Levels of commitment, including to God

We could write a book on this topic. I'd rather discuss it in conversation and Q&A format, but since that is not possible at this time, I want to jot down some thoughts here that will help you to align your thoughts and philosophy about commitment. It will help you to understand faith-and God himself-more clearly, and your own perceptions and actions.

First, I want to give some secular examples about how it is difficult to truly understand someone else's commitment to "a cause" or a truth over time. Commitment is not an absolute that remains unchanged by time and circumstance. An easy example is two different soldiers in an army. One seems the more totally committed, being very patriotic and military based in his or her orientation. The other person is more casual about their commitment, being correct in their service but not outstanding. However, in a battle, the first performs correctly, doing his or her duty, while the second one, back pressed to the wall, performs an extraordinary act of courage and losses his life for the greater good, whether the course of the battle itself or to protect his or her buddies under fire. Who was, in the long run, the "most committed?" The "higher" on the "commitment 'scale?'" You can see that such a view that it can be measured or compared is entirely bogus. One goes on to a honorable life long service to country and military, while the other average Joe or Mary had average service, and then in a burst of heroic circumstance, gives his or her life. You can't really weigh between the two at all. Each walked their own path of service, honor and righteousness.

There is much argument about the value of an aging life, in a time of pressures to allocate medical costs and even have "death panels." Consider this, then. There is a temptation to look at someone's "contribution" to life. OK, let's look at that. One person is a "producer," who is still active in some highly value societal role. The other was a wallflower, kind of a person who blended into society at large, perhaps a housewife and mother, who is now an aged widow, and whose children are away. She is in a nursing home and increasingly "out of it," and thus not a "contributor." Who is more "worthy" of a fixed number of health care dollars? Well, let's look at what happens. The first person, yes of course, goes on to be "productive" until his or her death. People feel a righteous glow when they get all the medical expenses "care" that he or she needs throughout. Liberals especially feel awesome and "good" in making sure he or she can be "productive" and receive entitled medical care. Cool. The other person slowly fades away in the nursing home. She gets less awesome care because she's old, alone and "dying anyway." No one does anything bad to her, but the mindset, of course, is that it's a low payback investment to give her excellent care at the end of a fading life. Perhaps so. But have you considered all the payback, really?

One day a nurse aide at the nursing home is discouraged, she is young and just starting out, studies are hard, money is tight, hours are long. She is tending to that woman and while so, they talk. That old lady gives the nurse's aide a little encouragement, speaking from her own humble experience as a mom. Like a tiny mustard seed, her words actually matter to the discouraged aide, and over time, especially after that nursing home resident dies, the aide has a new lease on life, a new encouragement, just from that casual conversation near the end of the woman's life, but toward the beginning of the aide's. She goes on to be a great success (in whatever measure of success you have).

Which person was more "committed to productivity" and "worthy?" The first person does their job and leads their life like "normal," by "normal" current societal expectations. The second person was "just a mom" and an "old lady" yet without an agenda, gave advice, not some secret formula, but just good old mom type of belief to the nurse's aide who tended to her, when that aide needed it, and it ended up being a life changing conversation that only unfolded in its significance over time. Good thing that old lady wasn't euthanized, huh?

Suppose the old lady was in a coma and could not talk? They still have total worth as humans because HELPLESS HUMANS ARE LIKE CLAY IN YOUR HANDS. ABUSED OR NEGLECTED ALL YOU DO IS DEMONSTRATE HOW FAR YOU ARE FROM BEING GODLY. After all, the Bible and the Qur'an explain that God took inanimate dust, clay, and made human life. Even when a person is not "productive" or even conscious, they are still the clay by which YOU who ARE "in power" demonstrate if you are godly, and give them the most care that is possible with dignity and life GIVING orientation, not TAKING, or if you are publicly or in secret, against being godly, for you rob the person of their dignity and "manage" the "amount of care" that they receive. Trust me, the dust that God created man from wasn't worth too much either.

So which of the two people, the normal life as "productive" or the normal life as aged end of life "mom" was more committed, more worthy, and more "productive?" You cannot possibly compare: no human being is even 1 percent capable of such an evaluation.

Now, look at being committed to God. There is no point where you are "safe" and "committed enough." Each person throughout their life works on their commitment and even follows different forms of commitment (or even detachment, as ill advised as that may be.) Again, you cannot critique someone else's form of commitment to God: only God can do that, and He will. There is a difference between speaking to someone on a wrong path (such as idolatry), so I'm not saying "live and let live" there, because their eternal soul is worth at least one chastising conversation with them, face to face....or what I am speaking of, which is again, you cannot as a human evaluate someone else's commitment to God. That is the heart of the totally bogus argument about Catholic celibate male priests. People have no right to claim that they are "entitled" to a form of commitment that was in place even before Christ, which is the celibate religious male. John the Baptist was such. At the time just before Jesus, there were many men who were celibate, often living as ascetics in the desert. Men have a perfect right to continue to follow God in that form. Christian men chose to emulate CHRIST in that regard, not the apostles, so the argument that deacons were men, women, had families and sex lives is bogus, because it has nothing to do with the FACT that there is a group of people, celibate men, who select via their calling a form of commitment to God called the Catholic priesthood. It's not like a job title.

