Saturday, November 25, 2017

Writing for Writing and Certain Goals Speak

I have blogged very occasionally over the past several months, meaning I have blogged rarely, or only a few times, lacking the principal opportunity to blog, that being motivation. Rather I have been motivated with respect to other things. These things did not keep me from blogging. I kept me from blogging or, to be accurate, I had no cause to blog except blogging itself, which was insufficient reason to blog.

Even blogging at this moment - being engaged in blog formation as we speak, so to speak - I am not sure one needs a reason to blog or a purpose toward which to blog. I mean, here we are, five sentences into this blog and there's hardly anything like a topic per se. But I am in a mood to blog, that much is apparent. Maybe one needs to be in this mood, to frame the desire to see oneself writing a blog in order to blog. I think this is true, and I also think that, when you are working on other things, you may not be in the mood to blog.

So what kinds of things have I been working on? Well, I think about what I am working on all the time, as I'm sure you do, but it's hard putting it into words when it's several things, really, and they all sort of jumble together. So, when I look back from a certain perspective - and I think I have reached a point where I can look back at what I've been doing and say something about it - I often feel like I am embarking on a guess. I feel like I lack proper documentation to represent actions and thoughts as they occurred and influenced each other, and - here's a more critical dilemma - with having reached a point of perspective and looking back, it's as if context has been lost to me. The reference points have been largely erased. I must rely on recall - not my strong suit. Adding to the confusion, I am almost never motivated to explain in precise detail what I am about, being convinced it is of no real consequence as long as certain goals are met.

Now, we have actually, unexpectedly, struck upon a notion that draws very close to the theme, if there is such a thing, that dominated the last several months of my waking thoughts, but I am faced, in this blogging moment, with the choice of going on with the show in relating the jumble of things I've been focused on and getting the theme, or developing the theme in lieu of recollection. I choose the latter tack as it should illustrate for the reader and myself what I am getting at better than if I try and capture it otherways. So here goes.

I am almost never motivated to explain in precise detail what I am about, being convinced it is of no real consequence as long as certain goals are met.

There is a great deal of life and thought wrapped up in this sentence. It strikes me as a predominantly Christian sentiment and that does not surprise me as most of what I think about is Christianity, either as I live it or it is lived by others, though not directly (rule keeping, etc.) , or I mean to say insofar as I am a moral thinker, or I think about morals, not morality. I think about the will and I think about what is good. A lot. And when one thinks a lot about something pone tends to lead the life of a person who thinks about those things. I do not mean that thinking about the good makes me good - no, I mean that I am preoccupied in a certain way and my actions show it. My behavior and tendencies reflect my concerns - no surprise there. The surprise and difficulties of the past several months - and really the last couple years - has been a shift in perspective that can be located in the above sentence I italicized.

Simply put - and I know no better way to try and state a fact - as a writer my goal was to discover goodness in the act of writing. A well-written poem would be a good poem, and good art was the best thing I was capable of, and the only reasonable goal I could be sure of having the opportunity of meeting. I lived this way all my adult life, really, up until I was married - about 20 years I guess. At that point, the writerly goal remained intact but was complicated by the goal of a happy, successful marriage. That was a wonderful learning experience and it altered, over the course of several years, not the writing itself, but the purpose or expectations of the writing. The core or purpose of writing remained the same, but the purpose of the poem once written changed from being a means of personal validation to being an accomplishment in itself. I found the means, therefore, of self-publishing and participating in other ways as I saw fit, while supporting the writing of my wife, Endi. Being a good father to my son, Jackson, simply reinforced this movement toward a self-sustaining practice, where the poem was good in itself both as an independent object and for the good it did the writer (me) in having written the poem. A process that was bound to draw me closer to whatever ultimate good or truth this life might lead me to.

