BOOKS: 10 BOOKS THAT CHANGED MY LIFE

In order of when I stumbled across them.

1. The Bible (specifically the New Testament) St. Anthony's Guild version. Acquired from "Friends of the Library" discard sale, Belmont. 10 cents.

The New Testament is truly new. It is the antithesis of what we would normally think/do, and yet it is the true fulfillment of our desires.

2. The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis (found in basement of my house)

devotional, instructional, challenging and comforting

3. In Garments All Red: The Life of St. Maria Goretti
As a teen, I also found this book in our basement. It changed my entire understanding of life, death, and what it meant to be a woman. 

4. Man and Woman He Created Them--A Theology of the Body by John Paul II the Great (& Love and Responsibility and anything by JP2G)

The most revolutionary book after the New Testament, because it arranges all of salvation history according to the body. It arranges the Bible according to the body. It arranges philosophy according to the body. It arranges life according to the body.

5. The Practice of Humility by Pope Leo XIII

6. Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) by John Paul II the Great

7. The Humility and Suffering of God by Francois Varillon (translated from French)

References only things French. You must like French things to read this book.

8. Power in Praise by Merlin Carruthers    

I read this after joining the charismatic renewal. It teaches you very simply to praise God for everything. It teaches you to praise God for the bad things in your life in particular, because you believe He is working in them RIGHT NOW to bring them to a good end for you. All Carruthers' books have the word "Praise" in the title, and I can vouch for "Prison to Praise" (his life story), and another marvelous book called "Bringing Heaven into Hell," the reading of which partially cured a friend of mine from mental illness. Enough to get ot of an institution.

9. I Believe in Love by Fr. D'Elbee

Unpacks St. Therese's "little way." Will scour the last vestiges of Jansenism and Manichaeism out of you. If you ever have wavered or ever do still waver in your belief in God's love for you, this book is for you.

10. The Wet Engine by Brian Doyle (A book that haunted and pursued me--just by its title, until I bought it and read it. Now its contents haunt and pursue me.)

One of the most beautifully written books ever, about our hearts, our bodiliness. Poetically scientific, scientifically poetic. Funny. Small, hardcover, gorgeous cover design. Great for anyone who ever had heart trouble. Very Irish. Very Catholic. Very Irish Catholic. Lends itself to repeated readings aloud.

Anything by Dave Barry can be pretty life-changing, too. Also, the poems of Hafiz and Kabir (Islamic poets/mystics who are often more direct, intimate and funnier than Christian mystics--except, as a Christian interested in Islam told me--they don't know what do to with the cross/suffering in life).

BONUS IMPORTANT BOOK: The Caged Virgin--An Emancipation Proclamation for Women in Islam by Ayaan Ali Hirsi

Born into an Islamic family, Hirsi fled the Sudan and became a member of the Dutch Parliament. While doing a movie about women in Islam, her collaborator, Theo Van Gogh (a relative of Vincent Van Gogh) was assassinated in broad daylight (stabbed with a machete). The machete pinned a note to his body explaining that he was killed for working on this film. Hirsi was given asylum in the USA where she wrote her life story: "Infidel." She racked up a $2M bill for 24-hr security, and the US informed her that we could no longer provide security, so her fellow atheist/author, Sam Harris is working with Rick Warren ("The Purpose-Driven Life") to find a way to continue to protect her life.

MOVIES: "MONGOL"

YYYY

 

Yes, the Mongol is none other than Genghis Khan (called "Temujin" throughout the film). This is an epic, almost mythical portrayal of the famous uniter of the Mongol tribes and world conquerer. However, the scenes of rugged sweeping landscapes; incredibly skilled, full-tilt horseback riding; and bloody battle scenes (reminiscent of "300") never dwarf the simple relationships and iron-clad customs that rule the day. First among Temujin's bonds is with the wife of his youth, Borte. One word to describe her? Moxie. She's as tough as the wife-queen in "300." Mongols pick their own wives when they are boys, but Borte kind of picked Temujin. She is a shrewd tribeswoman, negotiator and counselor to Temujin, who comes and goes in her life because Mongol leaders are constantly out and about settling old scores, challenging and maintaining shifting balances of power by alliances and by the sword.

 

It's a brutal world, but there is genuine affection among men who are related or consider themselves related. Temujin seems to need Borte more than any of the men in his life, however, and even causes a small war to get her back when she is abducted. And Mongols "never go to war over a woman." The curious thing here is that even though Mongol life seems to be ruled by customs (Temujin's father even drinks from a cup he knows is poisoned because the customs--in this case, accepting a cup offered you by another tribe--are sacrosanct, and if he were to change them "the world would turn upside down"), but they are often reinterpreted in the light of another custom, or higher custom. The customs are few, but tricky. For example: "Mongols don't kill children." So you wait till the kid grows up, and then you kill him. "Never let your enemy live." But Temujin lets his enemy live by calling him "brother." One shouldn't show weakness, yet by being kind at the right time, you can win people's loyalty. "Never betray your Khan (tribal leader)," but when some men kill their Khan who was a sworn enemy of Temujin, Temujin kills them for this deed. Loyalty seems to be fickle, but the custom is: "Mongols have the right to choose new a new master." Some customs trump other customs, and without any Mongol lawyers, you could wind up on the wrong end of a spear by blindly keeping every custom. Temujin later turns the Mongol customs into laws which he enforces: "I will make them obey, even if I have to kill half of them." Forgiveness is often mentioned, but is hardly ever practiced.

