The Fever Chart

"Our only health is the disease / If we obey the dying nurse …"

Occupy America!

This image was first published in 1971, and apart from a specific reference to napalm is as relevant today as it was then. More so, because hunger is making a BIG comeback in the United States right now (not that it ever really went away). The US Department of Agriculture estimates that 17.4 million families are now “food insecure,” which means that “during any given month, they will be out of money, out of food, and forced to miss meals or seek assistance to feed themselves.” Those families include an estimated one in four American children and millions of senior citizens. And yet, we continue to spend $10 billion a week in Iraq and Afghanistan – you do remember that we’re at war, don’t you? – and more on “defense” and “national security” than the rest of the world combined. We’ve spent hundreds of billions bailing out banks and corporations, and now we’re spending hundreds of billions more purchasing our own debt. Meanwhile, wealthy and popular men like Herman Cain look down their noses and blame the hungry for their hunger.

How far we are from the Kingdom of God. How perverse and twisted our affections. How hollow and loveless our ideologies. How ridiculous our diversions and pretenses. How pathetic our justifications for letting our brothers and sisters languish. May God have mercy on us. We’re going to need it.

(Thanks to Sojourners for the image and the inspiration)

The Fire This Time

Driving through Watch Hill, a wealthy neighborhood perched atop a promontory that juts out into the Atlantic Ocean from the town of Westerly, Rhode Island, one might be forgiven for thinking that all is well in the Republic. Here, handsome families stroll the covered walkways of the village, past high-end realtors’ offices, upscale gift shops, and charming restaurants. Expensive sail and motor boats bob on their moorings in the cove, including one waterborne behemoth with an enormous, arching flybridge and a helicopter landing pad. In one corner of the main drag, children squeal as the Flying Horse Carousel stirs to life, the way it has thousands of times every summer since 1876. At the nearby St. Clair Annex, adults and kids alike wrestle with top-heavy ice cream cones beneath patriotic bunting. Around the corner from the Annex, on the private Watch Hill Beach, the privileged and their progeny luxuriate in the shade of canvas cabanas, splash about in the low surf, or sashay along the shore toward the mile-long dune of Napatree Point. A subdued sunlight lies warm on the skin. The skirls of seagulls and the muttering of well-tuned auto engines compete with gentle pipe organ melodies and the background hum of crashing waves. Every sense seems to confirm that Watch Hill and the world around it is a peaceful, orderly, and happy place.

But on this day storm clouds loom to the north, above the palatial homes and barbered lawns on the bluff. As I pull into a parking spot on Bay St., a dark line of shadow moves across the promontory, past the elegant Ocean House, and races down the steep slope into the village. Just as the midday darkness envelopes the scene, a low drumroll of thunder sounds and a strong wind sweeps up the boulevard, rattling cafe umbrellas and upending baseball caps. At once, the happy faces disappear, replaced by disbelieving glances aimed at the traitorous sky. A moment later, when the first sharp crack of thunder announces the arrival of rain, those faces turn to worry, then frustration, and finally, anger. Within minutes, the lovely late summer scene has been swept away, as wind and rain batter the covered walks and expensive shops, egged on by heaving waves that have appeared in the cove.

In America, the leading edge of a storm far worse than the one that inconvenienced those happy crowds in Watch Hill is now bearing down on us. The fast-moving shadows of the past thirty years – the accumulation of public and private debt, the overextension of empire, our addiction to oil and abuse of the planet – are giving way to the full cyclonic fury of collapse. In 2008, when the first shadows raced across the body politic, the face of America was painted with disbelief and worry, as one institution of American capitalism after another collapsed in a welter of mismanagement, criminal hubris, and outright fraud. By the summer of 2011, with the nation teetering on the brink of a deflationary depression, zombified state and local governments lurching toward bankruptcy, and hot wars in at least five foreign lands, the face of America is turning from frustration to anger, and that anger may itself soon be transformed into an unfocused, irrational rage. Despite what the acolytes of our national civil religion believe, the United States does not hold an exemption from history and human nature. Time and again, both here and elsewhere, conditions of social crisis have given rise to violence against marginal or minority populations.

____________________________________

“When human groups divide and become fragmented, during a period of malaise and conflicts, they may come to a point where they are reconciled again at the expense of a victim. Observers nowadays realize without difficulty, unless they belong to the persecuting group, that this victim is not really responsible for what he or she is accused of doing. The accusing group, however, views the victim as guilty, by virtue of a contagion similar to what we find in scapegoat rituals. The members of this group accuse their ‘scapegoat’ with great fervor and sincerity. More often than not some incident, whether fantastic or trivial, has triggered a wave of opinion against this victim, a mild version of mimetic snowballing and the victim mechanism.” – Rene Girard, from “I See Satan Fall Like Lightning”

Rene Girard’s Mimetic Theory provides rich insights into the conditions that incubate scapegoating and other manifestations of individual and group violence. Very briefly, Girard finds mimesis, or imitation, at the heart of human motivation and behavior, and especially the mystery of violence. Mimesis manifests most intensely in the imitation of desire. The classic example is a child placed alone in a room full of toys. The child will invariably play with one, then another, then another, without any particular attachment to or passion for any of them. But place a second child in the room, and the toy that child picks up, even half-heartedly, will become an object of intense desire for the first child, which will in turn awaken an inexplicable desire for the toy in the child holding it. The result is a contagion of rivalry and conflict. Examples like this one, both prosaic and profound, saturate the literature and history of humankind (not to mention clinical texts). This ubiquity has led Girard to conclude that the mimetic contagion is a fundamental anthropological and psychological constant. We “catch” desire from one another.