Therefore, the more I wrote, the better I became, was the theory. And I wrote a great deal. Writing however was not enough and living with the writing was not enough. Writing was good, yes, and there was truth in writing, but could I ever know that the good or the truth I had obtained was any better or worse than what I might achieve the next day or a year later? In fact, I had not only plateaued but I began to feel enervated and realized that I had reached a critical juncture. Having exhausted all previous, interior means, including such political and artistic practices as often are made to represent ourselves, I reached outside myself for God. I was catechized, baptized, and confirmed in the Catholic church.

I continued to write at a furious pace for three years or so, then slowed to something like a trickle. I spent the last 13 months on a manuscript of poems written in fits, here and there, entitled Parades for You. And all this time, running through my head, weren't poems as much as questions: Why write when the words of ultimate good and truth are here before me in the scripture? How do I write (and seek the good in the process of writing) when my goals are set before me as a Christian? I would read at Mass and I could not deny the effect. What joy it was to read the word of God, and what a small thing it was to write for oneself. And could I state otherwise? My writing was indeed largely for myself. I would share it with my wife, a couple people might see it online, and I continued to host my Concrete Formalism Facebook group dedicated to concrete/visual poetry, and I continued to write for my OpenCatholic blog and website, but clearly a reckoning was in order. And really this is what my mind has been working on for a good while now. And while it was working on this reckoning and reordering it was not particularly motivated to engage in creative or polemical writing.

Now, however, I have gotten somewhere. What to call it is a challenge though. I should make clear that the preoccupations of the past couple years were not administered solely in the dim light of my consciousness. Oh no. Everything was thrown into the mix so as to be sure that whatever came out of it would be a fair conclusion or at at least a working assemblage. The purpose in fact was to test myself, I suppose, or decide if writing could continue in light of the Christian certain goals alluded to above. So where did I get too, and what makes it somehow definitive, a point of perspective? I suppose that the best and most succinct answer to that questions lies in the manuscript of Parades for You, in the movement between the first poem, written in October 2016, to the last, written in November 2017.

Here is the October 2016 poem:

deserts and streams
deserts and streams
deserts and mountains and streams

mountains and streams
mountains and streams
deserts and mountains and streams

streams and streams
streams and streams
deserts and mountains
deserts and mountains and
deserts and mountains and streams

mountains, streams
mountains, streams
mountains and streams
mountains and streams
mountains and streams
and streams and streams and
deserts and mountains and streams

deserts and streams

deserts and streams
mountains and deserts and streams and mountains and
mountains and deserts and streams

And here is the poem from November 2017:

Most of time and mountains
most of time and true
true into mountains and time is mountains
true into time and true

This with time and mountains
this with rivers and true
this with mountains and rivers and time
is time into mountains and rivers and true

Send me into time and mountains
send me mountains and rivers so true
Let me fall into rivers and mountains
and mountains and rivers and mountains so true

All for time and all for mountains
all for rivers and mountains so true
all for mountains and rivers and mountains
and mountains and rivers and rivers so true

Watch for this, watch for mountains
Watch for time and watch for mountains
Watch for rivers, mountains for rivers
mountains for rivers and rivers so true

I am where eyes were, mountains for rivers
rivers for mountains and mountains so true
I am where rivers, rivers for mountains,
mountains for river and rivers so true

True is the mountain
the mountain the river
true is the mountain the river so true
true is the mountain the river so true

Now is the mountain, now is the river
now the the mountain the river so true
now is the river, the river so true
now is the mountain the river so true

Come with me the mountain the river
come with me the mountain so true
Fall with me for rivers and mountains
fall with me for mountains so true

The second poem is clearly more engaged with its topic than is the first. The first poem recites; the second incites: it makes apparent the poet behind the poem and enlists and beseeches the reader. It is active and in the context of this blog it is clearly reflective of certain goals, whereas the first poem chooses instead to offer a kind of product, not goals. One can choose to take the first poem however one wishes to, for whatever purposes. You might worship the deserts, streams, and mountains or you might merely enjoy them. Or you might build vacations homes on them or store nuclear waste in them. Whatever. The poet offers only the rhythm of the deserts, streams, and mountains while hoping, perhaps, that the reader will empathize and appreciate both the poem and the things poeticized and, by extension, the poet. 