 

This kind of tribal mentality is probably what we are seeing in Afghanistan today. Compared to our monolithic legal system, it seems arbitrary and fluid, but it probably works well--utilitarianly speaking--in an undeveloped, non-industrial society with a harsh climate and inhospitable terrain where survival is always in the balance.

 

More than once, Temujin is shown praying to the Mongol god Tegri of the Blue Sky. Thunder means he is angry, and the Mongols fear thunder. The dramatic use of thunderstorms in the movie almost makes thunder a character. It made me think of three distinct approaches to thunder: religious/awful-fearful, scientific, religious/awful-glorious!

 

Temujin gains a friend, Jamukha, while still an adolescent. Again, it is very curious how the terms of their friendship play out. Jamukha saves Temujin more often than the reverse, but Temujin shows him very little gratitude or loyalty. Yet Jamukha is not insulted by this, nor is he a sap. These are power games. Both Temujin and Jamukha know they are born leaders, and as Borte puts it: "you can't boil two rams' heads in one pot." "Mongolia" isn't big enough for both of them. Although friends and "blood brothers," they each instinctively know and accept that only one can gain the ascendency--neither can play second fiddle. This ascendency is won just as often through keen psychological insight into the other, as with force. (It is said that Kissinger wouldn't play chess with Brezhnev because chess reveals too much how another thinks.)

When Temujin asks a shaman to prophesy his future, the shaman simply tells him: "You know your future." So, are leaders truly born? Are they rare, gifted individuals who truly care for the common good? People who "do what they have to do" to make their world a better place? Or are they ambitious, ruthless tyrants who gain fear and respect because they dare to do what no one else has the stomach or conscience for? Do their admirers all suffer from Stockholm Syndrome or a vicarious desire to be as heartless as they? What kind of leader was Temujin?

 

Mongol culture is simple and rich--their carpets, jewelry, long hair and exotic, flowing coats are more beautiful than our contrived fashions, and you know that their meaning is directly connected with something less mediated than ours. When you see the ruddy faces of the children, the sleeping under the stars, the cooking on fires, everything looks so darn healthy, so darn hardy, so right--as though this is the way human beings were made to live, in a seamless unity of an engaged, kinetic body driven by a sage, brave soul.

 

The Theology of the Body moment? I think it is primarily the undercurrent of what John Paul II calls "the fundmental essence of human existence: the male/female difference/relationship," that permeates Temujin's life. He needs Borte and she him. Perhaps she represents the best of the Mongols, what he is fighting for, what he knows the Mongols can be. She saves his life more than once, advises him. They are equals in every way. He says a whole universe when he tells her: "You are a good wife." Of course in reality, Genghis Khan had many, many wives, but the Mongols are presented here as valuing "one man, one woman." And why is this man-woman bond so ultimate? Because it is in this bond that we are most in the image of God. It seems, according to historians, that Genghis Khan had a favorite wife in one "Kulan," even though no one was higher than Borte as the first Grand Empress.

 

I looked away from the battle scenes.They're so awful. I'm so tired of them. I classify ancient warfare movies as "slasher" films. And yet, the mano a mano fighting is so different from today's "incinerate your enemy through a remote device" stuff. Would we still have as great a thirst for war today if we had to do it the old-fashioned way? Perhaps. As teacher-guru, Robert McKee, says with chagrin in his screenwriting Bible, "Story": "Men love war." And I would add: "Men love to film war."

 

At one point, when Temujin is enslaved in a cage in the Tangut Kingdom, an old Buddhist monk, like Rahab in the Old Testament, has a premonition that Temujin will one day wipe them out. He asks for mercy for his monastery because of the many sacred books to be preserved. Temujin asks him to kill the guard for the key. The monk replies that his faith forbids him from killing. Temujin says that his faith doesn't. Instead, the monk goes on an arduous journey to find Borte. It was such a breath of fresh air to feel another kind of strength coming from this equally-committed holy man who had chosen another way.

 

Gene Simmons (KISS) once said: "Women don't have a clue about this world domination stuff we guys are into." I couldn't have said it better. But what does it mean now that so many women are warriors, a much rarer occurrence in the ancient world? Is there anyone left to "keep the peace?" What/who is peace for if everyone's a warrior in a perpetual war: babies, the sick and the old? (Cf. John Paul II's Letter: "Women, Teachers of Peace.")

 

Although Temujin has great pride in his Mongols and his family, there are all kinds of mashups going on. His mother is a "Merkit." His wife's two children are from different fathers, one a Merkit from when she was abducted. Inter-marriage not only strengthens social and politicals ties, it's biologically healthy, just as intra-marriage is biologically unhealthy. Children seem to be a great focus in Mongol life. However, a historian notes that Mongol childhood was brief and harsh--Temujin learned to ride a horse when he was three.

 

The language--to my ears--sounds like a mix of Chinese, Korean and Russian. It is supposedly most similar to Turkish. There is also a real Tibetan feel--the singing is that low "ohm" growl that we hear Tibetan monks do. Although fierce warriors, the Mongols are also portrayed as a smiling, laughing, good-natured people.

 

The pacing is perfect, the cinematography and soundtrack masterful. What a great way to learn history! Limited opening in USA, June 2008. Definitely opening in Chicago.

 

Further notes: 1206--Temujin was made Khan of all Mongols. At its height, Mongolia encompassed China, Tibet, Persia and much of the former USSR. Christianity made inroads into the Mongols. Genghis Kahn had a Christian wife. In the 13th century, the Crusaders and Mongols united against the Muslims.