The acquisitive gesture, rooted in mimetic desire – “MINE!” – doesn’t occur only in a child’s playroom, of course. It can be detected at every level of human interaction, from the intensely personal to the macrosocial. And yet, without some means of modulating or at least channeling imitative desire, the human race would have long ago destroyed itself in a rivalrous bellum omnium contra omnes. It turns out that the acquisitive gesture has a correlate that is equally powerful and subject to mimetic contagion: The accusatory gesture: “HIM!” Girard has shown that in conditions of widespread social conflict and violence, an accusatory gesture aimed at a representative third party can shift the direction and momentum of mimetic contagion at breakneck speed. When the “MINE!” becomes a “HIM!” the Hobbesian war of all against all is nearly instantly transformed into a war of all against one. Suddenly, all the rivalry and division that had hitherto threatened the survival of the social unit is dissolved into a state of “unanimity minus one.” All the frustration, guilt, sin and violent energy of the group is poured out on the hapless victim, the scapegoat, in what Robert Hamerton-Kelly has termed the “generative mimetic scapegoating mechanism” (GMSM).

What the GMSM “generates” is a renewed social solidarity, purpose and even personal righteousness. It is mimetic in the sense that the accusatory rage is passed like a contagion from person to person at breakneck speed. It is a mechanism because it is a system composed on multiple parts orientated toward a definite purpose: the shedding of social frustration, anger and resentment. Girard has shown that in archaic societies, scapegoating events resulted in a sense of social harmony so powerful and transformative that they were experienced religiously. Not surprisingly, these signal events then became the basis of most tribal founding myths, complete with the transfiguration of human victims into monsters, animals, even competing (and lesser) gods. And when priests and shamans discovered that sacrificial reenactments of the original act of violence could yield the same sacral solidarity first experienced by the community, those reenactments became the basis of archaic religion and human culture.

Over two millennia, the efficacy of the GMSM has been attenuated to some degree by the influence of the Judeo-Christian scriptures, and especially the Christian gospels. The GMSM is efficient only in the degree to which the innocence of its victims is occluded by myth or, in modern application, ideology. But the gospels undermine that efficiency by inculcating an inescapable sense of identification with victims. Jesus, the “lamb slain from the foundation of the world,” is a type of all the innocent victims of mob violence. His crucifixion appears, at least on the surface, to be just another in a long line of scapegoating events. In fact, it’s intended to be just that, or as Caiaphas says while plotting Christ’s death, “it is better than one man should die than that the whole people perish.” But Jesus is not like other victims. In addition to the structural innocence he shares with them, Jesus possesses an actual innocence, a divine goodness, so profound and transparent that the Roman soldier, seeing Christ being taken down from the cross, is moved to confess that “truly, this was an innocent man.” Girard demonstrates that this realization is an utterly unique cultural event. Even if one accepts the gospels as literature only (which was Girard’s position when he made this discovery), there is no question that the implications for conventional human culture and religion are fundamental.

But that challenge is not without cost. By revealing the innocence of victims, the gospel robs society of its ability to efficiently restore social harmony swiftly and efficiently through the GMSM: “I come not to bring peace, but a sword.” As Gil Bailie, one of Girard’s most important and original interpreters, has written:

“The gospel revelation could not overturn conventional culture abruptly, and mercifully it has not … Attempts to destroy the sacrificial or scapegoating structures of culture always proceed in a scapegoating and sacrificial manner. To put it in New Testament terms, Satan is always casting our Satan. The gospel revelation, on the contrary, undermines these structures by deconstructing their justifying myths and awakening a concern for their victims that gradually renders these structures morally unacceptable and socially counterproductive … Those [societies] living closer to the gospel’s epicenter – beginning with Christianity itself – are more likely to experience its cultural destabilizing effects than those at a greater distance from it.” -Gil Bailie, from “Violence Unveiled”

Saturation in the Christian ethos doesn’t diminish either the ubiquity of sinfulness in general or of sinful recourse to the GMSM in particular. For evidence, look no further than the two great European killing grounds of the 20th Century –Russia and Germany– which had been Christian for 1,000 and 1,200 years, respectively, when they detoured into the madness of mechanized mass murder.

But proximity to the Christian ethos does change the character of the GMSM, and that is a danger we must be particularly alert to now that we are entering a period of profound social dislocation in the United States. In the myths of archaic religion, original acts of violence were often presented as a defense of the people against overt assaults by a monsters, demons, or gods. In a nominally Christian context, the GMSM requires different kinds of myths, myths that justify violence in terms of retributive justice, often against an enemy who is perceived to have already caused grievous injury to society, often surreptitiously. The accusatory gesture is often refashioned as a sword of justice, and the result is the victimization of those perceived to be victimizers.