So what does a woman do who wants to preach? Well, duh, the first thing to do is to recognize that it is an EQUALLY VALID BUT DIFFERENT FORM OF COMMITMENT TO GOD. I mean, Einstein didn't even have to be channeled to explain that one. I enjoy certain women's preaching very much; those who are firmly rooted in service to God with a genuine heart, not as a power grab. Sometimes I like to listen to Joyce Meyer when I'm channel flipping. One reason is that she is proclaiming the Kingdom, not trying to chip away at someone else's form of commitment (like the priesthood) as a power grab.

I have never met a woman who truly "wants" to be a Catholic priest. They want that "job title," but they don't want what it really is, which is a MAN who decides to follow CHRIST by giving his all, including celibacy. It's like this: I never wanted to be a Boy Scout because, duh, I'm not a Boy. I was a Girl Scout for a year or so but was bored because it was too poorly led locally by women who didn't have their heart in it.

Think back to that example of the soldiers. If one really wants to commit to God, one simply has to commit to His Kingdom first, and then walk through YOUR OWN LIFE based on that commitment. It may just being a good and honorable guy or gal through your life, or it may be turning your entire life over to God. As we see by failed priests, it is not the title or the form of the commitment that is worthy, but the worthiness that the person brings to their choice.

A mediocre priest may, without his even knowing, led very important people to Christ (by important I mean those who might have been lost otherwise). Like the elderly mom, even an average priest saves souls. But someone who is on a total ego trip about their "calling" may turn away people from the Kingdom, as they bog people down in worldly power and attachment, politics, divisiveness and argument. So a "top bishop" may work against the Kingdom without even realizing it, because they make it "all about them and their calling."

I hope this is helpful. I understand this is just scratching the surface of the topic, but I have faith you all have brains, ha, and surely get what I am pointing you towards here.

Fruits of the Holy Spirit (1) introduction

This is a new series, the follow-up to my series about the "Gifts of the Holy Spirit."

In the previous series I listed the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit and their scriptural references and commentary.

In this series I will do the same regarding the twelve fruits of the Holy Spirit.

First, let me put this in a context for you to understand two things: why God organizes spirituality and sanctity to follow any sort of list of personal qualities, and what the differences are between gifts and fruits, and how are they related.

There is not a list of these gifts or fruits in the Bible, dictated by God, as God provides in the obvious example The Ten Commandments or Jesus provides in The Beatitudes (the blessings). But that does not mean that they are not "from the Bible," because they are. From the earliest times both Jewish and Christian students of scripture and thus their teachers have distilled from the Bible the lessons and insights that can be gleaned.

For example, the first and most fundamental gift of the Holy Spirit, "Fear of the Lord," does not appear in a list of gifts, but there is repeated reference throughout scripture that Fear of the Lord is a gift from God, that it is basic and essential to faith and truthful knowledge of both God but also the world, and the benefits of Fear of the Lord.

Scholars have combed through the scriptures and very early on gleaned what gifts God, through his Holy Spirit, provides to humanity as a whole, that can and must be cultivated by each recipient. Therefore I provided in the series the Gifts of the Holy Spirit the most obvious places in scripture from which scholars studied and cited to recognize each of those seven gifts. So that is why God organized what humans have put into a list format. It is not a "performance check list" by any means.

Rather, let's think of it in computer terms, where the list of gifts is like a "shortcut" to access an application that runs on your computer. Rather than entering a bunch of commands to get to the application, you have an icon that gives you a direct route to the application. The icon itself is not the application, but a picture of it that takes you to the application. Likewise the gift "Fear of the Lord" is a lengthy application, which one must humbly receive and cultivate from the Lord. Putting it on the list of "Gifts of the Holy Spirit" is simply the pointer that scripture discusses that this gift exists and it is essential to both faith and truth. So God, in order to make himself more understandable and to uplift humans to their genuine potential under his holy guidance, provides a great deal of sacred verbiage in the scriptures, organized in a way that people can be open to applying, such as "Fear of the Lord," "Piety," or "Fortitude." A gift from the Holy Spirit is not like having an object or a talent given to you, poof, just like that. So let us now move into explaining how to best think of the gifts and the fruits.