 

Off the web: Free Meals for Genghis Khan Family Members.

Give me the food or I conquer you. - Here's a food oddity that the London eatery chain, restaurant Shish, hopes will put it on the map.

They are advertising free meals to descendants of that famous consumer, Genghis Khan.

But first you have to prove your relation via a DNA test.

Ananova™ reports:

The unusual promotion is to mark the Mongolian government's decision to allow citizens to have surnames for the first time since they were banned by the communists in the 1920s.

Some 50,000 Mongolians now proudly claim direct descent from and bear the name of Genghis Khan.

That's a lot of meals. The restaurant teamed up with a DNA research company to do the tests required to find descendants. No mention of where they obtained Genghis Khan DNA to test against, however they might have gotten some of the DNA sampling from the Royal family:

It is estimated that 17 million people worldwide, including the British Royal Family, Iranian Royalty, and the family of Dracula, are direct descendents [sic] of Genghis Khan.

INTERESTING EDITORIAL ON GENGHIS KHAN'S ENGLIGHTENED ATTITUDE TOWARD FREEDOM OF RELIGION, NON-TORTURE, ETC.: http://www.firstuunashville.org/news/sermons/2004genghis.html

 

 

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY

 

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY STUDY GROUP WITH FR. THOMAS LOYA

NOTES for pages 146--176 of "Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body" by John Paul II  text available from www.pauline.org

Fr. Loya can also be heard on the catholicradiointernational.com program: "Body of Truth"--answering today's issues/problems from a TOB perspective.
http://www.catholicradiointernational.com/abodyoftruth.php

Fr. Loya's DVDs (with art demonstrations) are available from www.theologyofthebody.net

We are changing our format permanently, starting next month: Father's presentation first, discussion after. Remember, you can join us LIVE, every SECOND WEDNESDAY NIGHT OF THE MONTH: 6:30--8PM CST, 7:30--9PM EST: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/theology-of-the-body

Discussion group: "TOB must be read with openness. If we start from a feminist perspective, postmodern perspective, etc., we are already defeated because we are biased, and not open."

"We can say TOB things without using religious language."

FR. LOYA:  [Sr. Helena's superfluous comments in brackets.]

It helps to say "non-sectarian" rather than "secular," when we mean "not a particular religion."

Today, people don't accept what you say from authority, but from their own experience. People today want to "feel" it themselves. And that's OK!

JPII said we all have a body, we can't deny it. Let's start there. But REALLY experience it, totally.

If we thoroughly examine a coffee cup and decide it's for coffee and not a beer mug, we didn't say anything religious, but we all agreed on what it was really best for. It has a gift for us if we use it properly because of its physical make up. Things are talking to us all the time, telling us what they are and what their purpose is. Everything speaks a language. THIS is the new evangelization: to affirm everyone's experience. We are not telling people they're bad, but that they're good and their experience is true/real. [We want to help them unpack the deeper meaning of their experiences.]

RECAP: There is only ONE REALITY: all the arts and sciences are just an unfolding of this.

All heresies have a problem with the INCARNATION ["the Scandal of the Incarnation"—St. Irenaeus/von Balthasar]. The biggest spike in all these heresies and denials was in the 16^th century. We are now in the "non-sacramental" age. We have been wearing non-sacramental glasses since we were born. [JPII was an optometrist.] John Paul II wants us to change our glasses. The Pharisees wanted to know "what are the rules?" Jesus said: "it's not about rules, it's about seeing properly." [Find all the Jesus quotes on seeing!]

participant: Could we say that Jesus came to approach us from a subjective POV when He came to earth?

A: Yes, but we don't forget about the objective—we get to the objective through the subjective.

When people want to "talk" about religion, then we need to "capture the words" and talk about the words, and also exhaust our experience of something.

"Secular feminism" comes from the Cartesian worldview of utilitarianism, power, function. (The Catholic worldview is about sacrament, symbol and sign.) So they are operating from a parallel worldview that will never converge with sacramental worldview.

Q online: Is it mostly Western cultures that espouse the Cartesian worldview? Do some cultures still hold the sacramental worldview?

A: Why do we love Rome and European cities? Because the people are laid back and hang out in piazzas doing nothing, "life-ing out." Round piazzas that foster community. American cities are built on a grid, designed for going places. Rome is built on a Catholic/sacramental worldview.

1 Peter: "We partake of the divine nature." HOW? Thru our BODIES!

"Going green" is the world's way of approaching the sacramental worldview. The Church should be leading the way in the green movement, also so that people don't go "overboard."

Q online: What is the non-sectarian language for sacramental worldview?

A: "Honesty," which everyone values, esp. young people.

Q online: How can we get used to "doing nothing"?

A: Being honest about our rhythm of life. The language of the body will tell you what it needs, and the body and mind also need leisure and contemplation.

We have to become mystics. Mysticism mean "what is most real," most concrete. Taking a long, loving look at the real. Recognizing things for what they truly are.

There is no "good use" for utilitarianism! It turns everything into an end with no value in itself.

When we were little and used to wonder and look at bugs, that was prayer. Someone taught us to put the Wow! together with God. Little kids say wow all day long. That's why Jesus said: if you don't become like little children, you won't enter heaven because heaven is wow.

Kids have nature deficit disorder today—so how can they wonder? They are being molested by videophilia, by screens!

