Also follow Fr. Paul at his personal website - mtmonk.com

Copyright © 2011-2018 William Paul McKane. All rights reserved.

29 September 2014

Thoughts On The Parable Of The Two Sons (Mt 21)

Picture
Jesus’ story of the two sons—or two daughters, if you prefer—is best taken if one surrenders hard and fixed categories of interpretation. The son who says “Yes, sir!” but does not go into the vineyard, does not do what his father asked, may be likened to the priests and Pharisees, the good children of Israel, who give lip service to God, rather than full obedience from the heart. And the son who refuses to do what his father asks, but then regrets that, and does as he was told to do, may be likened to “the harlots and tax collectors” who had turned a cold ear to God, but later heard the gospel, repented, and followed the LORD. The evangelist Matthew seems to support this interpretation given the context and the way he develops the story.

In light of this more static interpretation, you and I may see ourselves as one son (or daughter) or the other:  “Well, I said, `No’ to God when I was young, but then I came to my senses, and obeyed.” Would anyone see themselves only as the son or daughter who says, “Yes, father, everything you ask, father, I will always obey you,” and yet in reality does not obey at all?  Is that you?

I submit that each of us is both of these sons or daughters at once, or rather, at various moments of our lives. Each of us has ways of saying, “I love God,” and then not following through on the tough and demanding requirements of that love. Each of us may think that we do all that God asks of us. Some others may think that they used to stray, but now obey: “I was lost, and now I am found, was blind, but now I see.” And I say, “Not so fast.”  Perhaps you were blind, and see a little more, but you are largely blind, too. We are blind to the reality of God.

If you are at all like me, there are moments in each day of our life when we are utterly oblivious to divine action in our hearts, to listening to God, to following the promptings beneath the surface of our minds. In fact, many of us may live much of our lives in a state of semi-consciousness, in which we may assume that we are “doing God’s will,” loving God and neighbor, but in fact, we may be going through various routines—yes, partially doing what is right and true, and good (God’s will), but often just following out own impulses to “eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die,” or more likely, “Just eat and drink, or do whatever comes into our minds and hearts to do.” Do self-professed Christians truly do the will of the one we claim to follow as LORD?  I wonder.  And perhaps the more we think we are doing His will, the more we should really suspect that our blindness remains, and we are, to some extent, self-deceived. Yes, I mean you, and me.

I suspect that in any given day, I more often give lip service to God than I wish to admit. How often is the divine Partner gently drawing me to commune with Him, heart to heart, yet I am “busy and distracted by many things”?  How often am I not really attending to God, although I more or less blithely assume that I am being good, doing good, being a “good Christian.” I wonder: not so fast, my boy. Am I not really much more like the son who said, “Yes” to God, but then has not lived that Yes every day of my life, every moment, “constantly seeking His face,” in a continual inner communion with the One who is ever present, ever near, always available—if we will but attend, listen, love in word and in deed?

Beat poet Alan Ginsberg wrote in a poem words to the effect that “there is nothing between us but a pair of underpants.” Perhaps one considers it far-fetched to find a divine lesson here, but I do: there is nothing between the living God and me except the “underpants” of myself, my ego, my pretense to know and to be doing God’s will. Am I truly open to reasoning well, to using my mind as God intends it, to think, to study, to question? Am I truly open to the love of beauty here and now, in every you that I meet, in every creature? Do I love goodness, mercy, kindness, generosity? Or do I secretly love power, self-importance, wealth, keeping out of trouble? Am I really as “right” as I think I am. I doubt it.

Is it not the case that I do not truly examine myself to see whether my thoughts and actions are from God, from the dialogue-partnership with He who is, with You? LORD beyond all words and beliefs, beyond our creeds and partially-true formulations, break through the veil of our foolishness, of our beliefs that we really are obeying You, and draw us into your unknown, unfelt depths. Draw each and all—every creature—into your Kingdom.

The Kingdom of God is nothing less than the Presence of the living God, here and now. To enter into God’s Kingdom means to open up one’s mind, one’s heart, now, and let the Divine flow in. God is ever present, but we are away. We are so busy with being busy, so caught up in our feelings, thoughts, little deeds, preoccupations, obsessions, “callings.” “Alas, you were within, but I was without.”  And that remains true, does it not?

I do not doubt, LORD God, that at every moment You are drawing us to enter into your peace, your joyful peace, and yet we resist, knowingly or unknowingly. We often live in a fog of thinking that our minds and hearts are with You, and yet, we are often not even with ourselves properly: “Getting and spending we lay waste our power…”  We spend ourselves in what does not truly satisfy. We may be “blissed out,” but our bliss is not open-mindfulness.

LORD, I thought that I was like the son who said “No!” but then obeyed, but as I mature and examine myself in your Light, I see that I am far more like the son who said “Yes, Sir!” and then really did not really follow through. 

Notes On Consciousness

Picture
Consciousness is not a thing, nor a substance. It may or may not be “a flow,” a flowing presence. It seems unpersuasive to maintain that particular human consciousness is essentially a presenting in time of universal, divine consciousness. What is consciousness? What does it mean to be conscious? What is this activity known from within, so that one is conscious of being conscious, without, it seems, even knowing in clear thought what it is to be conscious?

Consider: When one is conscious, one is aware of diverse movements or processes taking place. Now I see, now I hear. I think—or thoughts arise into consciousness. Fragments of memories, fragments of dreams, of words spoken or heard last evening, of images taken in by consciousness recently or in a more distant date in space-time. Consciousness is present, is now, but it has a way of pulling in parts or pieces from diverse times and places, experienced in reality, or imagined within consciousness’ own activities.

Thoughts come to mind, that is, enter consciousness. From what source, one may not know well, or barely, or not know at all. Thoughts enter into consciousness—they “come to mind.” Why? From what source? Why am I having these thoughts now? For the most part, I do not know, and wonder if one can at all trace thoughts to their source, although one may find possible or even likely precursors, sources for this or that particular thought. And feelings. Why do they come in when they do? Why is it that one can feel and be consciousness of such a diversity of feelings in what seems to be a short period of time? Why sorrow, why gladness, why fatigue, why energy and alertness?

