Daily Postings

Understanding God is an impossibility, but we still form our own idea of what God is like, and we make God into our image.  Each of us has a unique image of God in our subconscious and when we try to think of God, his image comes to the forefront of our consciousness only vaguely, because we really cannot image what he is really like, even though many of the attributes we ascribe to him are very human.  This is why so many are afraid of him.  If he is human then he certainly can’t like me, because I can’t even stand myself.

Yet, God is nothing but goodness and love. Xinan, our dear friend whom we met in China, told me one morning after she had arrived in the United States, that the night before, while she was lying in bed God had come to her.  “It was like a dream, but it was not a dream.  It was really God.  God is so beautiful. God is all love.”    That statement is stunning, coming from a woman who had been taken from her parents as a child and raised a Communist, and certainly had no way of learning about God, and could not have been influenced by the bible or by a Christian education.  “God is beautiful, God is all love.”  Whatever she experienced that night, it changed and molded the whole rest of her life.  Her idea of God has to be forever engraved in her memory and on her heart, and I doubt if she would ever be able to put that experience into words that could adequately convey God’s image of himself that he blessed her with that night.

So, today, I want to open up a whole new world.  I am going to try, hopefully with the help of the Holy Spirit, to describe little by little each day, different facets of God, as He has revealed himself through the centuries.  The first authentic intimation of God’s involvement in human life is his calling of a righteous man named Abram, who lived in what is present day Iraq, in an area called Ur in the Chaldean mountains.  Was it a voice Abram heard, was it a being who appeared to him, was it an internal vision that was so real to him that he was convinced it was a god who controlled his life?   Whatever it was, he was convinced he had to listen, and obey.  The message was loud and clear, “Go forth from the land of your kinsfolk and from your father’s house to a land that I will show you.  I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.  I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you. All the communities of the earth shall find blessing in you.” (Gen.12:1-3)

That is quite a revelation.  Looking back on that event thousands of years later, we know it had to have taken place, because it all turned out to be prophetic of what would become history later on.  That is our first revealed image of God, an indescribable image, because all that is revealed is a message came true.  There is a God who has a plan, a plan that will take thousands of years to unfold, but also a God who cares, a God who is planning something that will become a blessing for all the families of the earth, a God who obviously knows the earth and all its people are his, and he had made a decision to become part of what will be happening from then on.  I almost get a feeling of a God who is lonely, though that doesn’t make sense, but I just feel it. Maybe a more accurate way of describing what I feel is that God wants to share his goodness and happiness with his creatures, and wants to be an intimate part of the treasure of blessings he is promising his earth family; certainly a different kind of God from the Roman and Greek gods, feared for their strange unpredictable outbursts of rage and revenge and jealousy. 

He is a God who hides, a hidden God, who never shows himself; perhaps he’s shy.  Clearly he has been betrayed and rejected by his creatures, and they have a history of rebelling against him.  Why does he leave himself so vulnerable?  Yes, he is also vulnerable; maybe that’s why he hides, and appears in shadows and symbols.   When bad things happen, people always blame him, yet there are so many reasons to trust his care and presence that is always near.  He sure is a God who remains always hidden, but is forever near, touching our lives as we watch that strange man Abram from the Chaldrean hills as God insinuates himself in a very intimate way into his life and the life of his family.

For an authentic Christian, “the test of our progress as a nation is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”   I will not mention who said that because that person is despised by so many, but the quote does reflect very succinctly the mind of Jesus, and it should be uppermost in the heart of every Christian, as well as every patriot in public life.