A mystic is a TRULY NORMAL NATURAL human being.  Anything else, being out of touch with God, not seeing as God made things and sees, is UNNATURAL. [My friends from Africa say: "You say you are free and talk a lot about freedom in America, but you can't talk about God. We talk about Him all the time." Frankly, it's embarrassing. Let's put God back in our lives, not in a weird way, but with naturalness, with joy and love and thanksgiving!]

p. 151: "Original solitude"

online comment: no one to talk to!

p. 163: "Man becomes an image of God not so much in the moment of solitude as in the moment of communion." VERY IMPORTANT QUOTE

MYSTICAL is the greater reality. One God in three persons is mystical, not RATIONAL. You just live it. You can't figure it out.

Love and life are inseparable!!! (fruitfulness) That's being honest "with the words." You cannot obstruct life in love. You can try, but the potentiality is always there [life is persistent].

We have removed human sexuality from the heart of the Trinity in whose image, male and female, we are made, so we abuse it.

Like the Trinity, we don't lose our individual identity/distinctness, even in the "one flesh" union. Why don't we ever lose our interest in sex? Because it's "divine." The world knows that sex is great, but they don't know why. Maybe we can convert people by telling them what is realest to them IS great, but help them be really honest about it. [Convert the world thru sex!]

No one can say exactly what the Trinity is.

ONE analogy of the Trinity is the family. Father, Son, and then HS who IS the Love between the Father and Son (like husband, wife and child). It's not a perfect analogy. [It's not a numbers thing—that's math. It's community—communion. Also, a human family doesn't necessarily have just one child…]

Mystical marriage of God and His Creation—happened on the Cross.

Salvation history is the story of a Groom courting his Bride….

Reciprocity--initiating love is received and given back. The sun shining on the moon which sends the light back. Baseball: the pitcher throws the ball, the catcher receives it and sends it back. If no catcher, we'll have a one-pitch game.

Adam and Eve had a destiny that was incomplete, even before the Fall. They would have passed into the next life, body and soul intact, without death. They were happy with God in this life, but it wasn't the fullness that God had planned for them. (Theological speculation: Most believe that Jesus would have incarnated Himself even if we hadn't sinned.) How do we know we would have had this destiny of passing to the next life? Because it happened to the new Adam and Eve, Jesus and Mary.

The "first covenant" was an unspoken dependence on God, trust. [Jesus, I trust in you!]

All sin is an attempted "shortcut" to the real thing. Our desires are right, though.
online comment: America is a country of shortcuts!

We are attracted to travelling to European cities because we realize their way of life is more "human."

JPII: "Even if a husband looks at his own wife lustfully—he can commit adultery in his heart."
The feminists freaked out, and so did many Catholics, because they both misunderstood it (looking at it from their own perspective).

online comment: Catholics don't seem to understand Catholic stuff!

We don't know what lust is and don't know what love is, so we confuse them.

Lust=to "appropriate" another for my own self-gratification, treat someone as a thing. Lust is always wrong.

Desire=to appreciate the beauty, goodness of another, be attracted by it. So often men who are trying to do the right thing feel unnecessarily guilty. Involuntary arousal is not a sin—it's what you do with it.

Love=always goes out of self to the other, does what's good for the other.

JPII in his book "Love and Responsibility" says that the opposite of love is USE, to use someone.

Mankind's first words were poetry, the words of a priest, liturgical almost: "bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh"—an evocative prayer of praise.

Next assignment: read up to chapter 2

MOVIES: "IRON MAN"

 

YY 1/2

 

An arms dealer as a superhero? A unique, but ultimately disappointing concept. Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) "has it all": he's a suave, good-looking, womanizing, mega-wealthy technical genius, making the world a better place by supplying the good guys (USA) with the best weaponry available against the bad guys (the Taliban). While in Afghanistan demonstrating and selling his latest super-missile to our troops, he personally experiences the devastation of modern warfare, specifically his own technology (the explosive that almost killed him was labeled "Stark Industries"). We would think that the "merchant of death"--who just seconds ago was flipping out one-liners like: "I love peace. I'd be out of a job with peace," and now has a glowing cylinder where his heart used to be--will have some kind of conversion. Not. Actually, Tony has no real transformation throughout the tale. (But maybe superheroes don't always have character arcs--maybe sometimes they're just good and well-intentioned from the get-go?) Tony only has a realization that his armaments are winding up in the hands of the enemy. He wants the system that he's a part of to be more "accountable" (as if arms dealers can actually keep track and control where their goods go). 

Three cheers for South Africa who recently turned away a Chinese ship with armaments destined for Zimbabwe. Kind of a no-brainer: hard to have a war without weapons. I found this entry in my venerable father's diary (April 1935)--wonder what ever happened to the bill!

 

"The U.S. Senate voted to keep us out of the World Court. A wise decision I believe. Let Europe fight their own battles, and let them pay us what they owe us for the last war. There is a bill pending now to take the profit out of war by making munitions manufacturers sell their products to the government in war-time without profit. This is a good bill. War, to my mind, is wholesale murder, national insanity and proof that we are not yet civilized. Governments give it romance, color, with bands playing, uniforms, big humanitarian slogans (which are all baloney), and make us patriotic by propaganda. The real true experience of the people, however, results in suffering, death, destruction, licentiousness, a breaking down of the social order and setting us back in all our activities that takes lifetimes to rebuild if at all."

 

Tony Stark sets to work developing an even better weapon in the form of a "Transformers"-like exoskeleton suit that enables the wearer (the soldier of the future) to fly and blast death-dealing streams of fire out the arms. Tony dons the red and gold armor-of-the-future and becomes "Iron Man."