A common older term used for consciousness was the soul: psyche in Greek, anima in Latin. In both cases the word is feminine, which may be sheerly coincidental, or it could reflect a common and profound human experience: that human soul, consciousness, is receptive; it is not self-generating, at least does not seem to be, but responds to various forces, sensations, sights, sounds, and so on. Consciousness may be like mother earth, that receives rain, sun, darkness, cold, and yet brings forth an abundance of life. Consciousness, like the earth, receives and generates.

A more modern term for consciousness is mind, perhaps emphasizing the processes of thinking that take place in consciousness. Humorously I think of words from the film “Shadowlands,” in which an effete professor at either Oxford or Cambridge says—in Oxbridge English—“Whereas men have intellect, women have soul.”  Well, intellect, soul, feelings, and much more, all seem to function together in everyone’s consciousness—unless what I am experiencing here and now is utterly unique, unlike what others or you may experience.

The term “consciousness” for this whole bundle of activities may be most recent of all. Although used in Germany as Bewusstsein, at least since Wolff in the 17th century, it came into English as “consciousness” by John Locke, writing in the late 17th, early 18th centuries. To be conscious, to be aware, to be mentally awake, to receive and to be responsive to the whole in which one participates bodily, to bring forth fresh thoughts, to take in passively without thinking.

What am I doing or being now, that I call it “consciousness”?  I am experiencing the world outside of consciousness, bordering on consciousness, reaching into consciousness, and seemingly arising into consciousness from what one may term “unconsciousness,” or some unknown “depth” of mind or psyche that had not been consciousness a few moments ago. What a strange, mysterious process it is to be consciousness. Are some human beings conscious without being conscious, or passively absorbing sights or sounds from “the outside world,” without being aware of what is happening to them?

Am I conscious now?  Are you?  To bring forth words requires some degree of consciousness. To read, without or without understanding what is intended by the words on the page, requires some degree of consciousness. What can one do without being conscious at all? How would we know? Is what we call “death” a condition of consciouslessness, of not being conscious of anything, of not sensing, feeling, thinking? Can anything be called “alive” without some degree of consciousness?  Is an ameba conscious in any way? It seems doubtful to me, but how does one know?

Consciousness is a knowing-from-within, a being part of the whole of reality, but
experienced not only as acted upon, but always as acting, as engaging the world outside of consciousness in some ways. What would it be like to experience only one’s consciousness, without an also-arising awareness of otherness, of things, persons, events that lie outside, beyond one’s own consciousness? Could a human being be conscious of itself, and at the same time oblivious to existence outside of itself? Such a condition, if possible, would be as close to “hell” as I could conceive: To be mindful only of self, wholly unaware of other, of others, of beings and things “outside” and largely independent of one’s own self, one’s self-consciousness.

If being conscious only of oneself would be a hellish, self-enclosed existence, would it be heavenly not to be conscious of oneself, or at least of one’s “ego,” feelings, thoughts? In popular imagination, “heaven” is a place, somewhere “up there,” in which one presumably still exists, and in more or less bodily form. I think of “heaven” not as a place, but as a state of consciousness, a being fully aware, fully alert, fully awake, and in peace:  in the kind of peace “that surpasses understanding,” that is at once peace and bliss, a blowing out of ego, a condition that could be called “nibbana,” the blowing out of self in its forms, and yet being fully conscious. It is not to be conscious of nothing, nor of nothingness, not of “a god,” or a being-thing of any kind. I would call “entering into the joy of the LORD,” or experiencing that “peace which surpasses understanding,” or entering nibbana (nirvana) as being fully conscious, aware, without focusing attention on any being-thing, and surely not on being conscious of being conscious—that is, not on oneself. To be conscious in a form that transcends consciousness, or the limits of particular consciousness, and, if one dares to say so, is in undivided union with …with that which is beyond all form, name, being, feeling, thought.

Consciousness seems to seek to move ever beyond its limited self: to be?

28 September 2014

Visions of Transformation

On the Feast of the Transfiguration of Jesus this year (06 August 2014), I recalled a few experiences I have had which affect my understanding of the Transfiguration, of who Christ is, of the divine-human relationship symbolized in the story. Although prayer and study do indeed influence the way one interprets reality, the formative experiences one has had remain operative in one’s mind. To what extent these experiences operate unconsciously, I do not know, nor can anyone, if they are indeed “unconscious,” or unknown. What we can know and marvel at is the way that certain experiences influence our thinking, our understanding of the world, our actions, perhaps all that we call “our lives.” Certain experiences strongly affect our understanding of God and the divine-human partnership.

The experiences which I briefly summarize below are highly personal and formative in my life. That I risk cheapening them in some way, by communicating them in writing or in speech, disturbs me, but I will take the risk in the hope that sharing these experiences may be of some benefit to someone. It is possible that every human being has equivalent experiences. For one finds plenty of evidence of such experiences in various sacred scriptures, in the writings of mystics east and west, in philosophy, in poetry. The aim here is not to try to be original, but to know oneself and to reflect on significant divine-human experiences.

Offered below are brief accounts of a class of spiritual or internal experiences to be called, for present purposes, “visions of transformation. Although the term may be too pretentious, it seems apt, for as the experiences occurred, I was aware of being involved in an intense seeing or physical-spiritual seeing. In such moments, the mind becomes suddenly awake or alert with an intensity distinct from normal, everyday conscious life. Why these experiences come when and as they do, I cannot know with certainty, but on each occasion they seem to be a conscious participation in the reality that we call “God,” or perhaps “Christ” in usual Christian language. Each experience began suddenly, and then seemed to fade into a new understanding.  This change in understanding, change of consciousness, is why I call them “visions of transformation.”  Not only is some part of reality seen differently, but consciousness is changed in the process. Seeing reality in a new light, one is transformed—to some degree. This change seems to fade over time, as the experience recedes from consciousness. But one’s mind becomes opened up to new thinking about God and about what it means to be a human being in God and in the world.