The second poem presents a very different scenario or dialogical space. The poet addresses the reader directly with sum conclusions regarding the deserts, streams, and mountains which are assigned active and particular values. There is no getting away from the fact that the poet is calling to the reader from out of his understanding and experience of the deserts, streams, and mountains. Here, the deserts, streams, and mountains  are strictly valued, esteemed, and fraught with both personal and essential values. Our options of what to do with the deserts, streams, and mountains are vastly reduced to the point where we are incited not merely to witness them with the poet but to fall for them.

Now, someone could read this blog and think, Oh he's assimilated his religion in his writing. And maybe they would have a point, but I can't say that's right, not exactly. I'm quite sure I've assimilated next to nothing. Instead, I've had to leave the comfy confines of myself and go out and meet something I was never expecting to meet, and which all my reading and education had not prepared me to meet. And I can not do this alone, and I can not pretend that it is enough that I do this alone even if I could. If I were in a desert I would feel compelled to preach to the rocks, to see what I see, to become as I have learned to be. Anything less would be hypocritical and impossible in light of certain goals.

So what's next, as I turn back to look toward the future? Good fellowship, hard work, and peace, I hope. Peace, first and foremost. And I hope for nothing less for those I love including anyone who has kindly read through to these final words of this blog.

Saturday, September 9, 2017

Asking after God

The first thing I believed in was God. I inquired after God, pestering my parents with questions about God - who is He, what is He, why does He exist - before I was old enough for school. My questions were met with good-natured confusion until I was allowed to attend a sort of art class in the basement of a church, I forget the denomination, where I produced the first work of art I can recall, a large, gouache portrait of an angel, wings and all.

I remember the angel but I was never catechized. In time I went to school and life went on.

A person who inquires after God will not be satisfied until they have found Him. There is no substitute for God though we are bound to do any number of things while looking for Him or awaiting answers to our questions about Him. In time, the things we do while waiting to understand God will become a kind of religion that takes the place of understanding, and therefore worshipping God. If we are lucky, and many of us are, I believe, we will not become so attached to these things that we stop searching for God altogether, or are incapable of recognizing Him when he taps us on the shoulder, so to speak, to announce His arrival.

We do however tend to equivocate. We allow ourselves - no, we invite our hearts - to understand only as much as we can while holding onto the things that we allowed as substitutes for God in the first place. We do this two ways. The most popular way is to blame circumstance for having had to accommodate the things that took the place of God. When we do this we say, I believe in God, insofar as....; or, I believe in God, except that....; or, I believe in God, not religion. After these introductory phrases or notions, the person makes a separate belief statement about something important, something that has taken the place of God in the person’s life, perhaps for many years. It could be something that is very like what God wants for us, or it could be something quite different. It is difficult to maintain God and the things we love in place of God. And the line demarcating the two can seem like it is shifting almost every day. It is a wonderful thing to grow tired of the shifting line demarcating the world and God, to weary of patrolling the borders of our consciousness to say what is right and what is wrong, of having to weigh in the balance every fact or item of large or small importance; to reach a point where one says, All is God’s, and be done with the false god of opinion. At such a point, circumstance is rightly seen as having led us to God rather than as an excuse, a reason not to understand Him. Blame and equivocation however feel good. They substantiate the ego, they stoke the fires of resentment and feed a vision of the self that holds itself as the point that distinguishes between truth and error - as history counts in its ledgers so many billion selves. Equivocation leads to equivocation, error fosters error, but we bear onward, each in our own way, toward that which has no substitute and which cannot be contained.

The second way in which we try to understand God while holding on to the things we took on in lieu of understanding God is to forego God altogether while pretending that the substitutes for God are in fact as important (or more important, I suppose is the viewpoint) than God. Most people would call this atheism, but I don’t. I think genuine atheism is really pretty rare, if by atheism we mean not believing in God (and therefore not searching for Him). Denying God acknowledges His being, which is counter to atheism. Further, many people who start off saying that they do not believe in God shortly take to criticizing religion, so that God is really not the issue, but the conflict that is perceived between the values as expressed or rendered by religion versus the things of this world which that person took on in lieu of God.