In preparing for my daily Mass recently I came across some interesting lives that struck my attention.  One was the life of St. Angela Merici, who lived in the time just before the Reformation.  This woman started a religious order to provide education for girls.  That order spread all throughout Italy and is still in existence today, as the Ursuline Sisters.  Another saint who lived at the same time, was St. Phillip Neri, who was a highly respected priest living in Rome, who started a very popular program to inspire the priests in Rome to the highest ideals of holiness.  A society he started know as the Oratory is still in existence today.  Another group of holy people at the same time was called the Brethren of the Common Life.  There were ten thousand of them, and were spread throughout Europe, and operated over a hundred centers. Their purpose was to inspire people to read the bible and to focus their lives on Jesus.  One of the most noted of these people was Thomas Kempis, who wrote the “Imitation of Christ,” which is still being published and widely read even today.  And in reading these stories and skimming over the lives of the saints of that time, I found that there were more saints then than perhaps at any other time in the history of the Church.  And all this was taking place at a time when historians decided that the Church at that time was so corrupt.  Maybe their research was not as thorough as it could have been.

No matter who we are, we all doubt ourselves, our abilities, our goodness, our self-worth, our value to others, even our family.  We doubt whether we are even worth anything to God, or are in his eyes, of little or no use, especially since we have never really been very productive for him, and lived mostly for ourselves, and our enjoyment.

When this train of thoughts hit us, it is devastating.  It is like being hit by some internal earthquake when our core is shaken and we feel unhinged, and all in a brief moment we see our naked selves in the bright light of brilliant honesty.  Our self image will never be the same.  It is as if God lets us see ourselves the way he sees us, as empty and as nothing.  We don’t like that.  We have spent our lives building up and enhancing our egos and our self image to the point where we have conditioned ourselves to see only a biased self portrait, that nobody else recognized and now we don’t even recognize because it was fabricated out our fantasies.  Now that the fantasy has crumbled and we are left in the ashes of what we once thought we were, there is little left of us.  We are naked before God, and we see that we are nothing, know that we are really not worthy of God to even like us, much less love us.  We wonder how we could have ever looked down upon others, others whom we may have considered society’s trash, useless and a burden to us nice people.  Now we see ourselves in that brilliant truthful moment, as no different from those we trashed in our minds.  We see ourselves the way God sees us.

But, that’s all right, because we are now ready for God to enter our lives; before there was no room for God.  An inflated ego never has room for God.  It is an obstacle to God’s grace because it is filled with its own self importance.  Having been brought low to what we really are, nothing, except for what God has given us, we are now ready for God to work with us, because we finally recognize our nothingness, and that whatever God loaned to us to work with, we for the most part have squandered.  Unfortunately for God, but fortunately for ourselves, we are now, in shame, standing before him with our broken lives, afraid to look at him.

And that is the eternally repeating story of God’s prodigal love for us.  He waits until we have squandered all he loaned us, and then when we have nothing left, we come to him broken, the only time he can begin to work the real miracle or redemption in each of us, the miracle that transforms the clay of which we are made into something resembling the divine image of his Son.  Little by little he patiently moulds and forms us into instruments he can use for the accomplishment of good things in the lives of others who need what we, as transformed sinners, are now able to share with them through the mercy and generosity of God, who has transformed sinners into instruments of mercy and salvation to other sinners who are just becoming aware of their own emptiness.

So, no matter how low we have sunk in our wretchedness, God’s mercy is always there to transform what there is left of us into something divine, not because of anything we have to offer, but because his love for each of us is so overwhelming, we can no longer resist.    

The test of our progress as a Christian people in a country founded on belief in God is not that we grow in our abundance of wealthy people and ever more powerful corporations, but whether we provide enough for our poorest to live, and be cared fo, in modest dignity as human beings.  That is not only our test as a civilized and honorable nation, but our test as individuals as to whether we, in the profession of our Christian faith, cared for the poor and needy or, are just hypocrites.  That will be the deciding issue when God decides our final judgment.  To offer the defense that we never saw any real poor will be unacceptable.

These are the times when so many of us are struggling, not just to be great achievers, but just to survive.  The stress level is dangerous because it not only makes it difficult for people to function effectively and efficiently, but it also affects people’s health, and causes so much tension in families.  We have been through difficult times before, granted they we not as acute as what we are experiencing now, but we were stressed out just the same.  And yet looking back on it, we made it through what we thought  it would be impossible.  And this crisis is no different.  Thank God, most laid off workers had their unemployment covered, and extended, even though it was not the same as a full salary. 