The experiences are datable in space-time, but when they occurred, they did feel as though they were simply in space-time, but in the borderland that is called “spiritual,” or the In-Between realm analyzed by Plato and Voegelin. They are and are not “psychic phenomena,” because all of the events were responses to, and in some ways grounded in, concrete reality. At the same time, they are not “psychic phenomena,” in the sense that they are not contained by a self-enclosed ego or mind. Nor are these experiences merely “spiritual” or “interior” in a way detached from the world of space-time in which all things exist. On the contrary, each one of them arose as if it were a response to what I was seeing or hearing in the world in which we are engaged bodily. What was engaged, however, was not merely bodily existence, but consciousness, and this consciousness was aware of being moved from beyond itself into participation with the Divine. The events recounted may clarify these general formulations.
Part A:  Recounting selected “visions of transformation”
1.  “Cast me not away from your presence,” c. 1975.  From the fall of 1974 until about 1978, I attended a Lutheran church in Santa Barbara, California. The exact date this “vision” occurred I do not presently recall, but it probably occurred some time before the vision of intellect in a philosopher, recounted below.  Where it occurred, and the immediate prompting, are known:  On one Sunday in a local Lutheran church, as we sang the usual response after the response, something not to be forgotten happened.  As we sang the words of Psalm 51, “Create in me a clean heart, o God…and cast me not away from your presence,” I reflected that the psalmist, David, would have been experiencing God’s presence when he asked not to be cast out of this presence. Suddenly and powerfully, I experienced being in God’s presence. Although I was singing with the congregation, I felt as though the divine were singing through me, and all around my mind and head was a wonderful, peaceful, powerful Presence. It felt as though my mind were enlightened by, and lifted up into, the unseen, unbounded divine Presence.  As I became self-conscious of what was happening (thinking, “This is neat. I wonder if other people know what is happening to me,” or foolish words to that effect), the experience of Presence weakened; but then as I attended to it, I was drawn back in. How long it lasted, I do not know for sure. Towards the end of the experience, the word that was intelligibly both divine and human came up from the depths: “Your life work is to have such experiences and to seek to understand them.”   

This experience of divine Presence was not my first encounter with God, but it remains vivid some forty years later.

2.  Divine Presence as intellect in a philosopher, 1976.
On my twenty-fifth birthday, 21 January 1976, I met and interviewed the philosopher Eric Voegelin at his home near the campus of Stanford University in California. With his permission, I had driven up from Santa Barbara that morning to speak with Voegelin about the Apostle Paul, on whom I was writing my doctoral dissertation in political philosophy (“The Experiential Foundation of Christian Political Philosophy”).  The interview lasted three hours, and to the present, many years later, it remains in my self-understanding as the single most important event in my intellectual development. Throughout the interview, Voegelin made no speeches, or lengthy explanations, except for a brief “digression,” as I named it, in which he interpreted to me Peter’s vision of the sheet descending from heaven containing various animals, and the voice from heaven saying, “Rise, Peter, kill and eat,” and so on (Acts 10). Voegelin interpreted that vision to mean, “All men are equal. All men are equal before God.”  Although I may be mistaken, I think that he intended this one digression to help me, as he could see that I held him in high esteem, and perhaps he also saw in me a lack of spiritual self-respect.  For my benefit he was telling me that all human beings are equal before God.
 
It is not this single “digression,” however, that most stands out in my mind as I recall this interview. For nearly all of the time, Voegelin said nothing except to offer brief responses to the questions I asked him. The burden was on me to ask the right questions. Because of his brevity and clarity, we covered much ground. As one example, the last question I asked him, as we were walking to the door of his study as I was leaving, is this:  “Does God change?” Voegelin said, “The best theologians do not know.” Such was the nature of this interview.

Although various words shared often come to mind and guide my thinking, what especially influenced me then and in subsequent years was an experience as we were talking. To an exceptional degree, I experienced the overwhelmingly bright light of the divine Mind, the Intellect (Nous) in and through a human being. What I “saw” with my eyes—with my mind or spirit—was bright light in and through and around the head of Voegelin. He was radiant with a “supernatural” light. I am not describing it well, because it sounds more physical than what I experienced. In this philosopher I experienced the divine Presence. And this presence was experienced not as Beauty, for example, but as Intellect, as Mind that is wise, loving, utterly real, intensely alive, personal. I use the word “loving,” even though Voegelin was at times curt with me, and at least initially in our conversation, painful to hear because of his bluntness. But I realized that he was speaking only for my benefit, not to harm me in any way, but to help liberate me from the power of opinions and misunderstandings. And his words and the underlying experience have indeed had a salutary effect.


In light of these remarks on the fundamental experience, I record two more examples of our questions-responses. At some point, I used the Christian term “grace” in my analysis of the Apostle Paul.  Voegelin bristled a little, it seemed, at my churchy language, or at least at a word that I evidently without clear thought. He asked me a little abruptly, “What do you mean by `grace’?” I paused a moment to think about what I meant, and I said what first came to mind, “Presence.” He seemed to accept that, with some evidence of surprise at my word. To this day, when I think of what Christian spiritualists and theologians mean by “grace” I think primarily of “Presence” in the sense of divine Presence in and through a human being. Abstract definitions and doctrines pale before the truth of concrete experience.


At about the same time in our dialogue, I probably used the term “Holy Spirit,” and perhaps Voegelin used it, too. After a moment I asked him, “What is the Holy Spirit?” His answer has remained paradigmatic and influential in my thinking to this day: “What do you think is moving you to ask your questions?” Ah, the Holy Spirit moves us to question, to seek God through questioning. And note that Voegelin’s response to my question was not a clever doctrinal answer (such as “the third person of the Trinity” or other abstract jargon), but itself a real, existential question: “What do you think is moving you to ask your questions?” From this moment on, I have understood genuine questioning as a foremost activity of the divine Spirit. 


This 3-hour conversation with Voegelin has remained, as noted, the single most important event in my intellectual development. Through Voegelin I experienced the divine Presence in a human being in the form of a searching mind, which is most assuredly a sharing in the divine Mind. And my own efforts to seek God through questioning—through the life of the mind that is called Philosophy—were strengthened and advanced.  In decisive ways, this vision of divine Presence as Intellect was indeed transformational in my life.

3.  Experiencing the divine Intellect in dialogue, spring 1978
Several years after experiencing transforming divine Presence in and through the intellect of Professor Voegelin, I had a related yet distinct experience. While interviewing for a position on the faculty of the University of Mississippi, I met a man who had been a student of Voegelin’s, and who revered him as his teacher. Professor Erwin Neumeier also studied political philosophy. During my brief visit on campus, we spent wonderful hours in conversation. In one of his first remarks, this professor said to me, “I am in love with Socrates.” That he was a genuine seeker of truth, a lover of divine wisdom (philosophos) was evident, and it made his face shine.  