So, we equivocate. We delay and doubt, we withhold and withdraw, but we do not stop living because it is difficult or seemingly impossible, and we do not stop inquiring after God.

Saturday, August 26, 2017

Considerations for those who proclaim Christ by the written Word

We will not change the world, we who find it sufficient to write stories, poems, articles, books, and blogs. We mill about adjusting, faxing, featuring, declining. Hesitating and suddenly (inspired) vaunting.

We are weak and partial creatures, make no mistake. The Lord of heaven and earth loves us just the same as if we were saints, which we can be, by his Grace.

Who is the good Christian other than the man or woman who says, I am a Christian, and feels it in his or her heart? Who other than than the child of God who, doubtful of His Church, acknowledges the wisdom and grace of Christ, even as that person may not acknowledge His supremacy. Who? Is there a clear answer? Of course not. Oh, how sad would be a clear answer, but how I love to hear someone say they are drawn to Christ, or to the Pope. What happiness can compare?

And yet. And...yet.

Do I move mountains by my faith? I have not seen seen a mountain moved or a fig tree bear fruit or a world altered. I am assigned my portion and I am grateful for it. Well, this is the natural disposition of a man or woman who has survived their failures, great and small, you say. Even so - even by dint of such recognition - how sad it would be to arrive at a simple formula or principal, an equation that translates: I am a good Christian. As if being Christian makes one somehow an expert on life!

Who yearned more for exactly that the title of "Good Christian" than the Apostle Peter, and who failed more miserably than he when he denied our Lord? Poor Peter.

And yet. And...yet. Was he not appointed chief of the Apostles? Blessed is he or she who fails in their ambition to be all that God asks of them, when only God can grant that such be true.

All that is true will be granted by God, make no mistake. All that is true is of God. We who write - so partially, such fragile, incomplete, fractured sentences - can afford to be grateful, on the one hand that it has been given to us to test ourselves and others with words, and on the other hand to acknowledge that eternal truth resides in the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ.


Sunday, August 6, 2017

Of Origins and Purpose in Conclusions

It strikes me that one of the key points in a definition of religion, or what constitutes the religious, is the notion of perfect, non-personal origins. An origin is by definition a beginning, but origins also grant recourse. Origins are an anchor. As a Catholic I am confident that my origins are shared by all Christians that ever have been, are, and ever will be.

This is not a consolation, it is a truth, and a profoundly appealing and challenging one at that (I should point out that I am not much drawn to ideas that do not challenge me, personally). One does not turn to religion because reality is too much to bear. One turns to religion because reality - pragmatic, empirical, scientific - is insufficient. Reality fails to satisfy. Reality fails to answer. Reality is unaccountable. Reality - and this is no surprise - is largely under our control, or so we like to pretend.

There is no reason to trust reality, for there is no reason not to trust it. Reality has no voice, no face. Reality does not and cannot suffice to bear our trust, our hopes, our belief, but God does.

It is a difficult concept to bear in mind that reality proceeds from truth but is not truth in and of itself. If one is of a pragmatic frame of mind then religious belief may seem arcane, sentimental, and pathetic, and it will continue to appear that way unless or until (for we must hope) one realizes that religion is the only thing worthy of belief in the first place. An opinion, even one based on solid scientific evidence, is only that: an opinion. It is not a belief. As much as we are capable of belief we are drawn to the religious, we are compelled to seek God. One can of course believe in God, allow that reality proceeds from the truth of God, and thereby allow both frames of reference to work together, but this essay is not about science or how scientists should spend a part of their Sunday mornings.

In Christianity the non-personal origin has a perfect, personal face: that of Jesus Christ, for whom and through whom all things were made (John 1:3). We can stop here and render a fair account of Catholicism, for if you allow that Jesus Christ is the source and summit of life, as willed by God the Father, then everything falls into place, and Catholicism makes perfect sense, centered as it is on the Holy Eucharist.