I know many people laugh at the idea of trusting God, but, it is a fact that God does care for us and is very concerned for each of us, and when we go through difficult times, He eventually resolves our crisis, even though not necessarily the way we expect.  Sometimes, when things happen like in natural disasters, and fatal tragedy strikes, the worst that can happen, he may take us home to be with him.  To God that is a gift; to us it is tragic.

Years are in when counseling a family who’s five year old son was dying, the family was beside themselves, and I could understand.  When I went into the boy’s bedroom to talk to him I was shocked at what he wanted to tell me.  “Father, I am worried about my Mom and Dad.  They are so upset because I am dying.  No matter what I tell them, they are won’t believe me.  I told them many times that when I am going to sleep at night it is as if God doesn’t want me to be frightened, so he lets me see how beautiful it is in  heaven, and that he is waiting for me.  I know I am going to be very happy there, and I wish my parents could share my happiness and not be crying all the time.”

“You keep sharing that with them, Tommy, and one day they will believe you and that will make them very happy, even though they are going to miss you.”

But, the bottom line is still the same; God does care for us, and no matter how bad things get, usually most of us come through really unscathed, but wiser, and hopefully, closer to God, and more caring of others.  The worst tragedies always bring the best out of most of us, when so many reach out to care for the victims, and try to create a whole new life and even a new country for the most impoverished.   

As Christians we accept without question the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, and is in every sense, God.  While it took the apostles a long time to understand just who Jesus was; at first he was a pious, dedicated teacher, and then when he worked miracles, they considered him like one of the prophets, and later when Jesus asked what people thought of him, and Simon blurted out, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God,” Jesus told him that he had just received a revelation from God to be able to say that.  Hopefully, Peter, from then called “Rock,” understood the meaning of what he uttered.  It wasn’t until after the Resurrection and especially after Pentecost, that the Apostles themselves were fully aware that Jesus was God, the divine reflection of the Father. 

This was very difficult for them to accept because they had always, like good Jews, been fully indoctrinated with Moses’ teaching that there is only one God.  To look upon Jesus as God was very difficult for them, and it took the power of the Holy Spirit to impress upon them the reality that Jesus and his Father were one, so there was still only one God.

While they were convinced of that, it was another thing for them to explain to converts the meaning of Jesus and his relationship with the Father.  And it did not take long before issues arose in the Church when highly intelligent Greek and African, and Syrian philosophers became Christians and they questioned just how Jesus was related to God, and was his human body divine, and was Jesus really human or was his body just a phantom body.  All kinds of questions arose, especially after the apostles died.  St. John may still have been alive, and he reflects the philosophical influences of the new converts, when he uses the term “Word” when referring to Jesus as the Word of God, the Living Word that came forth from the Mind of God.

But, later on, the issues became more complex and attempts were made to explain Jesus’ teachings in a more philosophical way.  In fact, Peter even encouraged such discussion when he wrote in his letter, “Find a reason for your faith,” in other words, “try to understand what you believe, and why you believe it.”  But, that was left up to the new and highly intelligent converts, who attempted to explain their Christian beliefs in a way that would make sense to open-minded pagan philosophers, and also searching Christians.  These new Christian thinkers were called ‘theologians,’ and even bishops used them as assistants and consultants when complex issues arose that the bishops themselves had a difficult time to understand.

For the next two hundred years bishops and theologians tried to express in philosophical terms the precise nature of the relationship of Jesus to God, and the nature of the Holy Spirit and his relationship to God the Father and God the Son.  Greek theologians attached to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and other theologians attached to Antioch, and still others attached to Alexandria in Egypt, often saw things differently.  At times, in the middle of these debates the Emperor at Constantinople, inserted his opinions and created even more problems, as he knew nothing of theology but backed those bishops who were close to him.