Let's start with analogies. A gift of the Holy Spirit is like learning how to play a musical instrument. While some people are born as prodigies and fast learners, even they must recognize that a musical instrument exists, and they must become proficient in its use. Some people learn by imitating other musicians in their family, others learn by steady and frequent practice, while others learn by responding to their ear where what they play sounds good to them and others.

A fruit of the Holy Spirit is the benefit that is achieved for both one's self and the world as a whole by using appropriately what was given to them as a gift. Using again this analogy a young person who learns to play a musical instrument might receive fruits as a result of that gift in a number of ways, individual and personal to them. They might not ever do anything with that instrument other than enjoy a few years in band or other activities in high school. They might continue to play but only for their own enjoyment or their family's or friends'. They might use that instrument in church services or other faith or secular events. They might become a teacher of that instrument. They might become a talented amateur or they might become a talented professional. They might use their knowledge of the instrument to better manage the careers of other musical professionals. See? The gift is not "standard" to any one person any more than the resulting "fruit" is standard to any one person.

Likewise you cannot jump to conclusions about who "uses" their gifts "best" or is most "worthy" of those gifts. That is a severe error that is one of human beings' most disastrous flaws. It can be best explained by an example.

Two people each receive the gift of music, sticking to our analogy. They reach equal levels of proficiency. One goes on to volunteer her musical instrument talent to the church choir, and thus dedicates much time to donating her gift. Her fruit is that she is an essential part of the church services that many benefit from.

The other person does nothing with her musical instrument and it sits in the closet. Ah ha, you are thinking, she "wasted" her gift. No..... that's the great error I am going to point out to you. One day years after her musical lessons were received and the instrument has been untouched, her grandmother is dying of an illness. That woman brings her untouched musical instrument out of the closet and plays for her grandmother to ease her pain, and to help her pass the time remembering the good things in life. The fruit of this woman's gift was just as precious as the one who weekly donates in choir practice.

I hope that you have found this helpful and I look forward to working on this series with you.


FRUITS of the Holy Spirit

Charity
Joy
Peace
Patience
Longanimity
Goodness
Benignity
Mildness
Fidelity
Modesty
Continence
Chastity

More about the Holy Eucharist controversy

While the talk about whether a politician who has public stance against Church teaching should or should not be allowed to receive Holy Eucharist is settling down in the "drive by media," I know it is still on many people's minds. While I'm not speaking for any individual bishop or priest, I want to give those of you who are quietly pondering this subject another angle to think about it in a grace filled and charitable way.

=h=h=h=h=h

As you know, the grace of the Holy Spirit, God, and the Savior Jesus Christ can find some good and holiness in even the most dire situation. In Jesus Christ all things are made anew, and as Jesus himself said, when asked who can be saved, "For God all things are possible."

=h=h=h=h=h

I believe that the Holy Father, the Cardinals, the bishops and the priests tend toward a laxity in allowing public officials with the stances mentioned above to receive, if they are doing so reverently, even when they are unworthy, because they know the power of the Real Presence to change hearts. I firmly believe (and know for a fact) that some who have received unworthily in the past have experienced conversion in the stances that they previously held. This is what I have been watching and waiting for, for many years now, and while I preach charity and hold my tongue on this subject.

=h=h=h=h=h

Further, priests and bishops may be aware of a private conversion of heart that is still ongoing and in the process with certain individuals, and of course they appropriately hold their tongues too.

=h=h=h=h=h

Dear friends, the power of the Real Presence, and the Holy Spirit, cannot be underestimated. If one is going to err in one direction or the other, do consider that leaving room for the Spirit to work in an individual's heart is the wiser alternative. Even people who receive with kind of a mechanistic attitude toward it (and even the devout fall into that, being only human) are still open to its grace full transformative effect, slowly and subtly over time.

=h=h=h=h=h

Sometimes when momentous change is hoped for and prayed for, silence is the most appropriate rather than strident and self righteous advocacy. Those who speak should be those who have fullness of understanding of their own diocese or parish, such as Archbishop Burke. He is correct in stating his clarity of policy regarding how he ministers to his flock. This is part of proper formation of those who listen to him, for he is teaching the truth of the matter. But that does not mean that a different bishop is necessarily being weak or lax. It is a mistake to jump to that conclusion.

=h=h=h=h=h

I am not inclined to be harsh toward those who, on the face of it, received unworthily during the Holy Father's visit. I continue to pray that the many people, both public and private, who receive unworthily are experiencing the grace of full conversion and reversion through the power of the Real Presence.

=h=h=h=h=h

I hope that you find this a helpful and enlightening perspective. I continue to advocate to the Holy Spirit for the fullness of harmony and conversion of heart of all the faithful.