  

Robert Downey, Jr., with his Al Pacino New York attitude and expressive, huge brown eyes, fits the part of Stark like a hand in a titanium alloy glove. The dialogue is rapid-fire, the special effects pop, the soundtrack pumps, the jokes are clever, but the tone is: war as merriment. War is inevitable--let's make lemonade.

 

To me, the movie had the flavor of war-porn for the masses. A now-familiar image of a fresh-faced, barely-out-of-his-teens soldier being blown up in a roadside ambush is sandwiched between Stark's last joke at the expense of peace and almost-torture scenes. I wonder what our Iraq/Afghanistan war vets think of a movie like "Iron Man"? I'm sure many would be unnerved by the realistic scenes and thundering gun battles. I wonder if they think war is this much "fun."

 

Tony Stark makes it clear that peace is not only "carrying a bigger stick," but USING that stick (so much for deterrence). If you were an arms dealer, wouldn't you agree?

 

In spite of himself, Tony hits the nail on the head when he quotes Jesus: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's." (The rest of the quote is: "And give to God what is God's.") He uses it in a not-really-related-to-anything context, but it is the crux of the issue. Both pro-war and anti-war advocates use this quote. Pro-war advocates say: "See? You have to give to Caesar your military service." Anti-war advocates say: "See? My relationship with my neighbor (and my enemy) does not belong to Caesar, but to God." Jesus, of course, was not talking about military service but taxes. He had been asked if people (the Jews in the Roman-occupied Holy Land) should pay taxes to Caesar. And Jesus says this: "Whose image is on the coin?" They answer: "Caesar's." Then he said: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's." So, the question is: whose image is man made in? If in God's, dare I take it upon myself to blow up the image of God, even if Caesar says so?

 

The women in "Iron Man" consist of a bright, muckraking journalist, who, nevertheless, cannot resist jumping into bed with Tony at their first meeting (we see her again briefly at the end), and Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), Tony's ever-faithful and capable, but inexplicably quick-witted-one-minute-ditzy-the-next-minute assistant.

 

Twice, a better use for all the money, time, technology and energy spent on weapons was almost guiltily suggested in the film. They both involved babies: making baby hospitals and baby bottles. I'd like to say, um, why not, Mr. Stark? Why can't healthcare be "inevitable"? Lest I be accused of conversing with a Marvel Comics character Murphy Brown/Dan Quayle style, it's just so scary, knowing us Americans (and young Americans) are watching this. We Americans who are so good at blending reality and fantasy in reality, and oversimplifying what cannot be even simplified. No one makes the case for nonviolence in "Iron Man." It's just good violence against bad violence. As a 60's folk song asked: "When will they every learn?" I guess peace just doesn't sell.

 

A rather random, but not unAmerican, scene has "Iron Man" flying from Malibu to a little Afghan town to blow up some ammo and save a family. Then back to Malibu.

 

In "Iron Man" on the screen and on "Iron Man" behind the scenes, the U.S. military collaborates (stay for the credits). As I watched a civilian (Tony Stark) in Afghanistan, it reminded me, eerily, of Blackwater Security in Iraq and other less visible players who are "running the world."

 

The larger issues are never framed. What does the USA want? What does the Taliban want (and why are they being so cruel to the Afghan villagers?) What are we fighting for here? I guess we're just supposed to know from reality.

 

The parts I fear most men will like: the swaggering, the bimbos, the invincibility, the destruction, the explosions, the gadgets, the projectiles, the superhuman powers, war. The parts I liked: the hard rock, the moral discourse, the jokes, the fast car and the good acting.

 

With social unrest and rioting over food prices and shortages, what we really need right now is a superhero who can fight world hunger.

 

 

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY--FR. LOYA

NOTES FROM FR. THOMAS LOYA'S THEOLOGY OF THE BODY STUDY GROUP

APRIL 2008

SPONSORED BY DAUGHTERS OF ST. PAUL
(meets at Pauline Books & Media, Chicago, SECOND Wednesday of the month, 6:30—8:30)
OR Join us LIVE on www.ustream.tv!

To purchase DVDs of Fr. Loya's TOB talks (and demonstrations with art): www.theologyofthebody.net

 

To join Fr. Loya's TOB presentations on the 2nd Wednesday night of the month LIVE ONLINE: (6:30 CST small groups, 7:00 CST Father's presentation): http://www.ustream.tv/channel/theology-of-the-body

On-liners: feel free to ask Father questions--we'll ask him for you!

(If you want to participate in the simultaneous online chat you have to register as a ustream user and log in, but you can still view the stream without that.)

 

NEXT CLASS: May 14

 

We are using the JP2G's revised text: "Male and Female He Created Them—a Theology of the Body"
www.pauline.org

 

 

Notes will always be posted on www.hellburns.blogspot.com. Just look for post "Theology of the Body" each month.

(We're skipping the lengthy Introduction and going directly to the text. These notes cover the first 15 pages of the text.)

NB: "Man"=male and female

[Sr. Helena's superfluous comments are in brackets]

[online comments are bold]

NOW, HERE'S FATHER LOYA:

The fundamental essence of human existence is the male/female difference—JP2G.

p. 105 of the Introduction at the top is a summary of the purpose of TOB.