The biggest crisis concerning the identity of Jesus occurred in the early part of the fourth century, when a bishop by the name of Arius, who held that Jesus could not be God, because he was ‘less than the Father,’ as Jesus himself said. So, Arius held that Jesus’ nature was “similar” to the Father’s nature, but not the “same” as the Father’s nature, and was therefore not really God.  This, by the way, is the belief that the Jehovah Witnesses teach about Jesus, that he is “the first born of all God’s creatures.” 

At the time of Arius, there was a theologian who was also the Patriarch of Alexandria, Egypt, with a brilliant mind and a determined spirit who challenged Arius, and all his imperial backers.  Soon, Athanasius was ordered into exile by the emperor, but still kept fighting, and trying to win over other bishops, most of whom were supporting Arius.  While in exile in Rome, Athanasius was encouraged by the pope to continue his struggle even though it was against overwhelming odds.  There was even a saying at the time, “One day the Church woke up and found itself Arian.”  Athanasius still fought on.  During those difficult years he was sent into exile five times, and was hunted down by the imperial army, and still stood firm.  Finally, even though the Council of Nicaea, had already defined the nature of Jesus as identical to the Father’s nature, another gathering of all the bishops was held and confirmed what was taught at Nicaea, to which the whole body of bishops agreed.  What Athanasius fought for all his life was finally accepted and that is what we all as Christians believe today.   The opposition Athanasius faced for almost twenty years was so intense and so widespread, a phrase coined to describe him was “Athanasius contra mundum, (Athanasius against the world).”  After those bitter years, for the next twenty years Athanasius spent his time writing books explaining and defending the teachings of the Council of Nicaea.

A young boy said to me the other day, “Father, I want to tell you a secret.”

‘What is that?”

“I was talking to God yesterday, and told God that I was going to be good from now on.”

“And did God talk to you about that?”

“No, but He never talks anyway.  He just listens.  So, I told Him that I can’t be good all the time, but, I promised Him that I am going to do one nice thing for somebody every single day.  I figured that might make God happy, because He knows I have a hard time being good.  But, one nice thing each day I can do.  That’s my secret.”

“I think that will make God happy, because that’s probably more than most people promise to do for God every day.  So, I am sure God will be happy.”

“And I didn’t forget either. I did something nice yesterday for my mother.  I put the garbage out for her. And today I did something nice even for my sister, who’s miserable.”

“And what was that?”

“I told her that she had a big smudge mark on the back of her dress, and she got furious.”

“And did she have a smudge mark on her dress?”

“Yes, but she didn’t have to yell at me. I did it because I didn’t want her to be embarrassed when she went to school.”

“That was very nice, and I am sure you made God very happy.”

“And I put a little rock next to my pillow to remind me each day that I have to do something nice.  That’s so I don’t forget.”

Imagine if we all made a promise like that how different things might be all around us.  I

In yesterday’s message we considered the two basic approaches to religion and our relationship with God, and the other motivated by a confident embracing of life as it concerns our relationship with God.  Our basic approach to religion and God is determined not by theological considerations but by psychological orientation.  The same is true with people involved in public life.  Although politicians may break down people’s preferences into liberal or conservative, that is really missing the issue.  The basic determinant is not political but psychological.  Persons in public life are again, like in religion, motivated by fear or by a confident and optimistic approach to life.

If a person’s interest in public life is motivated by fear, their strong public concern will be about protecting themselves,  their families, their possessions and their freedom from legal restraints to follow their instincts in pursuing free enterprise.  They will be vehement in preserving their freedom to do what they want in pursuit of business interests and in protecting their possessions, and resent any impingement on their freedom to pursue their dreams.  This affects every aspect of public life. Government responsibility must be rigidly controlled and restricted to national defense and protection of the people’s freedom, and respect of states’ rights of self-government.  This rigid restriction of federal responsibilities means that the federal government’s right to tax should be strictly limited to national defense and protection of borders and, perhaps, national highways, as necessary for national defense.  People whose view of government runs along these lines then see government as out of bounds when it interferes in the free working of financial and business enterprises, and as an unconstitutional restriction of people’s rights to free enterprise.  The government has no right to set up and run programs in competition with business corporations.  For the government to set up medical health programs, and programs to subsidize the poor or the dysfunctional in society is looked upon as unconstitutional imposition of an incipient form of socialism on our society which is an illegal attack on the freedom of corporate enterprise.