Whatever our personalities or politics, the color of our skin, our mortal history, all that we are is focused and attuned the point of origin that is made real in the Holy Eucharist. Whether at Mass or Adoration, and in all the writings of the old and new testaments and in sacred writings and the lives of the saints since then, all our efforts are drawn from the person of Jesus Christ as source, and all are directed toward Christ as the summit.

This perfect, eternal, shared origin - that incredibly knows each of our names and cares that we be saved, which is almost more than one can bear with equanimity - is non-topical, unabridgeable, and inexhaustible. Once fixed in your heart, once realized as truth, you cannot "move on" from Jesus Christ. There is nowhere to go, except to consider and adore the Holy Trinity in its perfect completeness, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three persons, one God. One origin. One purpose.

Now all this may sound very serious (or silly, if you are devoted to a merely empirical basis for truth-gathering) and it is serious. We endeavor to adore God in a suitable manner; we hope to emulate Christ. But more than that, all this is a cause of terrific interior thanksgiving and joy. I think we have Catholics who are challenged to take their own religion seriously, and we have ones who do not appear to be enjoying it at all. More commonly, every Catholic experiences some part of favoring obedience over ecstasy and vice versa one time or another. One therefore has to be wary of entrenchment, of becoming devoted not to God but to one's feelings in the matter of religion.

This can be challenging, but the error is as old as Adam & Eve, in that pride allows one to turn one's eyes aside from God (the source, the Holy Eucharist) and toward one's interior desires. "If God (my religion) makes me feel or think a certain way" one says to oneself "then that must be right." Well, maybe not quite. One is not right except as one does His will. We know this too. So, we are all bound by our humanity to make mistakes, to be distracted and nervous, taken up with thoughts and feelings that veer wildly hither and yon, etc. And all that is a great source of thanksgiving and joy too, I think, for it is how we are made.

There is nothing better for the soul than the search for truth, the discoveries and failure all mixed together. It shows a willing heart, a "natural heart," and what more could a father ask of his child?

Our origin is fixed, our purpose clear. The future unfolds bit by bit. Regardless of the news of the day, the origin remains unaltered and unalterable, yet alive to our present desires in fulfilling our purpose. An academic view of origins, or religion, is bound to miss this point, that the text is not yet concluded, that its resolution has yet to occur. I like an origin that does not stop at merely being. I like an origin that calls each of us, our personal selves, to participate its perfect conclusion.


Wednesday, July 5, 2017

Catholic (and Open) to Oneself

OpenCatholic. I see a problem in this term. While it supposes openness (a good thing) it also presumes Catholicity. Can I claim being "Catholic" so as to somehow represent it? Of course not. I can claim openness, and I can say I am Catholic (I am) but I have no authority to offer, rebuke, extol, beyond what's granted any person by dint of being Christian insofar as one (I) understand that term.

I suppose being open with being Catholic enjoins one to proclaim the Gospel in line with Catholic teaching. This I have done to the best of my ability. More so, being open seems to me to drive the issue: precisely because I am not inclined to merely recite dogma I am prompted to abide by a human heart.

If I were merely human I would be concerned with everything. Because I am Christian (as delineated by the Church) I am concerned that I love God and His creation above any other consideration, material, political, or personal. This is an abiding concern, the kind of deep, implicit feeling that underwrites lifetimes.

God is, however, a great humorist. I fall into worry and diligence (much lighter matters than real concern) and grow self-conscious. I pray the Rosary but I hesitate to write poems. I doubt myself and do nothing. I handle routines less and less happily as the well of Charity drains to muck and mire.

God is, happily, a great ironicist. I am granted fedupedness. I am allowed escape, and I write. The brain is untapped and the truth of who I am and where I am is made apparent on a computer screen as I write it out.

And so we are made alive again. OpenCatholic. Open to who we are, ourselves. Catholic, as confirmed by the Church, a living grace.

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

OpenCatholic: The Third Stage (including qualified insights and personal exhortations!)

