IN EXILE
By Father Ron Rolheiser, OMI
In Walker Percy’s 1971 novel, Love Among the Ruins, his central character is a psychiatrist named Tom More. More is a Roman Catholic who is no longer practicing his faith, albeit he still believes. This is how he describes his situation: “I believe in God and the whole business but I love women best, music and science next, whiskey next, God fourth, and my fellowman hardly at all. … Nevertheless, I still believe.”

Ironically, perhaps it was persons like him, sinners who still believed, who were the ones most drawn to Jesus in the Gospels.

Reading More’s list of what he loves and in what order, I’m reminded of a conference I once attended on the theme of Secularity and the Gospel. One of the keynote speakers, a renowned social worker, made a comment to this effect: I work on the streets with the poor and I do it because I’m a Christian. But I can work on the streets for years and never mention Christ’s name because I believe that God is mature enough that he doesn’t demand to be the center of our conscious attention all the time.

As you can guess, her statement sparked some debate. It should. Does God demand to be the center of our conscious attention all the time? Is it okay habitually to be focused elsewhere? If, affectively, we in fact love a lot of other persons and things before God, is this a betrayal of our faith?

There are no simple answers to these questions because they demand a very delicate balance between the demands of the First Commandment and an overall theology of God. As the First Commandment teaches, God is primary, always. This may never be ignored; but we also know that God is wise and trustworthy. Hence, we may safely deduce that God did not make us one way and then demand that we live in an entirely different way: that is, God did not make us with powerful proclivities that instinctually and habitually focus us on the things of this world and then demand that we give him the center of attention all the time. That would be a bad parent.

Good parents love their children, try to give them sufficient guidance, and then set them free to focus on their own lives. They don’t demand to be the center of their children’s lives; they only ask that their children remain faithful to the family’s ethos and values, even as they still want them to come home regularly and not forget about their family.

This dynamic is a little more complex within a marriage. Spouses with a mature love for each other no longer demand that they be the center of each other’s conscious attention all the time. Most of the time, this is not a problem. The problem arises more when one partner is no longer the affective center for the other, when at the level of emotional attraction and focus someone else has displaced him or her. This can be emotionally painful and yet, within the context of mature love, should not threaten the marriage. Our emotions are like wild animals, roaming where they will, but they are not the real indicator of love and fidelity. I know a man, a writer, who has been lovingly and scrupulously faithful to his wife through more than forty years who, by his own admission, has a crush on a different person every other day. This hasn’t threatened his marriage. Admittedly though, but for a strong spirituality and morality, it could.

The same principles hold true for our relationship with God. First, God gave us a nature that is affectively wild and promiscuous. God expects us to be responsible as to how we act inside that nature; but, given how we are made, the First Commandment may not be interpreted in such a way that we should feel guilty whenever God is not consciously or affectively number one in our lives.

Next, as a good parent, God doesn’t demand to be the center of our conscious attention all the time. God is not upset when our habitual focus is on our own lives, so long as we remain faithful and do not culpably neglect giving God that focus when it is called for.

As well, God is a good spouse who knows that sometimes, given our innate promiscuity, our affections will momentarily be infatuated by a different center. Like a good spouse, what God asks is fidelity.

Finally, more deeply, there is still the question of what ultimately we are infatuated with and longing for when our focus is on other things rather than on God. Even in that, it is God we seek.

There are times when we are called to make God the conscious center of our attention; love and faith demand this. However, there will be times when, affectively and consciously, God will take fourth place in our lives – and God is mature and understanding enough to live with that.

(Oblate Father Ron Rolheiser is a theologian, teacher and award-winning author. He can be contacted through his website www.ronrolheiser.com.)

GUEST COLUMN
By Reba J. McMellon, M.S., LPC

Matthew 22:39 – You should love your neighbor as yourself…
People can change and grow. It’s important to recognize that opposite is also true.

Our commandment is to love our neighbor as ourselves. Unless you really don’t like yourself, it is important to recognize healthy versus unhealthy characteristics in others so you can gauge who to love up close and who to love from a distance.
Love doesn’t mean inviting everyone over for potato salad.

It is biblical to recognize when to set healthy boundaries. Think of Jesus’ response to the Pharisees and Sadducees. He was polite but concise. Notice Jesus did not invite Pontius Pilot or the Pharisees to the last supper. Why? Because they would have ruined the whole thing. Some may argue, but it’s the last supper, shouldn’t Jesus invite everyone. Well, no.

The enemy would have you believe everybody is worthy of potato salad at your dinner table. But that might ruin the whole love thing.

Below are five characteristics of people who won’t change and will test your spirit if you spend too much time with them.

1. People who blame others for their own mistakes:
   They often say things like, “I apologize if” instead of “I apologize because.” They go to extreme measures to avoid personal responsibility, feigning forgetfulness, ignorance, devil made them do it, etc. These kinds of people don’t realize fault doesn’t mean your bad, it means you made a mistake. People who blame others for their own mistakes don’t change or grow because they don’t take responsibility for their own behavior.
   