People with that approach sincerely believe that people are free to live their own lives, and that there are some who will be successful and some who will be dysfunctional and unable to succeed in life, but it is not the responsibility of government to take care of those people.  When the government does enter the field of caring for the poor and the indigent, they then are using other citizens’ money through taxes to carry out that function, and that is unconstitutional.  That is why abolishing Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and Welfare is a necessity because the money for those programs comes illegally from other citizens’ hard earned income, by way of increased taxes.  If people are concerned about the poor, let neighbors and churches take care of the poor and the indigent and those with serious psychological problems.   But, the problem with that is that all the private organizations and churches and caring neighbors can’t care for 50,000,000 authentically poor and handicapped people.

In what concerns our relations with other countries, we should not let other countries take unfair advantage of our corporations and our business enterprises, and should have strict laws protecting our businesses from unfair trade practices.  Out of consideration for the success of our corporations it is permissible for our corporations, for the sake of free enterprise, to lay off American workers and open factories in other countries where cheap labor can reduce the companies’ labor costs.  Such practice is good for the economic health of our country even though such practice swells the ranks of the poor and unemployed in our country and widens the gap between the rich and the poor.

One interesting observation, however, it that, in spite of this groups concern for strong national defense, the vast numbers of enlisted men and women are not from their ranks or from the ranks of the corporations they represent, but from the ranks of ordinary people and lower middle class.

When it comes to protecting our borders from possible terrorist attacks and for efficient homeland security, political leaders who are motivated by fear can easily fall prey to exaggerated fears bordering on paranoia, and will not be averse to consider spying on their own citizens with national security as an excuse, because security is a psychological issue with this type of personality.  In times of international tensions leaders of other countries are rarely considered friends because suspicions rising from excessive fear make them wary of the intentions of other countries’ leaders.   This can be dangerous because we can then create enemies out of those who might otherwise be friendly, especially if they have factions of their own who are driven by unreasonable fear of us.

When we consider people who are confident and outgoing in the way they face life, their approach to public life is very different.  They enter public life for different reasons.  Often it is because they are outgoing and enjoy the publicity, but also for more serious reasons.  They naturally orient  towards people and are also concerned about people and are strong on building friendly relationships.  They often come from neighborhoods where there are considerable numbers of poor people and immigrant people.  They have gone to church and to school with them and are familiar with those who work hard for a living and those who take advantage of government programs. They are also very aware that immigrants are usually hard workers and very frugal in the way they live.  Most of their constituents, and members of their own families, are working people and often members of labor unions, so they can identify with them and when they are elected to public office their whole approach to government is centered around the rights and needs of the working people and the poor.  They know from experience how difficult it is for the poor to get jobs, and how difficult it is for them to survive, and that the majority of them are not too lazy to work or addicted to drugs or alcohol.

So, when they are elected to state legislatures or Congress they have an entirely different approach to their work. They come from a concern for people, and it is not just a political concern.  It is a concern that came from living with these people and knowing their struggles.  They know from experience that the poor often receive shabby medical treatment or cannot afford prescription drugs, and cannot care for their sick elderly. They also know they get shabby treatment in the courts. They are only too aware of the mentally and intellectually handicapped in their neighborhoods, and the poor housing that shelter the poor, often with inadequate heat on bitter cold winter days and nights.  Responding to those needs and the needs of the charitable organizations in their districts which are trying hard to care for the indigents, they naturally come head on with their colleagues who strongly believe that we are not a socialistic state where welfare is for everyone, but a country where free enterprise reigns.  This sets up the two battle lines.  The politicians who represent the poor and the workers and those who represent the corporations and the free enterprise system immediately clash.  Those representing the working class and the poor resent the hundreds of billions of dollars in welfare given by their colleagues to supranational corporations and huge multimillion-acre farms in the form of subsidies and tax breaks, and approve that type of welfare, while denying help to the poorest of the poor struggling just to exist.