During our longest conversation in his home, we spoke about God, love, and philosophy. We sipped good Scotch, listened to Mozart violin sonatas, and talked openly from about 7 pm until about 3 the next morning. During our discussion, I gradually became increasingly and then intensely aware of what I interpreted as the divine Mind illuminating each of our minds, and moving the conversation through both of us. We were the human participants in a dialogue far greater than ourselves. We were not just two separate human beings being drawn towards God, but partners in a divine process, moving us to be mindful of the God who was present in and through both of us. When I returned to my motel room that morning, I summarized the experience in a formulation which I wish to have engraved on my tombstone:  “When two speak, three are present.”  When two human beings truly open up to one another, moved by the power of love, and speak about what most matters in life, the Divine Partner is present in and through the two. Indeed, it is God who draws such minds together in their common search and response to God. In this experience, I directly knew that my mind was being illuminated and moved by the Presence of God, and I experienced the same reality in Professor Neumaier’s mind. In this process, we were not just two separate beings, but we were in communion with one another, and with God; and this communion formed a real union that seemed to be a sharing in the divine time known as eternity.  


This experience, the one with Professor Voegelin, and the awareness of divine Presence, remain at the core of what I understand to be Philosophy:  the love of divine wisdom and of the God who alone is wise. And in both of these experiences, the openness of two minds to one another was the womb, as it were, through which the Divinity was incarnating itself in the present moment. Here is incarnation and transfiguration.  Here is Christ. 

4.  Beholding Beauty in a magnolia blossom, spring 1979.
Professor Neumaier and I could not continue our dialogue in person, as I was not offered the teaching job at the University of Mississippi. In the spring of 1979, I was flown from Santa Barbara, California, where I was finishing my doctoral dissertation and teaching political philosophy, to Washington, D.C. I was being interviewed to teach in the Department of Politics at the Catholic University of Washington. My first impression of the city was of a very busy, congested, self-important, and run-down dump, relieved by colorful azaleas and lush green trees.

In the morning before making my presentation to some faculty members, I was walking on the campus, just outside of the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. It was April as I recall —green, lovely, misty, perhaps drizzling. A magnolia tree caught my attention. I walked over to get a closer look, and one particular blossom on the tree arrested my attention: white, radiant, pure. Suddenly, it was not only that flower that I was seeing, but infinite Beauty in and through the flower. Seeing this one beautiful thing, I was enraptured by a vision of Beauty beyond all imagining, beyond all that can be touched, and yet present in this flower, here and now.  I felt unspeakable joy in the vision.
 
This vision of Beauty, repeated on a number of times in my life, but perhaps never as intensely and delightfully, remains active in me when I do not just “take pictures,” but engage in the art of photographing.  hen the mind is moved by Beauty, it must respond, and photography, as an art, is one mode of responding. As I have often said to students, “Everyone needs an art.” Every human being needs to engage in the process of seeing and responding to Beauty, and in this experience, to be filled with awe before the mystery of Beauty Itself. This Beauty is what some of us call “God".


Many there are who do not think that they “believe in God,” and yet they are drawn and moved by Beauty; such are they who “worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4).  And unfortunately, there will always be “true believers,” imprisoned in their confining beliefs, who have indeed missed “the many-splendored thing” that is experienced in the self-transcending, self-forgetting love of the Beautiful and the Good.

5.  On seeing Brother Dominic “transfigured”, late 1981 or early 1982. 
While teaching political philosophy at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., I entered the Catholic Church in order to pursue a vocation in response to the preaching of Pope John-Paul II, when he said, “the church needs her theologians.”  I spent six weeks in St. Anselm’s Abbey in the summer of 1981 to help me “discern God’s will” in this process. The following winter, one of the monks I had befriended, Brother Dominic, was in considerable pain with what seemed to be a pinched nerve in his neck. Dominic looked like an elderly man, bald, considerably overweight. One day when I visited him he was reclining on a bed in a guest suite, as he could not walk upstairs to his “cell,” his room in the monastery. Brother Dominic seemed discouraged, so I read to him Psalm 103:  “Bless the Lord, o my soul, and all that is within me, bless his holy name.” As I read the psalm aloud, this monk became very still, and seemed to be absorbed in the words, to be in a trance. He began to repeat quietly, “You are here, You are here.” I looked up at his face, and what I saw, or experienced, was a transformation of Brother Dominic: rather than a shiny bald head, he had dark brown hair, and looked to be a youthful man. How long this vision lasted, I do not know.  Bro. Dominic said to me, “I see you at the altar in our chapel, celebrating Mass.”  I said, “But I am not even a monk here, Bro. Dominic.” Not long after, I entered the monastery, and in due time was ordained a priest, and celebrated Mass in the chapel. Although I could see Brother Dominic’s wounds of body, personality, and character, I never forgot seeing him transformed, and showed him fitting respect as a carrier of God.

Several years later, when I returned to the monastery after serving as a chaplain in the Navy, I spoke with Brother Dominic in the infirmary, where he was then living. He told me that his deceased mother and another friend, who had died recently, visited him in his room the previous evening. “I could see them clear as day. They were standing right here in front of me.” Sometime that night, Brother Dominic died.  

6.  Visions of Fr. William, Trappist Monk. c. 1986.  
From about 1982 until 1991, during my thirties, I made a number of visits to the Trappist monastery of Holy Cross Abbey in the beautiful Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. This monastery is known as “Berryville” for short, as it is located a few miles from the town of Berryville, Virginia. Most of my visits to the monastery were to make personal retreats, but for a while I also taught their juniors a course on St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans.  Over time I got to know a number of the monks. One whom I befriended, originally through Brother Dominic, was Fr. William, OCSO.  At the time he was probably in his seventies.

From the time I met Fr. William, I perceived in and around him a kind of radiant glow, the likes of which I have rarely seen in anyone. From what I experienced, and in agreement with a good friend who knew Fr. William, I considered him to be “a holy man.”  By “holy” I mean primarily one in whom the Presence of God is extraordinarily present and active. In addition to the kind of Presence experienced in Eric Voegelin, philosopher, extraordinary holiness is sensed in human beings whom one can recognize as deeply good, peaceful, loving, compassionate. As noted, from the time I met Fr. William, I considered him to be “a holy man” because I experienced qualities of humility and goodness in him, as well as seeing him “glow.”