There is a great danger in writing about the Catholic faith in that it is easy - very easy - to slip into heresy, or at least to make a colossal fool of oneself.  I don't know if the same danger applies to other religions - I suppose it would. Though what a Protestant heresy in our informed Age would look like passes me by somewhat...but I (purposefully) digress.....

Still the point is that heresy is bad. Very bad. It is a misdirection of the mind and the heart, of oneself and potentially anyone within earshot (or who reads blogs). Embraced, heresy is a mortal sin. So - in my religion, at least - that means eternal damnation, and I am not inclined to want to damn myself or others, you'll be glad to hear. You might say I am sensitive to heresy. So sensitive in fact that I have written very few blogs over the past several months as....well, let's back up a bit.

From my present perspective I perceive three stages in my life as a Catholic. In the initial stage I was filled with the Holy Spirit and battered about the world free of guile or worry or concern. I allowed myself to be led by the nose, as it were, by a renewed and uplifted heart. This is not the time to review the writings from that era, except to say: I apologize for whatever was stupid, and I take no credit for whatever was worthwhile.

In the second phase (now mercifully concluded. trust me.) I took care that my writing should conform to the precepts of the Church. I mean I took care to the point that I did not write much at all except to concern myself with the precepts of the Church. For this writing I again apologize. Not for what was wrong (though plenty was, I'm sure) but for sententiousness, pretentiousness, etc., while again taking no credit for what might have been not utterly damnable.

The third phase commences now.

I am happy and relieved that the third phase opens with an apology:  I wish I could do more right now than write this silly blog. But I am called to write as a beaver is called to gnaw on harmless trees, as the rain is called to moisten the earth to help grow harmless trees, etc., so I will do what I can to make all our time reading this profitable, but I will not over-concern myself with endeavoring to prove one point or another that has been proven already.

Rather than ratify, I will write. Those are two very different things, even for a Christian.

Without stating what others have stated better than I can ever state it (St. Paul, anyone?), without belaboring duty, mission, sacrifice, and truth, we can say with confidence that Christ charges us to live our lives transformed to his image, his form, his Way. Whatever one's precondition, one can scarcely glance at the parables and not wish to emulate the Lord. Well, what do I say to this? As a layperson, I say I have been granted as a pure, unmerited gift this very urge, to live my life, to be who I am, and yet in the image of God.

Pause a moment to consider this point. It is perhaps the most incredible assertion a person is capable of making. I mean that by the power of the Holy Spirit my life once lived for itself is lived for God and that by His grace I may be sanctified in this life and merit eternal life. Okay then!

But, what does this mean for OpenCatholic?

For one thing it means no fear. It means that if you believe in Christ then there is nothing to prevent you from opening yourself to the world, exactly as it is formed, to its culture, its politics, and throwing yourself at your life without the slightest hesitation. DO. NOT. FEAR. In practical terms, I have found that the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is an excellent guide for negotiating social and political issues. If you can't get to the CCC then trust the Pope or your priest. Ask questions! And when in doubt, GO WITH YOUR GUT! Your gut, your instincts, are transformed in Christ. You will make mistakes. So, confess those mistakes and ask God's forgiveness. You will do good. So, THANK GOD for his kindness.

TRUST GOD. If I wrote nothing else in my life than those two words I would consider my writing career justified. TRUST GOD. Who or what else merits your complete personal confidence?

Science? Oh, you mean that branch of human understanding that has been constantly evolving and still is every day? Hurrah for science (gift of God that it is) but it's nothing in which to put your trust.

Politics? HA HA HA HA OH MY GOD YOU MUST BE KIDDING. Sorry. I mean, yes, embrace politics for what you can do for yourself and others politically. But trust? Ummmmm, no. Recognize and employ, sure. But keep one hand on the trigger of prayer. (That my expression , by the way. If you use it I want credit. JUST KIDDING!)

Art? Okay, that's not fair. Really, you're hitting below the belt. Yes, you should trust yourself in art, or the occurrence and manifestation of art as a transformative, sublime experience. Buuuuut, you have got to delineate, right? The Brady Bunch ain't Band of Gypsies. I THINK I HAVE MADE MY POINT!

