Abbey-Roads2

Would we have paid any attention to him?

I sometimes wonder.  What if we lived back then with the equivalent level of affluence and comfort that many of us have today in the United States?  What if we, like the Romans, who were well groomed, civilized - accustomed to finery and leisure - not that those times were so luxurious - lived as contemporaries with Christ?  Or what if we were the friends of Herod, finely attired, living rather well - equivalent to how many of us live today?  I suppose this is similar to imagining if Jesus lived amongst us as a contemporary Middle Eastern man today- the question is, would we like him, would we be attracted to him?

We often see images of Jesus with nearly blonde hair, neatly coiffured.  Although he is depicted in Middle Eastern dress, he is normally shown as an appealing and good looking man, an image very palatable to Western tastes.  As Catholics, we know he is truly present, living with us in the Blessed Sacrament, and our image of him is influenced by the art we have been accustomed to, hence we may imagine him thus.  There is certainly nothing wrong with that, to be sure.  Of course human talent could never reproduce his glorious beauty, therefore we depict him in the best way we can, based upon early icons and sacred miraculous images.

Yet how would we have reacted to him in his humanity, when he walked the earth amongst men?  Though Isaiah writes of the Suffering Servant, he does describe Jesus as we might have experienced him, “There was in him no stately bearing to make us look at him, nor appearance that would attract us to him.  He was spurned and avoided by men, a man of suffering, accustomed to infirmity.  One of those from whom men hide their faces…” (Is. 53) 

I often think about that.     

Praying for enemies.

When we pray for our enemies, it doesn’t mean we are trying to make them like us, or even treat us better, much less  get them to be our friend.  In some cases, we have all we can do to think a kind thought in their regard.  We may be ‘filled with contempt and the proud man’s disdain’ (Ps. 122) - or we may be humiliated, hurt, and suffering because of our enemy’s actions.  As a result, we can feel entirely devoid of any love for them, held captive by our remembrance of wrongs committed against us.

To pray for one’s enemies is a tremendous, generous work of mercy - it may even be better than fasting on bread and water.  This prayer causes us to participate in God’s merciful love and providence, “He who makes the sun shine on the good and the bad.”   More deeply, what this prayer does is opens our own heart to healing, immersing our souls in God’s love.  Oftentimes, the more disinterested the prayer, the more the prayer seems to soften our hearts, moving us to excuse and even pardon the other person, and to no longer wish them evil, but to hope for their good - content not to see results if need be.

Indeed, we may not see any immediate or obvious change in our enemy, but we often  see a change in our self, especially in the experience of pardon and peace.  When you find yourself unable to forgive, pray for your enemies. 

(Art: Giotto; St. Francis renouncing his patrimony.)

“Back to the rivers of belief”- Enigma 

I have always gone back and forth on the Medjugorje thing.  I’ve often  said I was open to the apparitions although not particularly attracted to them, and I’m content to wait for the judgement of the Church in the matter.  I don’t know if it is the correct term to use, but it seems to me some people tend to ’objectify’ such events, sometimes exercising a sort of unrestrained appetite for mystical phenomena - which is why I try to mortify my curiosity about stuff like that.

In my personal discernment process regarding the apparitions, I’ve never understood the need for a “permanent and industructable sign” to be left at the site of the apparitions.  I have said as Catholics we already have the preeminent sign of the Eucharist, therefore why do we require another sign? 

However, I came across something online today, which changed my understanding, it is from one of the first messages of Medjugorje.  The seers were told that Christians already do have the signs they need to believe and convert their lives.  (Which is what I’ve said.)  The sign to be left at Medjugorje, though able to be seen by all, will be primarily for unbelievers and athiests, so they can believe and be converted.  The message went on to explain that these events were inaugurated as a period for the faithful to deepen their faith and convert.  That makes more sense to me.

Nevertheless, I’ll wait for the decision of the Church, hopefully my personal efforts at conversion are pleasing to God.