2. People who always have to be right:
   People who always have to be right can’t learn because they won’t listen. These type people frequently interrupt and talk over people. Instead of changing the way they think, they change reality to fit their way of thinking.
   
3. People who react to conflict with anger and aggression:
   People who react to conflict with anger and aggression shut down dialogue. Think of bully behaviors. They blowup, turn their back, shutdown, name call, cry, yell, etc. to avoid communication. Change requires honest communication.
   
4. People who ignore the needs and feelings of others:
   Think about pushy salespeople. They ignore the customer’s genuine needs and push their own agenda. People who are good at assessing the needs of others and responding accordingly have the ability to grow and learn. People who ignore the needs and feelings of others don’t care enough to change.
   
5. People who feel superior:
   Healthy people are confident and are able to accurately assess their own competence. They enjoy learning from others. Unhealthy people won’t acknowledge their lack of knowledge enough to listen and learn. Nobody knows it all. There’s no harm in that, only harm in an unwillingness to learn. It’s hard to learn if you are the center of your own universe.
   
   When interacting with people who have some or all of these characteristics, it is wise to make a brief point, set a boundary then walk away. Jesus did it and so should we.
   
   Love your neighbor as you love yourself requires you to love yourself. So, pause to think before you get out the mayonnaise and start on that potato salad.

(Reba J. McMellon, M.S. is a licensed professional counselor with 35 years of experience. She continues to work in the field of mental health as a consultant and is available for public speaking. Reba can be reached at rebaj@bellsouth.net.)

Reflections on Life
By Melvin Arrington

Across the centuries the church has produced numerous holy women named Teresa, among them Teresa of Calcutta (Mother Teresa), Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein), the French saint Thérèse of Lisieux (the Little Flower) and the forerunner of them all, Teresa of Avila.

My wife, Terry, tells a fascinating story about how she was named. Her saintly mother, Stella, had a special devotion to the Little Flower, one that had been passed down from her mother. When she was a young girl, Stella became gravely ill and slipped into a coma. Her mother prayed to Thérèse for a miracle. Sometime later Stella regained consciousness and asked, “Where’s the lady with the flowers?” It appears she had experienced a vision of the French saint in an iconic pose.

When Terry was born, Stella intended to name her for Thérèse, but somehow the name on the birth certificate appeared as “Teresa.” So, as it turns out, her real namesake is not the French saint but the Spanish one, Teresa of Avila. Divine intervention? Who knows? But I do know that Terry majored in Spanish in college and went on to have a wonderful career as a Spanish professor.

St. Teresa of Avila (1515-1582) was canonized in 1622 and given the title “Doctor of the Church” in 1970, the first woman to be so designated. She’s my favorite October saint (feast day, Oct. 15), primarily because of her lively personality, the compelling qualities of her mystical writings, and the way she achieved, in the spirit of St. Dominic, a balance between the active life and the contemplative.

In an age when women usually remained in the background, Teresa boldly thrust herself into the forefront of Spanish life. She was beautiful, talented and charming as well as shrewd, self- assertive and determined. She had amazing organizational skills and was blessed with intelligence, common sense, good humor and a quick wit, as seen in the following anecdote.

As Teresa was setting out to enter the Carmelite Order, a gentleman admirer helped her into the carriage. In order to step up, she raised her skirt slightly and, in so doing, inadvertently revealed the lower part of her leg, an exposure not overlooked by the young man. Turning to him, she said, “Go ahead and take a good look because it’s the last time you’re going to see it.”

Unfortunately, Teresa was constantly plagued with serious illnesses, including consumption and malaria. At age 24 she became cataleptic and for three days showed no signs of life. The nuns sealed her eyelids with wax, wrapped her body in a shroud, and prepared a grave for her. But when they came to take her for burial, she awoke. Full recovery from this affliction took many months. Late in life, Teresa looked back on all these episodes of sickness and pain and concluded that suffering was sent from God to draw her closer to Him. In spite of these ailments she maintained her trademark sense of humor, as seen in the comment, “Well, Lord, if this is how you treat your friends, no wonder you have so few of them.”

St. Teresa endured eighteen years of spiritual dryness in the convent until undergoing, around age 41 or 42, a “second conversion.” Afterwards, she no longer looked forward to the frivolity and social visits that had so occupied her youth. The new Teresa would now devote herself to mental prayer and recollection, which involves becoming detached from the cares of the world, turning inward, and focusing on the presence of God. Plunging into the deepest level of prayer, she often received mercedes (favors) from God in the form of visions, locutions and raptures. Of course, some became suspicious of these as works of the devil, but Teresa remained undeterred.

Because of a desire to live under a stricter rule, one that would allow more time for contemplation, Teresa undertook her signature project: the reform of the Carmelite Order. Observing a laxity and absence of discipline in the convent, she singlehandedly toiled with the aim of restoring the Order to its primitive rule. The reform was known as the Discalced Carmelites, although the sisters rarely went without shoes (they typically wore crude sandals).