Politicians who represent the workers and the poor who populate their districts, especially those who come from Catholic areas, believe strongly that a democratically elected government has an obligation before God to be concerned about the poor, because the government is the instrument of the people, and the people have an obligation before God to care for the poor.  Since the government is the only instrument the people have to care for the poor and the indigent and the mentally disabled, it has the obligation to do so.  And these politicians, following the guidance of their religious beliefs, do not look upon that help as socialism, but basic Christian social justice which is mandatory on every government.  To these politicians with solid Christian faith, the poor are a national treasure to be invested in.  To the others the poor are a perpetual nuisance and a threat to their pocketbooks.

What is also a concern for this type of politician is that  natural resources and other wonders of nature God has given to all the people.  These treasures belong to all the people and should not be exploited only for the benefit of the few, and should be developed wisely and with great care.  It is our sacred heritage and should be treated as sacred, and not just a commodity to be exploited and then abandoned, and left behind as junk heaps and polluted dumps, as has so often happened.

What is difficult for me to understand, though, is how people who represent the poor and the indigent can favor abortion which is patently evil, unless their desire to give people what they want is an expression of a manic phase of a bipolar tendency, while the other groups’ fears show a tendency to paranoia.   I strongly believe both these groups are motivated not by well thought out political principles but by deeply psychological biases which drive them to skew the direction of their political policies.

And we witness today that struggle all day long on television where these two groups of politicians will fight to the death to win out, and it is unfortunate that few Americans realize what is really at stake. 

Over my many years as a priest involved with people in their spiritual lives and in their public lives, I have noticed that there are two basic underlying orientations that drive people.  One is confidence and the other is fear.  People who are motivated by confidence see not only the bright side of their own personal lives, but the bright side of life itself in all its manifestations.  They are enthusiastic and outgoing, and enjoy people, and doing things new and creative and exciting.  People motivated by fear are careful, and introspective, analytical, and cautious in varying degrees depending on how strong their need is to feel secure.  When they become involved in something, they analyze every aspect of what is set before them and only after careful thought, they will warily take a first step, for fear of making a mistake, or even worse, failure.  Their need for security is a good thing and they are very protective of what is theirs, whether it is family or possessions, including money.

When it is a matter of their spiritual life, those motivated by confidence, may be attracted to their religion because they find it exciting or they are attracted to the beauty of the lives of the saints, and their dedication to God, and willingness to sacrifice for their faith, or they may have just developed a tender feeling about God, and wanted to be close to Him.  Their spiritual life is closely associated with warm, tender emotions, which can grow into strong dedicated love, and expresses it self in concern for others. 

 Persons who are motivated by fear are very careful how they approach God.  Often they were taught by parents that God is a strict God who watches us and and makes note of everything we do, and will reward or punish us accordingly.  This does not help a young person who is already fearful to relax with God, but to be very careful of all their words and actions.  It is very important for a person like this to show his dedication to God and his or her religion by doing everything meticulously correct, for fear of making a mistake or being wrong, or even worse of committing a sin.  What they have been taught as children they hold fast to all their life, and feel very insecure when they even think about departing from what they were taught as children.  Their prayers are the same prayers they were taught as children. When they go to confession, the sins they confess are often the sins they confessed when they were children, about disobeying parents, even though they are now in their sixties and t heir parents in their eighties. Their concept of God is the same concept they were taught about God as children.  Change is very threatening and unnerving for them, and they can become very anxious if a priest or minister says something in a sermon that is different from what they were taught as children.  Changes in liturgy and other changes in church regulations concerning how sacraments are performed or new practices introduced by the Vatican can be very upsetting, and can easily shake their faith. I will never forget, when I was first ordained, there was an elderly lady who had two sons who were priests.  She would walk a half mile up the hill to the church every morning to come to Mass.  One morning I invited her to come in the priory, (rectory) for a cup of coffee before Mass. She was horrified.  She said, “I can’t drink anything before Mass.”  When I told her that the pope changed the rule and said we can have something non-alcoholic to drink before Mass, her response,  “The pope can go to  hell if he wants, but I’m not going to go with  him.”  It is very difficult for persons motivated by fear to change their thinking, and that can be a problem because growth demands change, and spiritual growth also means change, an ever-deepening understanding of God, and people and people’s relationship with God, and a deepening and widening of our whole understanding of the way God works in our lives, and in the lives of people in various cultures.