One afternoon at this Trappist Monastery, Fr. William and I sat outside in the autumnal sunlight and had a fairly lengthy conversation, lasting perhaps for an hour. As with Voegelin, I asked questions, and Fr. William responded. He told me that he had been drawn to contemplative life as a young boy in the New York area. One day, shortly after the sun had set, he came into his house and saw his mother with a lady friend of hers, sitting in the living room, in the fading light, completely quiet, just sitting in one another’s presence.  Fr William told me that this experience gave him his first acquaintance with what contemplation is, and he was drawn to it.  As a young man he entered a Trappist monastery in Rhode Island, Our Lady of the Valley, which burned down in the winter of 1950. That event led to the monastery’s being established near the beautiful Shenandoah River in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. I asked Fr. William a number of questions about contemplative prayer and living a life in Christ, and his answers were clear, intelligible, convincing.  As he spoke, I experienced something that I have never seen before or since in my life. Within what seemed to be several minutes, I saw Fr. William in six different ways, in a succession of one vibrant image after another, something like photographs. Each seeing or vision was unique, showing me a different aspect of this holy man, and in each appearance I was conscious of divine Presence in and through Fr. William.  In other words, in each sudden and illuminating vision, Fr. William was radiant, beautiful, alive with God. Again, he looked “different” in each of the six visions, but each was unmistakably him, and each was a vision of real goodness, of spiritual beauty in a human being. In sum, I have never had a similar experience of a sequence of “visions” before or since.  These visions confirmed and strengthened my appreciation for the saintliness of this man of God.  

7.  Joe Condon on his deathbed (May 1993).  
We met at San Diego Naval Hospital, where Joe arrived because of serious illness, that soon was diagnosed as advanced liver cancer, exacerbated by cirrhosis. The day that we met, and when he learned that I was a Benedictine monk serving in the Navy, Joe said, “I have prayed to meet a monk before I died.” Joe was Irish Catholic, and not only a religious man, but evidently spiritual, who spent hours studying his faith, praying, meditating.  Joe and his wife had raised fifteen children, all of whose names began with the letter “T.”  One of the boys—the one whom Joe had hoped would be a priest—died in a truck accident while training to fight in Viet-Nam. When we met, Joe was a practicing Catholic, and even attended daily Mass in his parish, but his words about his experience with parish priests were passionate and incisive: “They are no longer pastors, Fr. Paul.  They are administrators.”  Never having been a member of a Catholic parish, and accustomed to priests in the monastery, I did not then understand what he meant. But I realized that Joe was searching for a more fulfilling spiritual life than what was offered in his parish.

Joe and I spent many hours talking and sharing our faith in the weeks before he died. I grew to love him, for I saw such a desire for God, genuine honesty, spiritual openness. Joe was a man of the Spirit. I took extensive notes on our conversations, because some of his words were truly remarkable. One morning at the hospital, perhaps a day or two before Joe died, I went to his bedside about an hour before I was due to report to duty.  Joe was asleep, and of course I did not wake him. I knelt by his bed and prayed quietly. When I looked up at his face, I saw with clear-mindedness a sight that burned itself into my soul:  As I looked at Joe, I saw the living reality of the dying Christ. At the same time, I saw Christ transfigured, with light radiating from Joe’s head and face. Both the dying Christ and the Resurrected LORD were clearly present. It was Joe Condon and Christ together, as one. Here, too, was incarnation and transfiguration.

Words are brief because I cannot in any way explain the vision, only note it: the crucified and Risen Christ both present in and through Joe as he lay dying. That was all. I saw it only on this one occasion, and it remains vividly real to me still. In subsequent years, I have seen the dying Christ in a man or woman approaching death. But only on this occasion did I see both the crucified and the glorious LORD at once. In a parishioner I visited recently in hospital, I vividly saw the Crucified, but not the Resurrected; I wondered if it perhaps indicated that this person was not yet fully dying. And so far, recovery seems likely, for which we give thanks. When Christ is vividly seen in and through another being, one’s thoughts and feelings for that person are substantially changed. In Christ’s words, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you do not know me” (John 14). 

8.  Rummy (Dec 2001). 
Some of the previous “visions” may seem fairly commonplace, a few may come across as rather intellectual. This last one recorded for the present purpose may seem “bizarre,” but once again, I think that in principle it is much more common among human beings than we may imagine, especially if we live under a heavy-handed conception that only human beings “are made to the image and likeness of God,” or can truly be “sharers in the divine nature.” 

On 6 December 2001, shortly after the infamous “9/11” terrorist attack, I brought into my home in Sutherland, Iowa, an 8-week old black Labrador Retriever pup. The breeder had given the new-born to his mother, who kept him for a day, and then sold him to me, on the grounds that she preferred not to undergo the trials of raising a puppy.  In that one day, she had named the young male “Jake,” and when I asked her, “Why did you name him `Jake,’?” she said, “I heard the name in a soap opera.” I used the name for a few weeks, but kept thinking, “I do not want to name my dog after a TV character.” About a month after taking him into my home, I called him to come back into our house, out of the icy January cold of Iowa.  Spontaneously I called out, “Here, Rumsfeld!” I said aloud, “That’s it! That’s his name!” In the weeks and months following 9/11, the figure of Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, was prominent in the news. So the pup became “Rumsfeld Bach,” which I quickly abbreviated to “Rummy.” 

Even before changing his name, probably within our first week together, I made the mistake of letting the young and adorable pup sleep in my bed with me.  It was not long before I awoke to the feel of warm fluid by my side.  I turned on the light, looked, and shouted out, “You peed in my bed!”, pushed him to the floor, and raised a belt over my head to punish him. The little pup looked at me with neither aggression nor fear, but with a look that I recognized, and brought words vividly to mind, “Why would you hit me?” Immediately I remembered Christ, who asked when he was struck, “Why did you strike me?” In that moment I recognized the presence of Christ in this puppy: he was looking at me in and through the eyes of this little one.  I fell to the bed, sobbing, and renouncing the evil I had in mind to do, I pleaded for divine mercy.