Family? Well that's a funny one. God is family, at least in my religion. We have a Father, a Son, and a presiding Spirit of Truth. And we have a Mother, give to us by God, from the Cross, The Blessed Virgin, Mary. So, yeah. Believe in family. Believe HARD in family.

And in everything, pause and reflect. The big picture does not fail. Reach for it, then reach higher, and when in doubt ask for help from the saints who surround you or from the source and summit. It's your call. Live, love, move, and do not be dissuaded from the truth.

The peace of Christ be with you.

Saturday, April 29, 2017

Union and the Political Heart

Fifty-eight years on earth and five years in the Church and I've learned some things.

There is nothing wrong with being politically conservative. The challenge is to be merciful as well as obedient.
There is nothing wrong with being politically liberal. The challenge is to be obedient as well as merciful.

We can't say that obedience and mercy are at odds because they are unified and perfected in the person of Jesus Christ. We can't say that in our time they are impossible to reconcile, not unless we wish to rid ourselves of the promise and the reward of being Christian: eternal life.

Can we ask, what is eternal life? Put another way, can we view eternal life in the light of conflict or at least challenges in our daily life? We can say that eternal life, when merited, is union with the will of God in whom mercy and obedience are perfectly reconciled. Because we know that God is perfect and has promised us eternal life if we are obedient to his will and merciful as He is merciful, we know that mercy and obedience, obedience and mercy, are reconcilable.

This gives one pause or it should. It certainly puts our political and reactive/reactionary tendencies to shame.

Or it should.

Or maybe not.

There are worse things in life than living it well, in fighting for what you believe in, making mistakes along the way. Apologizing, learning, fighting some more. Erring yet again. Carrying on. trying harder. Falling. Picking yourself up. Saying you're sorry. Arguing some more. Et cetera....

Christ fell three times on the way to Calvary. We can expect to fall, fall, and fall, again and again. So this blog is not a lesson about how easy to reconcile mercy and obedience. It isn't easy at all, and we have political parties that prove getting everyone to agree is a very difficult task. But that is no reason to despair. Our faith is nothing if not dynamic, a living faith, a whirlwind of joy and sadness, epiphany and despair.

So be merciful that you may come to question your obedience. Be obedient that you may wonder at mercy. Strive that you may live to fall, fall again and again. And never lose faith in the will of God. Never lose your heart.

Sunday, March 19, 2017

Writing, content

Occasionally I have an idea for a blog entry, an essay, or a poem. I think about the idea, toss it around mentally, but I never sit down to write it out. After a while, a day or two, the idea submerges or slides off stage - pick your metaphor for quiet disappearance - and life goes on. I am aware that I am letting an idea pass. I watch myself letting the idea dies out, "at least for the time being," I say to myself, and I am unconcerned. There may be a tinge of regret as I recall when my life seemed to hinge on the next thing written, but those days are past. I no longer depend on what I write.

I've taken to believing that a thing, if true, written or not, remains true. I have always held that only true things matter for writing and that writing matters for revealing the truth. I still believe this, that the effort of writing is a critical one for for the well-being and salvation of the human race and of ourselves as individuals. I believe this. I also believe that all truth is connected at the source of truth which is God. So, the truth that is writing is connected to the truth that is love, to the truth that is kindness, to the truth of eternal law.

I have worked hard over the last several years to live in truth; for my behavior and dealings with others and toward myself to be truthful. I've had to understand and change some things about myself. This is an ongoing process. And there are times when I recognize thoughts and feelings I have not had for many years, even since I was a child.

I am happier now than I have ever been. Writing is different though. Writing is not, as it was for many years, even decades, the solitary device which saved my life and brought me to the world. All parts of my life have this value now. In light of this, what should my writing be? What can it do to justify itself?

I would like to write in such a way that maintains silence. I would like to write is such a way that the reader is affected but not swayed. I want the reader to think first and foremost about themselves. I would like the reader, while he or she is reading this writing, to be able to think about themselves better, more clearly. I would like the reader, when they have finished reading, to be thinking about themselves rather than me or my name. I would like a kind of writing where I disappear from the reader.