In the United States, periods of great social dislocation have long given rise to racist and nativist movements that cast accusatory gestures at groups purported to have “caused” contemporaneous social and economic problems. If, for the purposes of this discussion, we set aside the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans and the 250-year enslavement of Africans, which had different ideological and even theological sources, we can easily detect the distinctive working of the GMSM at three critical and chaotic junctures in American history: the post-Civil War Reconstruction period in the South; the Progressive Era, when the nation was faced with a massive influx of immigrants and the Great Migration of two million southern blacks into northern cities; and the 1950′s and 60′s, when the Civil Rights and anti-war movements, following hot on the heels of the Red Scare, upended comfortable American assumptions about race, rights, and civic obligation. It is no accident that these periods in American history correspond perfectly to the life-cycle of such organizations as the Ku Klux Klan, which was born in the Reconstruction South, revived in the 1920′s and 30′s, when it claimed over 4 million members, and revived again in the post-WWII era. Because of its Southern origins, the Klan is most often associated with violence against African-Americans, but for most of its history the organization has cast a wider net. In addition to blacks, and along with allied organizations such as the German-American Bund and the John Birch Society, the Klan distributed its rage among Catholics (the Jesuits, Papal domination), Jews (Masonry, the Illuminati, the Bilderbergers, and the Trilateral Commission), Hispanics (illegal immigration), and ideological minorities, real or imagined (Socialism!).

In his landmark 1964 Harper’s Magazine article, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” social scientist Richard Hofstadter noted that scapegoating and conspiracy thinking are the product of a profound sense of dispossession, a feeling that the social and moral bedrock of a people has been or is being undermined. Here is his précis of the paranoid catalogue of evils in 1964. Note how closely it parallels the same complaints heard today:

”The old American virtues have already been eaten away by cosmopolitans and intellectuals; the old competitive capitalism has been gradually undermined by socialistic and communistic schemers; the old national security and independence have been destroyed by treasonous plots, having as their most powerful agents not merely outsiders and foreigners as of old but major statesmen who are at the very centers of American power.”

It is said that sometimes even paranoids have real enemies. And there is no question that wrenching social change is a constant feature of the dynamism that makes a nation like the United States a nation like the United States! The perception of dispossession, of the loss of old ways and moral certainties, is not a chimera. The United States in the 1920′s was, in fact, a radically different country than it had been in 1880, before massive waves of migration and immigration. In the 1950’s and 60′s there was a great dispossession, especially of the Southern middle class, as federal law was deployed to break a system of apartheid that had prevailed for 100 years. Today, concerns about employment, debt, resource scarcity, climate change, illegal immigration and international conflict are wholly legitimate. But the answer to these problems is not the cultivation of conspiratorial fantasies about their origin, nor, worse, the sacrificial measures some imply as remedies.

In the past few years, we’ve witnessed the video mugging of Shirley Sherrod by Andrew Breitbart; the Manchurian Baby ravings of Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX); the spectacle of US Senators proposing a change to the 14th Amendment that would deny citizenship to selected (read: people with Mexican parents) persons born in the United States; Dr. Laura Schlesinger gleefully repeating the word “nigger” again and again in conversation with an African-American caller; Sarah Palin “tweeting” her support for Dr. Laura, writing “don’t retreat … reload,” whatever that means; a GOP candidate for New York governor proposing “prison dorms” for the poor; claims by agitators like Glenn Beck that the unemployed are mere slackers milking the public teat; the demonization, egged on by Newt Gingrich and others, of American citizens over plans to build an Islamic cultural center near the former World Trade Center site; an evangelical church in Florida planning a mass Koran burning to commemorate September 11; and news that one-fifth of Americans believe President Obama is secretly a Muslim, including a member of the Republican National Committee who insists that the President inadvertently revealed his true identity during his Egypt trip in June 2009. And, in the background, there is the growing though underreported national phenomenon of violence directed against Mexican and Central American immigrants (or those taken for Mexicans).

Fifty years ago the scapegoats were intellectuals, communists and Jews. One hundred years ago they were Catholics, Jews, and blacks. Today, Mexicans, Muslims, African-Americans, and the poor are increasingly the substitutionary victims of choice – the scapegoats – in a nation where the combination of unemployment, underemployment and abandonment of the labor market is reaching to 25% and where those who remain employed feel the hot breath of layoffs or business failure on their necks. It matters not that these communities had little or nothing to do with the crisis in which we find ourselves. As Rene Girard has shown, the actual innocence or guilt of victims is always beside the point. It is their narrative guilt that counts because narrative is the fuel that stirs the accusatory gesture, and by extension the GMSM, to life.

The real source of victim substitutions is the appetite for violence that awakens in people when anger seizes them and when the true object of their anger is untouchable. The range of objects capable of satisfying the appetite for violence enlarges proportionally to the intensity of the anger.” -Rene Girard, “I Saw Satan Fall Like Lightning”

____________________________________

So, who or what is the “true object” of the anger welling up from the American body politic in the late summer of 2011? What “untouchable” figure or force is responsible for our dire predicament? My answer would be similar to that offered by G.K. Chesterton when the Times of London sponsored an essay contest on the question, “What is wrong with the world?” Chesterton’s brief, two-word essay read simply,

“I am.”

The United States is now a zombie nation not because of something that Muslims, Mexicans, African-Americans, or the poor have done, but because it is filled with 310 million zombies, spiritual corpses who give the appearance of life, but are filled with “dead men’s bones and every kind of impurity.”

This is the most disconcerting answer of them all, and the real reason why the “true object of [our] anger is untouchable.” In our pride and sinfulness we spurn the truth about ourselves and our country. As a result, the one thing we refuse to do at all costs is examine ourselves, each of us, and question our contributions to the disintegration we see around us. That was true in the bellum omnium contra omnes – the war of all against all – in primitive societies, and it is true today. And yet, we, all of us, are the source of our present discontent and the collapse that may be upon us. And it starts with me.

I am the one who intoned the pious litanies of personal responsibility while piling up mountains of personal and public debt.