From that moment forward, I never forgot that I had experienced Christ in and through Rummy. He was for me a living Sacrament of divine presence. In loving him and caring for him, I was consciously caring for Christ. “Whatsoever you did to the least of these little ones,” Jesus said, “you have done unto me.” Gone in a moment was any doctrinal smugness that “only human beings can share in God.” The vision of Christ in this puppy changed me, and changed my life. Four years later, on 20 December 2005, Rummy put his paw on my hand, kissed me, and died in my arms from kidney failure. This Christ-figure returned to God.

                                       Part B:  Concluding reflections 

Eight “visions of transformation” were chosen to share on this occasion. There have been other ones, but these came readily to mind as I decided to write this brief account. It is good, and even a divine duty, for each of us to recall such experiences, to be thankful for them, to continue to seek to understand them. For at the time we have the experience, we often “miss the meaning,” as T. S. Eliot writes in his mystical masterpiece, The Four Quartets. As one recalls the experience, it is and is not identical with what was actually experienced in the divine present. These moments come and go, yet often have lasting and profound effects on one’s consciousness and life. One of our tasks is to remember them, fulfilling the word of the psalmist:  “Do not forget the deeds of the LORD.”  Rather, one ought to “ponder these things in our hearts,” as St. Luke writes about Mary of Nazareth meditating on the divine events in her life with Christ. 

What pattern, what lessons, emerge from this exercise of recalling these “visions”? First, if not foremost, these experiences have gradually and accumulatively had a liberating effect on me. It is not at all that I have been divinized, or given “certain knowledge” (gnosis) in and through these visions. On the contrary, I am left wondering about their meaning, and longing for a far more intense and lasting communion with the One who presents himself in and through these visions. I am also aware that I have not fully understood them, or integrated them into my life. One liberating effect of which I am aware is this: I am not able to be highly attached to dogmas, doctrines, rituals, or religious institutions of one type or another. It is the living God beyond all such manifestations who draws me to Himself. One must not allow his mind to rest assured in anything received, however beautiful, true, or good. Rather, without clinging to what one has experienced, one must press on and “stretch out” towards the One who has in some sense “apprehended you” and “made you his own” in these experiences. Or such is the advice of the Apostle Paul in Philippians 3, and Paul knew much about experiences that transformed his consciousness.  Indeed, so changed was the Apostle Paul through his divinely-inspired experiences that he could write, “Now I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2). We must not let our mind or heart come to rest in any doctrinal formulation or external form, however significant, meaningful, beautiful.  Rather, each of us must keep seeking beyond the glimpses, beyond the various experiences, for the ultimate reality that by tradition we call “God.” As Christ told his would-be disciples, “Seek and you will find.”  He did not say, “Assume that you have found.”

There is a second and related lesson to be derived from recalling these experiences, I submit: the truth of reality, as it is, presents itself to consciousness that is awake, alert, attentive, and truly loving that which it beholds. Often one is dimly or half-heartedly aware of what one is doing. Moments seem relatively rare when one is truly awake, alert, attentive, responding to what presents itself with the kind of full-attentiveness experienced by some when they are “falling in love.”  A vital task in life is to be truly awake, truly alert, open-mindedly receptive before the curtains are closed, and the play here is suddenly over.

Now, as the sun declines in the west over the eastern front of the Rockies, its golden light penetrating my little farm house, I am aware that You are here, I trust that You have surely been with me all of my life, even when I have not been with You, not conscious of You, not true to You. It is You for whom I long, and not a mere shadow or belief, doctrine, ritual, or passing creature. And yet, how precious and beautiful are these passing creatures, LORD God, for each presents you in its own unique ways. You gaze at us through the eyes of creation, the eyes of creatures, and you inflame us through the longings of our hearts. You are the one drawing us into You, “from one degree of glory to another,” even as You remain ever beyond the veil. Ever revealing, never revealed:  “You are the LORD, there is no other.”

Wm. Paul McKane
August-September 2014             

23 September 2014

Into Peace

Picture
How can one live, and live happily and nobly, when confronted with turmoil within and without? How does one cope and even thrive in the face of evil, injustice, deception, cruelty, indifference to the sufferings of others? Or again, how does one live, what does one do, when one encounters overwhelming suffering?

Some persons find a crutch, or an imaginary island of safety, or some kind of mind-numbing drug to escape the sorrows of life. Some in our midst turn to nearly mindless television or video viewing, to alcohol or drug abuse, to escapes into fantasies, weird beliefs, illusions. Indeed, escapes from the sufferings of life are many. Some retreat into a Book, in which they claim to have “complete truth,” or into an institution—say, a government, or a church, or a fraternal organization—which can serve as a would-be god in an utterly disturbing, often frightening world. And some even escape from realities of this present life into an imagined future, in which there is no suffering—a utopian dream.

And I must ask, as the search for truth requires: When the Apostle Paul writes that “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory to be revealed in us” (Romans 8), is he engaging in an imaginative flight out of reality into a desired future? I ask the question as duty demands, but for the present I shall suspend attempting an answer for a reason: My goal here and now is not to analyze all of the would-be escapes, but to answer the opening question: How can one live, and live happily and nobly, when confronted with turmoil within and without?

What we aim at is a present and true solution to the overshadowing, overwhelming burdens of human existence. What can you do, what can I do, here and now to decrease the power of evils and disturbances on our bodies and minds?  For our bodies, we separate ourselves in time and space from what hurts them. In simple words, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” My present concern is with interior freedom for the mind, for human consciousness, from being over-burdened.

Two different body of teachings come immediately to mind: the way of the Buddha, and the way of Christian faith. Consider the words of the Apostle Paul: “Do not be conformed to the present age, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may know God’s will…” (Romans 12). In some passages he fleshes out what “renewal of the mind” looks like: “Do not be anxious or disturbed about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God. And then the peace of God, which surpasses everything, will keep your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4). The Apostle recommends the way to interior peace through loving surrender to God.

Of the way of the Buddha, I should not say much, for I am not a Buddhist, and do not wish to misrepresent his teaching. What seems to be true is that the Buddha suspends all talk about gods and rituals, and directs his disciples to turn their full attention away from the fleeting world towards bliss (nibbana), away from all that suffers, and to rest in the peace of utter self-surrender. Not in the wants or aversions of the passing self, the ego, but in the indestructible peace of selflessness does one “cross over to the further shore.”
                                                            ***

Here is my practical word for you, for me, now: I renounce all thoughts that agitate my mind. I choose to let go of all resentments, ill-will, and illusions. I choose neither this nor that, nor any thing, but simply to be attentive to the stillness that comes in quiet breathing.