I do not know what this writing would look like or even whether it exists or can exist, but that is what my writing would have to look like for me to want to create it. That is what it would have to be to make an impression on me in the life I currently live, if I'm going to be honest about it.

And why not be honest about it? Until I am capable of writing that makes sense for where I am now, am I not bound to be content with my life as a whole? And even if I were able to produce this writing, would not the same conditions apply?

I no longer depend on what I write but on how I live my life as a whole. I think this frees me up as a writer, whether I write or not. It certainly frees me up as a reader. I read more and with less concern for myself (as a writer) than as a person receiving another's work. I enjoy hearing new work at poetry readings. Anything is fine with me. But I like also reading old favorites, Robert Lowell in particular. Walking familiar roads and seeing things afresh, with a more generous, open heart.

I really have no idea what's next for me in writing, or painting, or anything of that nature. I am strangely content (and a little excited) waiting to see, turning ideas over in my mind only to watch them fade and disappear. It's a pleasant sadness, the notion that does not adhere, this qualified peace.

Saturday, February 11, 2017

Seriously Catholic: Seriously Open

This Easter I will have been five years in the Church. In August of 2012 I set up and published my first blog for OpenCatholic and have been publishing steadily since then. The OpenCatholic idea boils down to sharing something you love with people you love and it has remained steady in that focus even as I and the world have changed. This blog is after all a form of evangelization. I use this platform to declare the Christian faith. There is nothing special or different in what I do here. I am not remarkable; my faith is. And so I use this platform to show evidence of how my faith works upon me and the world in various ways.

Faith is experienced in two ways. One can write about one's interior experience or one can write about exterior experiences. Interior experience might go under the heading of Personal Revelation, or Conversion; exterior experiences under that of Good Works. These modes of operating as a Christian often inform each other, such as when one is called to perform good works, or when an experience leads to conversion. I am interested in how we travel from the interior to the exterior and back again - that is, in what we do with our Christianity; and more so, I am interested in the ways we reach out from ourselves to others, either by helping or allowing ourselves to be helped. This is where OpenCatholic places itself, in the space between the Catholic and the non-Catholic while attempting to cover what is exclusive to both individuals as well as shared ground. OpenCatholic is therefore both evangelical and inclusive, or it aims to be so.

It's a tricky proposition, but a Christian one, I believe. One must reach out to spread the news. One cannot speak unless one is willing to listen. One cannot listen without respecting what a person has to say. What we say of persons applies to cultures. If we generalize negatively about culture then we have no standing to object when others generalize negatively about the Catholic Church. There is no point to stating various truths if all it does is make us feel good about ourselves for having issued those statements. Hearts must be opened, but if our hearts and minds are closed to the world around us - then who, pray tell, is in need of conversion?

The answer, some might say, is that all are in need of continuing conversion, but that position does not quite suffice if one holds that the Catholic Church should lead the way. The Catholic Church must demonstrate and continue to demonstrate care and concern for all people. That is the message of Pope Francis, the Pope of Mercy, and it is one I agree with wholeheartedly. It is interesting that I entered the Church and started the OpenCatholic blog before Francis became Pope. Perhaps there was something in the wind (or in the Spirit) at the time. Pope Francis, the head of the Catholic Church, offers an inclusive, non-judgmental approach to the world, its people and its cultures. By the grace of God I hope I do the same here in these pages and in my life. It was always my intention to do so at least. Over the past couple years I have focused on the faith itself in order to better understand it, and that has been rewarding. But now, given the turn of the world and our nation, the intent of OpenCatholic has been made practically relevant. There is no conceivable defense for isolationism or protectionism in our faith. We must  go forth and announce in word and deed the Gospel of the Lord to a chaotic, confusing, heart-rending, yet joyous, jubilant, wonderful world where the only promise is our eternal salvation. With that promise come obligations.

And those are obligations I take quite seriously.