It was me who bought into the destructive ideology of finance capitalism that is now drilling out the marrow of our middle and working classes.

I threw family farmers off their land. I shuttered factories across the Midwest and sent those jobs overseas.

I erected the global military empire that is now crumbling beneath our feet.

I am the one who marched into country after country, killing hundreds of thousands, all the while congratulating myself that the United States is a peace loving nation.

I am the one who loudly insisted on my commitment to the dignity of human life while aborting my children, engaging in pre-emptive war, torturing my enemies and punishing lethal violence with lethal violence.

I made a mockery out of marriage, fidelity, love and self-restraint.

I flocked to preachers and gurus who tickled my ears and told me that the only life worth living is one defined by personal enrichment and self-fulfillment, even at the expense of others.

I abused the earth and refused to accept limits on my consumptive lifestyle.

I elected and re-elected those who would give me what I want and demand nothing in return.

I am the one who exports pornography and weapons of death to the rest of the world and receives resentment and hatred in return.

It was me who declared my great love of God but abandoned the poor, the elderly, and the young to the streets or the tender mercies of the bureaucratic state.

But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! – II Timothy 3: 1-5

So what is the answer? We know who to blame and who not to blame. But what do we do about it? Do we sit on the beach like some Pacific cargo cult, lighting pyres, hoping to lure Ronald Reagan back over the horizon with a boatload of Morning in America? God forbid. Do we retreat into armed enclaves and gated communities, ready to fend off the intruder, the outsider? No. That would only mean doubling down on what we’ve been doing already. Do we abandon the idea of personal liberty and turn our fate over to the National Security State, the Nanny State or the Corporate State? We’ve already been down that road.

No, the solution to our problems can be found in one word: conversion. Conversion will not improve the GDP, put people back to work, or protect us from nuclear terrorism, but conversion will save us as a people.

Staining the Silence

This is my second “guest post” at the Catholic group blog, Vox Nova. It appeared on July 6, 2011.

For my second “guest post” here at Vox Nova, I had originally intended to write on one of several subjects that have claimed my interest lately, such as the application of Catholic Social Teaching to the rebuilding of local economies. I also considered offering a reflection on one of my favorite devotional books. I thought maybe something on de Caussade’s “Abandonment” or da Bergamo’s “Humility of Heart” might be appropriate.

But life has a way of hammering the cruelest twists into our finely wrought plans. You see, last week a close relative of mine was in a one-car motor vehicle accident. Worse, she was over the legal limit for alcohol. Worse still, it was her second DUI in nine months and she now faces jail time, heavy fines, and many years without a driver’s license. As has happened so often before, the disease that lurks in her mind like a caged beast has broken its bars and ravaged her hopes for a different, better life.

A confession: For the past three years I have only been able to muster one prayer. It is offered for a select few people in my life and goes like this: “Guide and protect them, O Lord. Keep them healthy in mind and body. Kindle in them the fire of your love, and give them peace.” I first composed this prayer when my son went off to fight in Iraq, during the so-called “surge” of 2007. At first I prayed specifically for his safe return; but it soon occurred to me that prayers for safe returns had been offered by thousands – tens of thousands – of parents whose children had come back from Iraq or Afghanistan maimed or dead. What right did I have to ask that my son be spared? More to the point, could I even believe in a God who might answer my prayer while ignoring the pleas of all those others? And so, I stopped asking. Instead, I composed the most generic of prayers – one that has as much to do with a disposition of heart as with the circumstances of life and death.

My son did return safely, only to go back once more and return safely yet again. He served honorably in a dishonorable war, and came back whole. Was it grace or luck? Should I thank God, or thank my lucky stars? I didn’t know then and today I’m no closer to the answer. I do know that I’m still praying that prayer. But this week, in the wake of another loved one’s brush with death, I’ve had to ask the grace-luck question all over again, including its implications for the proper allocation of my very real thankfulness. In this morning’s newspaper, there’s a story about a young man who was killed last night in a one-car auto accident. Was anyone praying for him? Was anyone protecting him? Was his death just bad luck or some awful form of grace? If I give thanks to God for saving my family member’s life, does another family have the right to assign him the blame for their crushing loss?

I know that the Scripture calls us to “give thanks in all things,” and that “my ways are not your ways.” I also know that the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike, and that “there is an appointed hour for everything.” No one gets out of here alive. But in between the sunshine and the rain, in the decades or moments before those appointed hours, there are questions. There are even doubts. Most of us don’t have the time, the capacity, or the will to dive deeply into scholarly debates about theodicy and the interplay between free will and grace. We collapse into bed after long, busy days. We think about work, food, sex, family, and the bills. We read when we can, pray when we’re able, and mouth easy answers not because we believe them, but precisely because they are easy. We take the questions that flummox philosophers and set them aside; at least until we’re confronted with the reality that life is far more complex than we would like to think. I am confronting that reality this week, and I’m sorry to say I have no real or satisfying answers.

In moments like this, I often find solace – or at least simple companionship – in poetry. This week, my companion has been a poem by Mark Jarman titled “Five Psalms,”which reads in part:

First forgive the silence
That answers prayer,
Then forgive the prayer
That stains the silence.

Excuse the absence
That feels like presence,
Then excuse the feeling
That insists on presence.

Pardon the delay
Of revelation,
Then ask pardon for revealing
Your impatience.

Forgive God
For being only a word,
Then ask God to forgive
The betrayal of language.

Catholic Citizenship and the “Dorothy Option”

My first “guest post” at the Catholic group blog, Vox Nova, appeared on June 17, 2011.