I cannot change the world, I cannot perfect myself. The best that I can do here and now is not to do anything, not to try to accomplish anything, but to let “the peace of God that surpasses understanding” fill me with its presence. I cannot generate this peace, or even imagine it well. I can cease worrying and yielding to fleeting feelings, and acknowledge the presence of the real within reality, the presence in the midst of changing, the unmoved mover of all that is. I call it You, or God, or Christ, or Love, or Peace. The name does not matter.  It may be no-God in the sense of no-thing.  Surely it is not a thing into which the mind enters. As St. Thomas wrote about God, “One cannot say what God is, but only what God is not.” Into the nameless one enters, and finds peace.

Words. The reality is greater. Yield, and cease to strive, except for the peace which surpasses understanding. For what one enters is not fully understandable, but neither is it utterly foreign. Here all along, present, even when not sought or asked for. My body twitches. Air is cool, noise outside, automobile.  None of these is it.  Not this, not that. The ever-present buzzing in my ears or mind, or somewhere, like a vast army of crickets.  They do not cease singing. They are not the peace into which the mind longs to enter.

Sheer quiet, stillness. Neither I nor You, but in-between. As in a pool without sides, or undiscovered walls, at least. Freely floating not in air or water, but in stillness. So relaxing, difficult not to sleep.  Be alert, watchful.

What Kind Of Parish Do We Want To Be?

    Amidst the immediate challenges of life, of love, of sickness, of death, it is good to keep in mind basic questions: What kind of person do I want to be? How shall I live my life? Whom do I truly love? How can I more truly love God and love my neighbor as myself? How can I keep growing mentally and spiritually? These and similar questions each of us needs to keep asking ourselves. As a parish family, as a community of disciples of Jesus Christ, we also need to ask questions about our parish community: What kind of parish would best serve the spiritual needs of our people? What are the strengths of our parish, and what are weaknesses, or what things need improvement? What kind of parish do we not want to be?”

    Now in my fourth year as priest for St. Mark’s, St. Mary’s, Holy Trinity, and St. Clement’s, I have some basis for considering what good things need to be kept and cultivated, and in what areas of our lives together we need to work on improvements—trusting in, and relying on, God’s help. Our parishes range in size from small to very small. We have people of all ages attending our services, but clearly we have a lack of young persons—those under about age 40 or so, and who still need considerable guidance and spiritual formation. Those of us who attend services in all of our communities can see that we span a wide range from visibly and audibly active participation to fairly subdued and less participation. Just this morning one who frequently attends daily Mass at St. Mark’s lamented the lack of singing at St. Mark’s. And I would add: even though we have gifted musicians to guide the signing, many of us do not seem to sing out. Why? Or why is there such a difference at St. Mary’s, Raynesford, where most who attend sing? As a priest who wants to offer classes in ongoing adult education, I wonder why there has been a stronger response to continue this work at Holy Trinity than at St. Mark’s-St. Mary’s?

    Lest my observations seem too negative, let me add: I much appreciate the fact that most of us seem accepting, welcoming, tolerant towards one another. We are friendly people, I believe, and I hope that guests feel welcomed and wanted. We need to keep striving to help each person feel accepted and wanted, and not be like Puritans or overly zealous “Christians” who claim that some people are not good enough to worship with us, and share in our full parish life. All are invited, because Christ died for each and for all. I am thankful that we show acceptance of one another, because it is all too easy in a community to become judgmental and exclusive. To prevent being divided by such an uncharitable spirit, I suggest that each of us keep remembering the words of the psalm: “If you, O LORD, should mark iniquities, LORD, who could stand?”  Rather, each of us says and means, “LORD, I am not worthy…but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed.” That is the spirit we have been living, and I hope to see us continue to cultivate and practice such charity among us. Such a love of God and of each other is the only sound foundation for parish life.

20 September 2014

Why I Will Not Excommunicate YOU!

    Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

    You may be wondering if I, as a Catholic priest, would excommunicate you, or tell you that if you do not do what I think you should do, you will “go to hell.”  You may wonder why I do not “preach the law” and tell you in detail what I think are the sins you should avoid.

    To the best of my knowledge, until very recently, I never heard or read of anyone being excommunicated, except in bygone eras, when some clergy in the Church took this extreme measure in order to correct some grave fault. Admittedly, I have long respected Bishop Ambrose of Milan, who publicly refused to give communion to the Roman Emperor, because he had ordered a massacre in Thessaloniki.  Now there was a man of great courage, Bishop Ambrose.  He did not cave in to power and wealth, but took a public stance against an emperor who had done much evil to human beings.  Bishop Ambrose could not be bought off.  By standing for truth and justice, this bishop brought the Emperor to his knees in public for committing human atrocity.  That, I submit, brothers and sisters, was a justifiable, and salutary, use of excommunication to bring about repentance from a deadly crime against humanity.

    But as for you folks, if I were to begin excommunicating people for sins, where would we begin?  And where would it end?  Would anyone be left standing, or would the pews be emptied?  Perhaps we would begin with the juicy sins.  Now which sins would be the juiciest, the most sensational, the most disturbing? Which sinners could I excommunicate because they may be committing a sin that has lurked in the dark recesses of my own soul? Have you not noticed that we human beings have a habit of harping on the sins and faults in others that we ourselves engage in, or wish we did, or we struggle against? Have you ever wondered why celibate priests have often become nearly obsessed with sexual sins, while overlooking major ones, such as spiritual pride, arrogance, the lust for power, greed, deception, stealing from parishioners, and so on? Have you wondered why some of us dwell on sex? Perhaps it is because we have not attained the virtue of chastity, and found the peace of living virtuously. Perhaps some of us are just plain jealous of others who can engage in openly sexual conduct.

    Brother and sisters, I have not the least interest in excommunicating any of you. And why?  First of all, because I am a sinner before the all-good, merciful God. I need God’s mercy and forgiveness daily. How can I single out some of you for excommunication, when I am such a sinful human being myself?  In judging you, I would surely be condemning myself.  Second, I believe in the Holy Spirit, more than in rigorous laws and rules preached or shoved down peoples’ throats.  What do I mean?  My entire pastoral desire, as your priest, is to help ground you in the living God. That means that I want to see you live now and forever in God, and God in you. I long for you and for me to live by faith, hope, charity, and to be filled with God’s joy and peace. Now, I have learned from my own experience that rubbing my nose in my sins does little to improve me. But God is very patient, and wise, and can and does gradually lead me to understand what I am doing wrong, and help me to change my life. I believe in the Holy Spirit: God’s presence in you, in me, to transform us “from one degree of glory to another,” when we by our own efforts cannot perfect ourselves.