The Eastern Church is the feminine complement to the Western, more "masculine "Church. JP2G says we need to "breathe with both lungs," that is, we need to enrich each other: the Eastern and Western Church. [Recommended reading: "The Light of the East (Orientale Lumen)"—encyclical of JP2G]

The text of TOB is dense, spiral, phenomenological. It's not linear. It's like watching a leaf float around and then land. It lands then on the irrefutable truth after having examined everything else.

We need our "sacramental glasses" to see the world. We need to see the way Adam and Eve originally saw. Science is great, but a scientific worldview began to debase the physical and enshrine the spiritual/mental. Science was able to dominate the physical and manipulate it, so we began looking  differently at the physical, including ourselves, each other.

Christ takes us back to the very beginning. Not a bunch of rules, but a vision of the human person. He took us to who we are as human beings, who we are as man and woman. [Before there were houses, cars, hospitals, X-box, etc., there was just Adam and Eve, naked.]

The first account (Elohist) of Creation is very direct: what does it mean to be human. That's what we're missing today. Paul VI knew we were missing this. In "Humanae Vitae" he said we need a total vision of man.  A mystical vision. "Mystical" means the MOST real vision/truth. [Therefore, mystics are hard-core realists!] The only honest thing we can say about being human is that we are made in the image of God. Everything else is an intrusion. A lie. We always say when we mess up: "I'm only human." But the exact opposite is true! We were created to NOT sin! The second account (Yahwist) of Creation is what JP2G uses more.  He uses the subjective approach because people today don't accept objective accounts of the truth.

#4, p. 135—"impossibility of reducing man to the 'world.'" Man is more than material. He is also identified with something invisible.  "The truth about man refers to the male as much as to the female." Man is defined primarily as metaphysical.

Scientific mindset emphasizes the rational=what is measurable, seen.

[At the end of the movie "Expelled"—I have some philosophical problems with the movie, but it's a must-see—Ben Stein makes a very good point. The atheistic scientists keep saying "we can't see God," and Ben says, "maybe He is right in front of us, in the things science investigates (the material world) and we're missing it." This is exactly what TOB is saying—with the help of Revelation, of course.]

We're great at thinking and talking about body and soul separately. E.g., we say: "I want to save my soul." But it's the whole person, body and soul that will be saved! What has become foreign to us is body and soul TOGETHER. This is what "THEOLOGY OF THE BODY means." We are embodied spirits, not a body and a spirit. They are distinct, but inseparable. The separation of the two is DEATH, a "cosmic obscenity"—Peter Kreeft. We are a composite. Anything that separates body and soul has to do with sin. Death is a perversion, it was never meant to be. It's just the worst thing—words can't even express the horror.

[A very intelligent friend of mine, a devout Catholic who was at a think-tank at Stanford, doesn't like the term "Theology of the Body" because she says it literally means: "The Study of God of the Body." I like it precisely because that's what it means. God is certainly of the body! The WORD became FLESH. Forever! All praise to Jesus Christ!]

We think of heaven as our soul floating around. No! Body and soul together in heaven or hell, transfigured (not exactly the same as we are now). The Resurrected Jesus walked through doors, but also could let Thomas put his hand in His side. That's how our bodies will be.

Transfiguration: Jesus showed Peter, James and John  what it really meant to be human. He showed them their destiny—to shine brilliantly! And the Apostles loved it. ("Can we stay here?") Our Lady, because she has no sin, went to heaven body and soul intact (as Adam and Eve would have and we would have if we had not sinned). The Eastern Church calls the end of Mary's earthly life "The Dormition," sleep, but not exactly. Like when Eve was created out of Adam—Adam was in an ecstatic state/trance.

The fact that Catholics don't understand the destiny of the body is why JP2G wrote TOB! Who the heck are we? We aren't totally Catholic in our ethos if we don't capiche who we are, body and soul! The indissoluble bond of marriage is not a rule, it's fundamental to the identity of being human. We were created as beings who unite with another being. How do we know? Because our bodies say it! The first words of Adam were this Shakespearean ode at the very sight of woman: "This at last is bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh!" Adam learned the meaning of being human by looking at the woman. They were naked and they could see that they were designed for each other.  And so we do what God did to us: we enter into what the Trinity is doing—a loving union/community of persons.

"The beginning," gives us a solid basis for metaphysics, anthropology and ethics (which cover everything).   [It's all there in Genesis. It has been said that if we lost the Bible and only retained Genesis 3:15, the "Proto-evangelium" or "First Gospel," we would have the essentials! The promise of a Redeemer! See footnote #7, p. 143-144]

[Recommended reading "The Beginning of Wisdom—Reading Genesis" by Jewish "saint," M.D., and bio-ethicist, U. of Chicago's Leon Kass. Check him out on Wikipedia.]

The subjective brings us to the objective. It's a different way to get to the same truth.

God goes out of Himself while staying within Himself. He is always in intimacy. We are called to intimacy, also. How do we know that? Our bodies say it: "I want intimacy! I want intimacy!" We do what God does: He unites Himself intimately with His Bride and that brings life.

We don't have to be told anything, just experience, but REALLY experience TOTALLY life in our bodies!

Let's level the playing field: we all have bodies that all speak the same language! Intimacy, union, communion! Then: life! TOB is simple! God is simple! Complexity is of the devil! [Laborious and perplexed is the face of schemer." Perplex rhymes with complex.] After the Fall, life got really, really complicated.  Life had been so simple and happy: walking around "life-ing" out! They were naked. Now we have to shop, get into fashion, etc. [We love the complexity now! Eek!]