Last Monday’s Republican debate at St. Anselm’s College in New Hampshire was billed by CNN as the first major event of the 2012 presidential campaign. The choice of a Benedictine institution was weirdly appropriate because the debate also kicked off our quadrennial Catholic scrap over electoral politics. A year from now, the battle will be fully engaged. The two camps will have emerged from their respective quarters to savage each other on the deck of the ship of state, contending for control of the rudder, seeking to define each other down the plank and into the Davy Jones Locker of American Church history.

“Conservatives” and Republicans will come armed with abortion, ESCR, and gay marriage. They’ll hurl accusations of indifference to the unborn and the sanctity of marriage. They’ll intone “SOCIALISM” at every turn, and warn darkly of hidden agendas aimed at remaking the Church in the image of MoveOn.org. “Liberals” and Democrats will come armed with war and torture, capital punishment, and market idolatry. They’ll hurl accusations of indifference to the poor, the sick, and the marginalized. They’ll intone “CORPORATIONS” at every turn, and warn darkly of hidden agendas aimed at remaking the Church in the image of the Tea Party. Both sides will engage in hand-to-hand combat over the meaning and application of terms like “intrinsic evil,” “remote cooperation,” and “prudential judgment,” all the while accusing their opponents of distortion, dishonesty, or simple ignorance. Then, on Election Day + 1, winners will celebrate the return or arrival of truth and justice, while the vanquished will foretell dire calamities soon to be visited on the land.

I used to engage in these war games, and enjoyed watching others engage in them. I fought under the conviction that the soul of the Church – at least in America – was being contested. Don’t get me wrong: my intent is not to trivialize or dismiss either the importance of the issues contested or the legitimate passions of the contestants. It is true that from a Catholic perspective there is a fundamental problem with a party that aggressively supports both the killing of the unborn and a revolutionary redefinition of marriage. And it is also true that from that same perspective there is a fundamental problem with a party that aggressively seeks to dismantle the social safety net in the name – acknowledged or not – of a Darwinian economic ideology, and which uncritically celebrates war, torture, and empire.

The deeper I drove into the authentic teaching of the Church and its implications for living as both citizen and Christian, the less satisfied I became with limitations of a binary political system defined by Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative. In fact, over time I came to see that the system isn’t binary at all, but unitary, with two distinct but ultimately complimentary and mutually supporting modes of expression. Moreover, I came to the conviction that neither mode is adequate to channel the radical demands imposed upon us by the Gospel. The Democratic and Republican parties are two dead ends in the same blind alley; but the essential problem isn’t the parties themselves at all. At the heart of the issue is what the Servant of God Dorothy Day called “this filthy, rotten system” itself.

And so, I recommend the “Dorothy Option.” Eschew both parties. Refuse to participate in their rigged game of electoral politics. Refuse to fight their wars. Pack a lifeboat with as many people as you can and row away from the ship of state and the staged battle being waged on its deck. The ship is going down anyway, and it will take all the partisans and courtiers from both parties with it. Are you a Catholic Tea Partier, sick of government debt and hubris? You should be, but you should also understand that government and the parties that serve it were captured, whole and entire, by their corporate co-conspirators a long time ago. Are you a Catholic MoveOn member, tired of corporate control of the political process? You should be, but you should also understand that the American government was designed to serve commercial interests above all else, and it always will.

The “Dorothy Option” is not about retreating into isolated enclaves like Ave Maria, Florida, or indulging in the kind of spiritual navel-gazing that so often marks New Age and fundamentalist Christian communities. Instead, it means a deeper, more radical engagement with the world through a life centered on service to the poor and marginalized. It also means resistance – including the use of non-violent civil disobedience – against systems that generate violence or offend the dignity of the human person. Dorothy was no socialist. She mistrusted the concentration of state power and even opposed the erection of a bureaucratic welfare state, which she thought was violent at its core and dehumanizing in its effects. But, of course, she was no capitalist either. She equally mistrusted private concentrations of power, especially corporations, which she believed commodified human persons and impoverished the many for the sake of a few.

Instead, Dorothy sought to live the Gospel in all its dimensions, without having to shoehorn the Faith into one party or another, or put it at the service of a system she saw as sinful. And she lived her convictions. The Catholic Worker communities founded by Day and Peter Maurin embraced voluntary poverty. They never registered as “tax exempt” organizations. They never sought government or corporate grants. They never charged more than $.01 for the newspaper they published. When it was time to march in protest, they marched. When it was time to be carted off to jail, they went peacefully. When it was time to feed the poor, they started ladling until the soup was gone. Dorothy even famously returned to the City of New York a check for interest on the forced sale of a Worker property, explaining in a cover letter that the Church has always taught against the taking of interest. Her conclusion to that letter is as succinct a description of the “Dorothy Option” as one could hope to find: “Please also be assured that we are not judging individuals, but are trying to make a judgment on the system under which we live and with which we admit that we ourselves compromise daily in many small ways, but which we try and wish to withdraw from as much as possible.”

Taking the “Dorothy Option” is difficult, and I’ll admit to compromising “daily in many small ways,” although I am trying. One way we can begin is by deciding to think like Catholics, not conservatives or liberals; by deciding to live like Christians, not Republicans or Democrats, or even Americans. We can begin by refusing to fight with one another, and by choosing to see identification with either party, and indeed with the system they both serve, as the cooperation with evil that it is.