On the other hand, persons who are motivated by confidence may be attached to what they are taught as children about God and their religion, but are not bound by fear to stick as rigidly to what they had been taught as children.  They can easily become attracted to new and different ways of looking at God and their religion and enjoy their religion as a life adventure.  Their understanding of God is most likely to change as they learn more and more about God and how God works in people’s lives, especially when they read the gospels and see an entirely different image of God that Jesus expressed in his own life, and by the way Jesus treated people.  This kind of change would be very upsetting to a person who needs to hold on to what he or she has always thought of God.

Later on in life, the two different approaches to religion and spirituality can clash in very unpleasant ways.  In the seminary you find both these types of approaches to God and religion, and later on theology.  The personality clashes may not be violent but they can create tensions, because neither can understand the other, even though both types are trying to be faithful in their own way.  The ones who are motivated by confidence can become very enthusiastic about how they express their religious feelings, and manifest a happy and casual approach to their religion.  They are often careless about the regulations and the precise way of doing things, especially when it comes to the fine points of ritual and ceremonies, and clerical dress. St. John Chrysostom, an early Father of the Church, was often criticized for not wearing his patriarchal robes and insignia, and his response was, “I would  rather be recognized as an Apostle of Jesus by the way I live my life, than by the clothes I wear.” Those who are more fearful are meticulous in their observance of the rules and the rituals and their prayers, and especially in their insistence on wearing clerical garb.  They are also very precise in the way they verbally express their religious beliefs. Their faithfulness to details especially in theology is an asset as theologians because of their dedication to the consistent teachings and tradition of the Church, but a danger is they can be too rigid and a drawback to legitimate expansion of understanding of ideas the Holy Spirit may be trying to bring about in the Church. They are often shocked at the apparent carelessness of the others who seem not to take seriously, what to them are critically important.  And that is where disagreements arise.

In later life, after ordination, it is not the casual, confidence, enthusiastic ones who will be entrusted with higher ecclesiastical appointments, but the ones who can be trusted to always act and think the way they had been taught, and can be trusted not to do anything out of the ordinary or imprudent.  The others are usually very popular as parish priests because they make religion enjoyable and can more easily understand people and their everyday problems, and their often difficult human weaknesses.  It is much easier for them to be good shepherds for the flocks they tend, because they show such care for the sheep.  Occasionally, and maybe only ‘mistakenly’ will they be made bishops or rise to higher offices.  Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul I are good examples of that.

The others often have a difficult time in parishes because they are often rigid in the way they treat the people.  Not understanding the terrible pain of the many damaged souls in every parish they insist on their exact observance of laws, especially church laws, if they want to be accepted as practicing parishioners.

It was not long after my “Joshua” books came out, that extremely rigid Catholics printed in their newspapers that I was doing the work of the devil, leading innocent people away from God, and that Catholics should avoid my books as extremely dangerous to their faith.  So, you can see how these two types of personalities can affect a person’s whole life, even their relationship with God.

It is the vast psychological differences between these two types of people in the Church who are struggling over what our religion should be like today, and that fight will never end, because it is not really theological, but psychological, and affects different people’s need for security, or for freedom.