It's actually SEXUALITY THAT MAKES US MOST LIKE GOD!! Why? Because it's the fundamental way we give and receive love. Adam and Eve looked at each others' body as revealing God, as holy, as good. That's why they had no shame. [The sexual difference is only mentioned in the creation of man, not of animals, even though both are told to be fruitful and multiply.]

We call all the lies about ourselves "normal." But to be "without sin" is to be a "NORMAL human being." The Virgin Mary was normal. We're not. Why do we love JP2G so much? Because he was an ordinary human being. That's who the saints are: normal or approaching normalcy: "ordinary" human beings.

Original innocence is gone forever, but we have to reach back and regain some of the vision. Jesus has us look back and then takes us FORWARD to our destiny, a greater destiny than if we hadn't fallen.

The redemption of the person will come through the redemption of the body! Jesus took on our body and took it with Him to heaven. Through our bodies we fell, through our bodies we will be redeemed and enthroned in heaven. The body IS the person in that the BODY REVEALS THE PERSON.  Even our will chooses through our bodies. TOB could really be called the "theology of the human person." Our mind/will only exists because our body exists!! We can't SEE anything but our bodies!

We are one person. Whatever we do with our spirit we do with our bodies. Whatever we do with our bodies we do with our spirits. Our whole person acts. Now we can understand Catholic moral teaching.  "The one flesh union" (Christians shouldn't say "sex" because "sex" simply means "gender") says: "I give myself to you totally and I receive you totally." Follow the language of the body in honesty and you'll be happy. If we don't know who we are or what it means to be human, we'll really hurt ourselves and each other. If you don't know how to be human, listen to your body.

[If we just say the body speaks the language of "love," we don't know what "love" means any more, so we say "gift," etc., words which we still understand properly.]

"Everything depends on who he will be for her and who she will be for him." JP2G

[online comment: "We shouldn't say: 'you belong to me,' but rather 'I belong to you.'"]

[We can ask: who are we as humans? But immediately gender enters in because there are two ways to be a body, male and female, so we HAVE to say: what does it mean to be a woman or man, not just a generic "human"? We are trained to think that if something is DIFFERENT, than one is superior to the other. One has to be against the other. But this is the DYAMICS OF SIN. In TOB, ALL DIFFERENCES ARE A CALL TO COMMUNION. Can you see the implications this can have for relations among nations, racism, etc.??? Very important to understand about TOB: differences do not mean unequal, just different.]

[online comment: "If TOB was lived, there would be no conflict/competition becuz we don't compete with ourselves" (or shouldn't). Scripture tells men to "Love your wives as you love your own body"—and the same applies to wives loving their husbands. Scripture goes on to say: "No one hates their own body." ]

Gender is purposeful—right in the same breath with "image and likeness" of God. Gender is purposeful, not a preference.

A woman's body says what we must ALL do: "open yourself to God's love, receive God's love!"  [As Jesus received and gave back the love of the Father that IS the Holy Spirit.]
Woman is the archetype for the whole human race [because we are all "feminine" before God in the sense that we can only receive from God, we can't give Him anything.  So to answer an online comment that brought up the Aristotle/Aquinas gaffe: "Women are misbegotten males"—the truth is, science has shown us that the exact opposite is true: we're all female first and then males are differentiated. However, no antagonism of the sexes allowed in TOB!!! Women, who have historically been oppressed by men, are rightfully suspicious of anything that seems to be belittling them or stereotyping them. But trust me, that's not what TOB is doing. Just the opposite. And TOB is not about putting women on the proverbial pedestal, either. It's about reality. Being who we really are, and men being who they really are, and treating one another with the utmost respect and dignity that we all deserve. We just haven't heard anything like TOB before. In many respects it is NEW. We have only been given the extremes: woman as virgin or whore, china doll or seductress. Stick with TOB, girls, you'll see!!]

A man's body says: "be active in loving"—give love, externality, energy, man moves out to work on his environment. It reflects the initiating love of God the Father who makes the first move toward His beloved.

[This is not to say that woman is ONLY passive and man is ONLY active. Obviously this isn't so, but as we can plainly see from the design of our bodies, men and women love differently. Equally but differently.]

It is a reciprocal circuit of love.

Our bodies reveal God differently. A woman's body reveals something about God that a man's doesn't and vice versa.

[JPII cracked the code of Creation! It's all about mutuality. The pattern is everywhere in Creation. There can be no yin without the yang. The yin doesn't make sense without the yang. Each one is FOR the other, not against the other.]

The language of liturgy is conjugal. Conjugality in a sense is also liturgical. "Take, this is my body, given up for you." Isn't this the language of marriage?

[Highly recommended book from blogger, Dawn Eden: "The Thrill of the Chaste." She was living the NYC "Sex and the City" lifestyle to the hilt and describes exactly the lies that her mind and spirit were experiencing (definitely did not bring happiness). After converting to Christianity, she began listening to the real language of her body and her true desires. This is a very "subjective," "experiential" book. She mentions TOB, also!]

 

If you want to understand Creation, understand man who is the apex of Creation.

[Some online questions came up regarding whether or not the BODY is made in the image of God also. ANSWER: Affirmative!! See CCC #364 and #1004. We are ONE person, so ALL of us is made in the image of God, the Son now has a body forever, and we are temples of the Holy Spirit. Folks were also wondering what TOB means for celibates—that's coming! You could always jump ahead to the whole section on celibacy in TOB. The short answer is that we're all called to celibacy and we're all called to marriage. Hint: it's all about union. Also, someone asked if Father is married. No, but he comes from a line of married priests.]

