but the evil that he hates (Romans 7:15). He tells the Corinthians about a thorn in his flesh and an angel of Satan. He begs God for deliverance, but is invited to be content with his weakness and powerlessness.

If these descriptions don’t fit the contemporary label of “damaged goods,” what does? Both Peter and Paul have many moments of feeling that way, on the verge of discouragement, laden with burdens of shame and self-contempt.

And the Lord meets them there – again and again, as many times as they need. It’s not a one-time healing and transformation, but a slow and patient process.

That is because each of us, as fallen human beings, have lots of shattered pieces. Just as the Body of Christ is one Body with many parts, so also each human being is a microcosm, the whole Church in miniature. The drama of human history – with the dying and rising of Jesus at its center – also plays out in each individual disciple.

The event we call “The Fall” was a savage attack by a powerful and envious foe. The devil saw how “very good” God made Adam and Eve – not only in their souls, but in their maleness and femaleness, in their capacity for receiving and giving honor and delight and becoming one flesh. The devil envied; he seduced; he enticed us into ruining.

It was a shattering – a shattering of trust in God’s goodness, a shattering of vulnerability with each other, a shattering of confidence in their own inner goodness. They hid from God and protected themselves from each other.

God immediately responds with truth and love. He invites Adam to look more particularly at the truth of where he is and what he has done. Adam dodges and deflects. God is not fooled and doesn’t go anywhere. Indeed, he promises that he will send “the woman” who will be a true enemy of the devil, and that her offspring will crush the head of that ancient serpent. God is faithful to that promise in ways we could never have imagined – sending his own Son in human flesh, and turning the worst of shame and humiliation (which is what Roman Crucifixion was mainly about!) into a total overturning of Satan’s kingdom.

Good Friday. Damaged Goods. What happens when you put those two together?

An oxymoron becomes a paradox.

For those less familiar with literary terms, an “oxymoron” happens when you put two opposite words together and create a new meaning: jumbo shrimp, old news, pretty ugly, even odds, etc. In this case, “damaged” and “goods” are seen as incompatible – the damaged has vitiated the good.

That is exactly the story the devil wanted Adam and Eve to believe about themselves. It is the story Peter and Paul sometimes believed about themselves. Jesus shatters that story. He crushes the head of the serpent.

I would suggest instead that you and I (and every fallen human) are “damaged very goods.”

We are indeed shattered – not only by Adam and Eve’s sin, but by the particular ways that other human beings have harmed us and the particular ways we have harmed ourselves. Each of us has a personal story that is intermingled with the collective human story. When Jesus tells each and every story on the Day of Judgment, we will see with clarity just how much shattering happened for each of us – in the three or four generations preceding our arrival, in our tender years of childhood, in our moments of opening up in desire only to be crushed or betrayed, in our repeated stumbling and struggling, and in our rising again (and again and again).

We are damaged, yes, but we are “very good,” and the Lord never stops pursuing us. Moreover, each and every shard is “very good” – and without all the shattered pieces we cannot truly be ourselves. We desperately wish that we could shortcut the process, discarding or ignoring some of the pieces. We bury away the unpresentable parts and create a caricature of ourselves – perhaps one that looks great on social media or wins praise in our family, in our workplace, or in our churches. But God knows our entire self and will not rest until we are truly and completely made whole. It may take – indeed it will take nothing short of a lifetime.

This is the “long and exacting work” of human integration. The Catechism of the Catholic Church talks about it (nn. 2331-2347). The documents on Catholic seminary formation talk about it. And still, we look for the quick fix. We expect that we should just have it all together by now.

So many of the lives of the Saints need to be rewritten. Too often the story is told by narrators who want a shorter and easier path – one that avoids getting anywhere close to “damaged goods.” But we see in Jesus and Mary and the Saints that they are quite willing to feel powerless and be with others in their mess. They are not repulsed by struggle or weakness or sin. Indeed, they are drawn to human poverty because it is there that God loves us and blesses us – if we are to believe Jesus’ words in the Beatitudes!

The biblical stories do not sweep human sins and struggles under the rug. They do not pretend or compartmentalize. They do not fantasize about quick or easy transformation. They tell the story of very good men and women who shine with God’s goodness AND sin and struggle along the way – along a very, very long way: Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and his sons, David, Peter, and Paul.

May we allow our shame to be set to the side – even if for brief moments. May we allow ourselves (ALL the parts of ourselves) to be seen and known, to experience honor and delight, goodness and connection. That process, in my experience, is a great tug of war. Most moments in which the greatest love gazes upon me are exactly the moments I want to hide the most – just like Adam and Eve in the garden, just like Peter in the courtyard. Even if I resist goodness and love a thousand times, that thousand-and-first time in which I let down my defenses allows me to taste and see that the Lord is superabundantly good – and that I am indeed his beloved.