“Five Psalms,” by Mark Jarman

1.
Let us think of God as a lover
Who never calls,
Whose pleasure in us is aroused
In unrepeatable ways,
God as a body we cannot
Separate from desire,
Saying to us, “Your love
Is only physical.”
Let us think of God as a bronze
With green skin
Or a plane that draws the eye close
To the texture of paint.
Let us think of God as life,
A bacillus or virus,
As death, an igneous rock
In a quartz garden.
Then, let us think of kissing
God with the kisses
Of our mouths, of lying with God,
As sea worms lie,
Snugly petrifying
In their coral shirts.
Let us think of ourselves
As part of God,
Neither alive nor dead,
But like Alpha, Omega,
Glyphs and hieroglyphs,
Numbers, data.

2.
First forgive the silence
That answers prayer,
Then forgive the prayer
That stains the silence.

Excuse the absence
That feels like presence,
Then excuse the feeling
That insists on presence.

Pardon the delay
Of revelation,
Then ask pardon for revealing
Your impatience.

Forgive God
For being only a word,
Then ask God to forgive
The betrayal of language.

3.
God of the Syllable
God of the Word
God Who Speaks to Us
God Who Is Dumb

The One God The Many
God the Unnameable
God of the Human Face
God of the Mask

God of the Gene Pool
Microbe Mineral
God of the Sparrow’s Fall
God of the Spark

God of the Act of God
Blameless Jealous
God of Surprises
And Startling Joy

God Who Is Absent
God Who Is Present
God Who Finds Us
In Our Hiding Places

God Whom We Thank
Whom We Forget to Thank
Father God Mother
Inhuman Infant

Cosmic Chthonic
God of the Nucleus
Dead God Living God
Alpha God Zed

God Whom We Name
God Whom We Cannot Name
When We Open Our Mouths
With the Name God Word God

4.
The new day cancels dread
And dawn forgives all sins,
All the judgments of insomnia,
As if they were only dreams.

The ugly confrontation
After midnight, with the mirror,
Turns white around the edges
And burns away like frost.

Daylight undoes gravity
And lightness responds to the light.
The new day lifts all weight,
Like stepping off into space.

Where is that room you woke to,
By clock-light, at 3 a.m.?
Nightmare’s many mansions,
Falling, have taken it with them.

The new day, the day’s newness,
And the wretchedness that, you thought,
Would never, never depart,
Meet—and there is goodbye.

A bad night lies ahead
And a new day beyond that—
A simple sequence, but hard
To remember in the right order.

5.
Lord of dimensions and the dimensionless,
Wave and particle, all and none,

Who lets us measure the wounded atom,
Who lets us doubt all measurement,

When in this world we betray you
Let us be faithful in another.

Catholic Placemaking: “Econogenesis”

Is it possible to create whole-places that are resilient, sustainable, and human-scaled, and which combine widely distributed property ownership with an overarching concern for the common good? These aims, which are informed by and cohere with Catholic Social Teaching (CST), are the goals of a new theoretical paradigm for placemaking and economic development that my business partner, Fred Presley, and I term Econogenesis─ literally, the creation of an economy.

Econogenesis is still an intellectual medley of particular ideas and approaches, including the “economic gardening” model pioneered in Littleton, CO; the “enterprise facilitation” of Ernesto Sirolli (Ripples on the Zambezi); Muhammad Yunus’s ideas on microfinance and microcredit; elements of Distributism, the “third way” economic system; a whole lot of Jane Jacobs and the New Urbanism movement; the “small is beautiful” work of E. F. Schumacher; and Peter Senge’s ideas on “the learning organization.” There are dashes of Richard Florida, Fritjof Capra, Richard David Hames and Donella Meadows in the mix, too! And, of course, the CST principles of solidarity, subsidiarity, the dignity of the human person and the primacy of the common good provide the background radiation for this entire paradigm.

Although Econogenesis is still nascent, we believe it already contradicts conventional thinking about economic development, which views natural resources as the basis for economic growth. Once identified, natural resources are then exploited by the deployment of financial capital, often without regard to impacts on human ecology.  In contrast, we consider human persons themselves to be the true engine of economic development because it is people who supply value, both as the producers and users of goods and services. Not surprisingly then, our primary focus is on the development of human capital, and especially the creation of conditions in which human ingenuity can be unlocked and unleashed. 

What we hope to avoid at all costs is the kind of automobile-centric, one-dimensional “development” seen so often in the United States, where land is cleared, highways built, and dense pods of housing are erected around a central commercial strip. This kind of flat, featureless “crudscape” – to borrow a term from James Howard Kunstler, the author of The Geography of Nowhere – is antithetical to real placemaking, which has as its object the cultivation of richly creative and concordant human social environments. What we hope to achieve is not just housing, and certainly not just “development,” but place … and community.

First, though, it is important to outline some of our foundational principles.  Wherever this exciting project takes us, and whatever ideas are crystallized and enacted, these criteria must be met, or at least not contradicted in practice.  

Oriented Toward Whole-Place

Most of the problems faced by communities represent interrelated components in broader, more complex systems. These problems cannot be solved in isolation apart from their impacts on the rest of the system; and attempts to craft such isolated solutions often only leads to greater problems elsewhere.  A ‘whole-place’ orientation will drive placemakers to solicit the perspectives of all stakeholders, including those whose relationship to a particular community is attenuated by geography or culture. This “borderless” mentality enables communities to zoom out on the wider system, and to gain an appreciation for particular challenges and opportunities as manifestations of wider, systemic perturbations. Such zooming in and out is the very heart of whole-systems thinking.