NEXT MONTH: BACK TO 2^ND WEDNESDAY!  ASSIGNMENT: READ TO PAGE 178. We'll have prepared QUESTIONS to help with the first half hour of sharing.

If you'd like to be on the TOB email list, please send your email to: helraphaelfsp@aol.com

God bless!

 

ART: CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOOD TOURS--BRONZEVILLE

LITTLE BLACK PEARL WORKSHOP (KIDS & TEENS):

 

 

 

 

GALLERY GUICHARD:

"Good Morning, God" Andre Guichard

 

"Snoqualmie Falls" (with chain link)

Andre Guichard (his wife Frances, in blue)

 

"The Ceremony" Pam Rice

 

"Angels Unawares" Wanda Hamilton

 

"Organizm" Uwa Hunswick

 

"Nude Study II" Joe Sam

 

"The King" Raymond Thomas

 

"The Queen" Raymond Thomas

 

"Nocturnal Sunlight" Raymond Thomas

 

Funky light fixture (upside down person with umbrella hanging from ceiling)

 

funky lightswitch plate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOVIES: "THE VISITOR"

YYY

 

"The Visitor" is a vehicle to tell us about our country's immigration policies. It's an unabashed "message movie" and a darn good story. The company behind "The Visitor," www.takepart.com, is also reponsible for "An Inconvenient Truth," "Syriana," and other "edutainment" films, mostly political.

The main character, Walter, a bland, closed-in, almost-selfish, economics professor, is played by Richard Jenkins, one of those character actors we see in everything but we don't know their names. "Visitor" is Jenkins' Oscar moment. Truly, people have garnered Oscars for much less worthy performances than this. Jenkins' makes this initially unlikeable, forgettable character sing.

 

Walter meets two illegal immigrants, boyfriend and girlfriend Tarek (Haaz Sleiman) from Syria, and Zainab (Danai Gurira) from Senegal, and slowly comes out of his shell to give them much-needed assistance. In return, the warm, kind, ever-buoyant, comfortable-in-his-own-skin Tarek teaches Walter to play an African drum, which offers Walter a much-needed outlet for expression and release. Walter's jerky little head motions blossom into full-body jiving by the time Tarek is through with him. Walter's first drum lesson is the quintessential metamorphosis of an uptight, above-the-neck white man getting in touch with the rest of himself. Tarek urges him: "Don't think." The prevalence of drumming (everything from a jazz club to "bucket boys" to a drum circle) puts "Visitor" firmly in the category of a "music movie," or rather a "rhythm movie." One feels the whole ebb and flow of world music and world cultures intermingling, joyously breaking down barriers until the unthinkable happens: Tarek is arrested. Walter hires an immigration lawyer and wades into the harsh, barely humane, prison-like, legal quagmire world of detention. Walter is not a bleeding heart. Tarek is his friend.

 

It becomes immediately evident that something is terribly wrong with the system. People who yesterday were living lives indistinguishable from "legals," are treated with stern recrimination as if they are the most dangerous of criminals (and yet being in the USA illegally is not even a felony, so when activists chant: "We're not criminals!" they are exactly right). Tarek's mother (Hiam Abbass) comes to New York, where Tarek is incarcerated, to be close to him, and a tender romance springs up between her and Walter.

 

Spoiler alert: When Tarek is deported, Walter "takes his place," drumming in the subway. But nothing can replace this blythe spirit who enriched the USA with his presence for a while. This simple story, simply told, enables us to graze the surface of the immigrant experience, who love their birth countries, miss them "sometimes," and definitely feel that America is "home." I would fault the movie for not having told a more intense, desperate tale, but maybe that wasn't the point. Maybe the point was to show ordinary people we know and love, friends and neighbors, more American than the Americans. As Tarek's mother says: "after time, you forget, you feel you really belong."

 

One thing is certain: America is still the land of opportunity for people seeking not just jobs but rule of law; a future; freedom of speech, press, movement; ethnic and gender equality--things we natural-born citizens barely even think about. Many try to jump through all the necessary hoops, but the immigration system is badly broken, and America doesn't seem to have the will to reform it. Why not? Perhaps it benefits some powerful few in its present unrealistic, irrational, almost arbitrary state? Can we really shut up the Promised Land? Or make people wait 40 years to get there? Should we retract Emma Lazarus' welcome: "Give me...your huddled masses"? Wallflower Walter, face-to-face with icy bureaucratic indifference, loses it and wants someone to be held responsible for the utterly impersonal and intractable way Tarek is handled.

 

Although illegal immigration and border security are very real concerns, and laws should be upheld and not mocked, let's remember that human laws only have value insofar as they are based on a higher law, and let's work to bring them into that conformity. The website is chockfull of resources, organizations and ways to get involved: www.takepart.com.

 

By the way, "Visitor" makes a great argument for drum circles as a way to bring about world peace. The music of Nigerian, Fela Kuti, father of Afrobeat music, is prominently featured. Tarek even holds up his CD very auspiciously:

 

The title: "The Visitor" instantly reminded me of the claymation "Michael the Visitor," an adaptation of Tolstoy's "The Truths We Live By"....

 

 

...and the whole concept of hospitality and welcoming the stranger as Christ.

"I was a stranger and you welcomed me." Matthew 25:35 (RSV)

 

"Do not neglect hospitality, for through it some have unknowingly entertained angels."

Hebrews 13:2 (NAB)

 

"When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34 (NIV)

 

 

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Emma Lazarus, 1883