    You belong to God. I am here only to help you realize and develop friendship with the God beyond all of our imaginings and beliefs. I believe that your sharing in our worship together, as an active participant, in prayer, song, listening to the word, and fellowship; in charity towards one another; in a shared meal of the Lord’s body and blood—I believe that together in Christ we can and will be changed. I want you here with me, to share in God’s work. We are in this together. Why would I ever want to excommunicate you? It would be like cutting off my foot, or a part of my heart. We belong to each other, for each other. We need each other on our journey home into God. That is why God’s wise and loving Providence has brought us together.

    No, I will not excommunicate you, but I will invite you, “Children, come, eat a meal.” And I will say to you, “Behold the Lamb of God…”  And I will say with you—and mean—“Lord, I am not worthy… but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed.”  I need healing, and perhaps you do, too.  Well, we have come to the divine Physician. I will not excommunicate you, and hope that you will not excommunicate yourself by avoiding the Presence of He Who Is.

    Your brother in Christ,
    Paul

13 September 2014

To One Who Died

    Picture
    To one who died

    You died and still I long for you, to touch you again,
    your soft, smooth hair. You died.
    Jabs of sorrow pierce my heart—You died.
    And yet: Am I not speaking to you now, my beloved?
    It is not to ashes that I speak, but to you.
    So why then would my heart be lonely-lonesome-sorrowful
    when I speak these words to you?

    Nothing—no, not even uneven death—can hinder me
    from stretching out towards you, heart and mind,
    across the unlimited, unillumined void—
    that seems to untrained eyes so dark and cold.
    Is it really an abyss of nothingness between us?
    Is there really any space or time between us?
    Are you not, rather, here with me as I speak to you, beloved?

    When I long for what we had together, you and I,
    Sorrow breaks in and drowns my mind, aches my heart.
    Not what we have now floods my soul with grief,
    but what I wish for yet again, remembering.
    Then you presented yourself to me in body, and I responded.
    But now you are unseen, perhaps unfelt,
    reached only by silent-sounding, wondering love.

    Such love that sounds the unseen depths
    or infinitely small space between us, you and I.
    Are you not here, my beautiful one, as I speak to you?
    Are you not with me intimately, too close for eyes to see?
    Let me not reach out fearfully, perhaps missing you,
    as if you were somewhere far away in time and space.
    You are not adrift in empty space, my beloved.

    You are, my loving friend, present in ways I may not know.
    You in whom I loved and love your wild, gypsy heart,
    your self-abandoning, dancing-free body-spirit.
    I loved and love your uncontrollable-spontaneous you,
    who never let me once forget your presence:
    You, the master-mistress of my soul’s awakening,
    You, the mistress-master of my soul’s delight.

    How fresh-alive, how well-named you are,
    So full of life—ever-unexpected, unreserving, uncontrollable life—
    Such a force—a fully-fierce force—but ever gentle, never aggressive.
    And you smile, perhaps at me, you mother-mama, I your child?
    You knew and loved me through and through.
    And so you know well what joy you gave me
    being you yourself alive with unbridled life.

    And being you as you are, even now, my delight,
    Are you not as unpredictable, uncontrollable as ever?
    Are you not still with me in your way, on your terms,
    and not on mine?  No place to hide but wonder.
    You wild woman of free and liberating love!
    May I never cease loving you forever-today, and now—
    Today, while the blossom blooms fresh on the vine…

    —Wm. Paul McKane
       11 Sept 2014

06 September 2014

On Substitutes for God

Picture
What would happen in a society, in a human culture, when a sizable portion of the population loses contact with God? What shows up? First, consider what living faith does. There are at least four activities that happen in the life of a human being with genuine faith in God: one takes time to pray or to meditate; the person does deeds of charity and kindness; the man or woman lives according to reason rather than to fleeting emotions or the opinions of others; and personal virtues are developed and vices such as hatred, lack of self-control, promiscuity, drug and alcohol abuse, stealing, deceiving others, are overcome and rejected.

What shows up when human beings ignore the living God and do not have faith working through love? The opposite effects of what we just noted. First, a man or woman without openness to God will not genuinely pray or meditate in any form. Substitutes such as television watching, endless chatter, constant socializing, large doses of entertainment in one form or another, drug or alcohol abuse, constant busyness, restless money-making, take the place of prayer, meditation, and spiritual reading. Without the heart and mind grounded in God, deeds of charity, kindness, and generosity give way to bouts of ill-will, hatred, sheer lack of consideration of others, greed, deception, telling lies, and so on. Third, and of much significance, without a right grounding in God or ultimate reality, the life of reason within the mind and in a person’s life breaks down into foolishness, spiritual blindness, self-deception, inability to discern truth, dabbling in substitute mental drugs such as public myths, loads of entertainment, video gaming, and other activities divorced from reality. For without the life of reason, which is grounded in the divine, the mind must and will find substitutes—in a word, escapes from reality into fantasy or substitute realities of one kind or another. Also, without the life of reason guided by genuine spiritual openness, one becomes prey to all the forces of destruction, excessive passion, emotionalism, despair, depression, and the like, to which every human being could be subject without the governing of right reason. And finally, what shows up in people without God’s presence and right reason would be: erratic behavior, lack of self-control, self-indulgence, egotism, a self-centered life, grandiose claims about oneself, greed, violence against others.

In our American culture, consider what shows up in public, and one can see in some individuals, in crowds, in the mass media, among political leaders, an evident loss of contact with God and reason. At times, it seems to me that we Americans are sinking ever more into the quicksand of self-absorption, self-centered lives, hedonism, love of power, greed. Also evident is unrestrained and manipulative emotionalism, often in public.  Observe how some cry and carry on to get their way, or to promote some person or product or their “team.” Watch how some politicians keep using the “I-word,” and are so absorbed in themselves that they cannot interpret or understand reality. The loss of contact with God is evident for those with “eyes in their head.”