Resilient

We define resilience as nothing more than the ability to adapt to changing conditions in a flow. The model par excellence for resilience is nature itself, which obeys an immutable process of growth, conservation, release, and reorganization known as the “adaptive cycle.” This process is non-linear and dynamic. It embraces complexity, traps and distributes knowledge, conserves energy, is self-organized and self-healing, and is directed toward outcomes that benefit the whole.

Man-made systems tend to be linear, mechanical, and goal-directed. Pumps, pencils, and power plants are examples of linear systems. We need them and they have value, but such systems are highly vulnerable to shocks, both internal and external. In intensely human environments like businesses and communities, where complexity, not simplicity, is the dominant feature, linear systems tend to break down because they simply cannot survive the rate and magnitude of change. Human environments, like natural ecosystems, are resilient to the extent that they obey the adaptive cycle.

Sustainable

To “sustain” means, among other things, “to support, hold, or bear up from below; bear the weight of, as a structure,” and “to supply with food, drink, and other necessities of life.” A sustainable place develops local strategies for providing water, waste conversion, food, energy, recreation, transportation and other critical community needs. While the notion of complete self-sufficiency directly contradicts a whole-systems view of the world, it is possible to establish a level of local sufficiency that is robust and reliable.

A sustainable place is also self-organizing, which is a characteristic of distributed, decentralized networks. A self-organizing community is one in which members are empowered to learn independently, take the initiative, communicate freely, exchange incentives and resolve conflicts. Such communities share common values, which act as mediums of social exchange and provide a baseline for defining whole outcomes.   

Human-Scaled

Human-scaled places are those fitted to the social, emotional, physical and intellectual needs of people, not the other way around. This means built-forms – buildings and streetscapes – that are walkable, livable, and encourage cooperative social activity. It means commercial, government, education, and civic arrangements that are comprehensible, accessible, and user-friendly. Human-scaled places offer people a sense of dignity and control, which in turns fosters individual initiative, creativity and innovation. They reduce or eliminate the social and psychic isolation that afflicts high-entropy industrial societies.  

Human-scale also demands that places be created with a high degree of inculturation, a fancy word denoting consonance with the embedded culture and ethos of a people. This is especially true in the field of international development, which has sometimes been associated with a kind of cultural imperialism that effectively alienated people from their own traditions, folkways, and beliefs. Human-scale means recognizing that Iraqis or West Africans will simply never be Swiss burghers or Vermont farmers, nor should they be! There is more than enough good “stuff” in every indigenous culture for locally attuned development to work, especially if one brings to the task a whole-place orientation.

Person-Focused

While human-scaled places are fitted to the social, emotional, physical and intellectual needs of people in the aggregate, person-focus means erecting systems that empower particular human beings to realize their potential. Practically, person-focus means building “learning communities,” where education of the young is a given, and opportunities for lifelong learning are available. It also means racial, cultural, religious, and ideological pluralism, equal justice under law, and universal access to basic health care. Most of all, person-focus means providing pathways for persons to learn and practice trades, to create successful businesses and build some measure of economic independence for themselves and their families.

Ultimately, person-focus means achieving the widest possible social distribution of the ownership of productive property. This includes land, but also homes and family-based cottage industries – including crafts, transportation, retail and light manufacturing – as well as cooperatives, guilds and trade associations, with ownership spread equitably among the freemen and women who participate.

Organized for the Common Good

Because human beings flourish within the context of community, and community is rooted in place, the concept of the common good is fundamental to both placemaking and community-building. The common good does not mean privileging the group over persons. Nor is it simply the assertion of individual “rights.” And the common good is not reducible to the utilitarian formula, “the greatest good for the greatest number of people.” The common good means engaging and empowering the range of stakeholders to achieve what we call Win³ solutions: Is it good for you? Is it good for me? Is it good for all our neighbors? Viewed this way, the common good is simply whole-systems thinking crystallized.

These principles are the physics of Econogenesis, the boundaries conditions within which we hope a new and exciting approach to development will blossom; and through that approach, whole-places that are resilient, sustainable, human-scaled, person-focused, and organized for the common good of the people who live there and the planet they live on

Was Christ Just Another Scapegoat?

“You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.” Psalm 51:16

“Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’” Matthew 9:13

This post grew out of an exchange with a good friend. Responding to my challenge to conventional atonement theology, a challenge based on the work of Rene Girard, my friend commented:

God gave the Hebrews holocausts and animal sacrifices and burnt offerings, did he not? Is [Rene] Girard saying those were only to satisfy the people’s need for scapegoats and releases ” not God’s desire for something sacramental that He received through the complete sacrificing (i.e., doing without) of valuable things? Sorry to put it in such contemporary terms, but I’ve always thought O.T. sacrifice was something like God saying to his people, “OK, you had your sin. Now give up this in order to balance the injustice you’ve created on earth and to help restore order where your sin has knocked the cosmos off kilter.” In this construction, of course, Jesus is the perfect, unblemished Lamb “sacrificed once for all so that no more lambs, goats, turtledoves or whatever would have to be sacrificed ever again. He did this not to save dumb, soulless animals but us, for whom the animals had been standing in, per His instructions.