Teresa began by establishing St. Joseph’s in the city of Avila and then traveled all across Spain founding a total of sixteen convents, often in the company of St. John of the Cross, who helped spread the reform to the friars as well. Despite the opposition of some of the sisters and several high-ranking clergy, she remained dedicated to this project and eventually prevailed.

Today, Teresa is best remembered for two mystical writings, Interior Castle and the Way of Perfection, and a spiritual autobiography, in which she writes candidly of poor health, struggles in prayer, devotion to the inner life and experiences of mystical union. The writing style is natural and spontaneous but often rambling, punctuated with digressions, and difficult to understand. Nevertheless, those who make the effort to read these works will be richly rewarded.

And so, we can look to Teresa today as an exemplary saint on several levels. She’s clearly a model for those devoted to renewal and a deeper prayer life, but also someone that those who suffer from illness and pain can pray to and lean on. Women of all ages can be inspired by the life and writings of this Spanish nun. And for all who believe joy to be an integral part of the faith, we join her in saying, “Good Lord, deliver us from sour-faced saints.”

(Melvin Arrington is a Professor Emeritus of Modern Languages for the University of Mississippi and a member of St. John Oxford.)

THINGS OLD AND NEW
By Ruth Powers
Beginning in 1972, the Catholic Bishops of the United States have designated October as Respect Life Month. Catholic congregations around the country are asked to spend time during this month particularly focusing on awareness of pro-life issues. In their Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities, the bishops “proclaim that human life is a precious gift from God; that each person who receives this gift has responsibilities toward God, self, and others; and that society, through its laws and social institutions, must protect and nurture human life at every stage of its existence.”

Although the bishops state that pro-life means protecting and nurturing human life at every stage of existence, it is true that for a number of years the focus of the movement has been the protection of the life of the unborn. This has led to the accusation from some who support legalized abortion that people in the pro-life movement are only concerned with the child up to the point of birth but do nothing to support and nurture the child afterwards. This is generally an unfair accusation, but there is enough truth in it that it is time to go back and look at what our church and its leaders define as what it means to be pro-life.

Abortion does play a central role in issues involving the dignity of human life, as it is the direct killing of an innocent human being and is always gravely immoral. (St. John Paul II, The Gospel of Life, no. 57) However, there are a wide spectrum of issues that touch on the protection of human life and the promotion of human dignity.

Again, St. John Paul II reminds us: “Where life is involved, the service of charity must be profoundly consistent. It cannot tolerate bias and discrimination, for human life is sacred and inviolable at every stage and in every situation; it is an indivisible good.” (The Gospel of Life, no. 87) As Catholic Christians we are called to hold a “consistent ethic of life,” which calls for the protection of human life at all ages and in all conditions.

This idea, now embraced by most American bishops in some form, had its beginnings in the early 1970s when bishops and theologians were arguing for a consistent approach on life issues, including abortion, capital punishment and war. One term used for this approach was the “seamless garment,” which referred to the tunic of Jesus which his executioners left whole in John 19:23. This philosophy, further popularized by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago in 1983, holds that issues such as abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, war, and social and economic injustice demand a consistent application of moral principles which put the sanctity of human life at their core. This approach is not meant in any way to downplay the importance of abortion and euthanasia, both of which involve the direct taking of innocent human life. Instead, it is meant to help us understand that because human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, they are deserving not only of having basic physical needs of food, shelter, clothing, clean water, and medical care addressed, but also of having their dignity as human beings respected by rejection of all forms of economic and social injustice.

More recently a subset of activists within the pro-life movement has begun to advocate for a broadened focus. This movement has become known as the Whole Life Movement, or sometimes Pro-Life/Whole Life. Abortion and euthanasia remain the primary focus, but members of this movement insist that it is not enough to simply support laws that restrict abortion. To be consistently pro-life is to advocate for protection of life and human dignity for all persons “from conception to natural death” as Pope Paul VI said in Humanae Vitae. Although followers of this movement continue to work for an end to abortion, they also believe that working to pass laws favoring access to nutrition, shelter, health care and education, as well as protecting the rights of the disabled is integral to being pro-life. Some in this movement even believe that the protection of the environment should be considered a pro-life issue since without a healthy environment, the lives of all of us may be threatened.

Taking some time during this Respect for Life month to reflect on what it means to be pro-life is a worthwhile endeavor for all of us. Does our concept of being pro-life begin with conception and end with the birth of the child? Or do we understand that this is only the beginning of what it means to be for life? Are we willing to fight the “throwaway culture” described by Pope Francis that sees those people who are not “contributing to society” or who are “an economic drain” as unworthy of our concern? Are we willing to build a society that protects a “right to life” that includes protection of the physical well being and the right to human dignity of all persons? It is a good time to examine our consciences about these issues.