My friend was in fact very close to the truth uncovered by Rene Girard’s work, but because he was still thinking in sacrificial, substitutionary terms, that truth eluded him. This is not meant at all as a personal criticism; the propensity to think in such terms is embedded in the very anthropology of sinful humanity, which is why the resort to “sacred violence” is always a danger, even among those most deeply immersed in the Gospel message. It’s impossible to develop this fully in this forum, but let me try to address the specific question my friend posed in his response above.

Girard would say that in order to break the spell of the “sin of the world,” the ritualized violence by which human beings had since the beginning created social harmony and appropriated a sense of the transcendent, God chose a people as his own and began the process of moving them away from the sacrificial “sacrality” that marked every other archaic religious system. He did this knowing that from this people would emerge a “light to the nations,” a perfectly innocent savior who through his radical identification with the victims of sacred violence would bring the “sword” of desacralization to the whole world. (c.f. Matthew 10:34-36) His means for achieving this end was to inculcate his people with the Law, including a set of ceremonial prescriptions that set this people apart from all of their neighbors in the ancient world.

Take the scapegoat, for instance. In ancient Palestine, the gods of Moloch (c.f. Leviticus 18:21) and Baal (c.f. Jeremiah 19:5) were dominant, and both of their cults centered on the sacrifice of children as propitiation for the sins of the community. Into this milieu God introduces the “scapegoat,” literally a goat presented once each year in the Temple. The Chief Priest lays his hands on the goat, ritually imposes the sins of the people on his head, and then orders the goat banished into the Judean wilderness. At the same time, a bull and another goat are slaughtered and immolated as a burnt offering to the Lord. Taken together, the bull and two goats represent a substitute for the human victims – the human scapegoats – of every other archaic religion. It is a radical departure from the norms of sinful human culture, a moral revolution that underlines the distinction between those who follow the one True God and those still languishing in systems based on sacrificial violence.

At the same time, through the codification of the Law and the preaching of the prophets, God announces time and again that the offerings he truly desires are obedience, purity, and love. God preserved the form of archaic religion – sacrifice – while simultaneously bringing the practice of that system in line with the moral law revealed in the Ten Commandments. He did this to ease the anthropological transition of his people from the sacrificial (sinful and man-centered) to the sacramental (divine and God-centered). In the old sacrificial system, man offered something to God as a propitiation for sin, and that something was invariably the most valuable thing he possessed – human life! But in order to hide the shame of this sinful offering, archaic religion erected elaborate myths that transformed innocent victims into guilty scapegoats and turned the one True God of love into gods full of wrath. In the sacramental system, by contrast, it is God who offers himself to Man, not to satisfy his own sense of retributive justice, but to break the myth of the guilty victim and thereby cause the sinful human sacrificial system to crumble. For us to believe that Christ’s death is demanded by the Father requires us to accept that he has reversed this entire process and reverted to what is essentially a substitutionary murder as propitiation for sin. But, in fact, all of the Old Testament points to the cessation of murder, the breaking of the sacrificial system, in the self-donation of the God-Man. He was crucified by us and for us, but not to satisfy the Father; rather, he laid down his life to break the cycle of murder and myth-making, the “sin of the world.”

This is why the author of Hebrews writes:

The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming”not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.”
Then he said, “Here I am: it is written about me in the scroll ‘I have come to do your will, O God.’” First he said, ‘Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them’ (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, ‘Here I am, I have come to do your will.’ He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

The chief modern criticism of Christianity has been that it is just another collection of myths, and not a terribly original collection at that. This was the position of Joseph Campbell, of the PBS series and bestselling book, “The Power of Myth,” who called the Bible “tribally circumscribed mythology” and Christianity “sanctified chauvinism.” As Campbell and others point out, there are many mythical systems featuring divine saviors, holy books, resurrections, virgin births, ascensions, etc. All the elements of Christianity, they say, can be located in myths from around the world. The only thing unique about Christianity is that it rode the crashing wave of the Roman Empire and emerged from the froth as the dominant myth in the dominant West. Christian penal-substitutionary atonement theology accommodates this modern critique because it shares a sacrificial basis with all archaic religion.

The work of Rene Girard is different. By examining the anthropological grounding of archaic religion and comparing it to the biblical texts, Girard has uncovered the key to the utterly unique, essential, and necessarily divine nature of Christianity. When asked in a recent interview if he considered Christianity “superior” to all other faiths, here’s what Girard said:

Yes. All of my work has been an effort to show that Christianity is superior and not just another mythology. In mythology, a furious mob mobilizes against scapegoats held responsible for some huge crisis. The sacrifice of the guilty victim through collective violence ends the crisis and founds a new order ordained by the divine. Violence and scapegoating are always present in the mythological definition of the divine itself.

It is true that the structure of the Gospels is similar to that of mythology in which a crisis is resolved through a single victim who unites everybody against him, thus reconciling the community. As the Greeks thought, the shock of death of the victim brings about a catharsis that reconciles. It extinguishes the appetite for violence. For the Greeks, the tragic death of the hero enabled ordinary people to go back to their peaceful lives.

However, in this case, the victim is innocent and the victimizers are guilty. Collective violence against the scapegoat as a sacred, founding act is revealed as a lie. Christ redeems the victimizers through enduring his suffering, imploring God to “forgive them for they know not what they do. He refuses to plead to God to avenge his victimhood with reciprocal violence. Rather, he turns the other cheek.

The victory of the Cross is a victory of love against the scapegoating cycle of violence. It punctures the idea that hatred is a sacred duty.

The Gospels do everything that the (Old Testament) Bible had done before, rehabilitating a victimized prophet, a wrongly accused victim. But they also universalize this rehabilitation. They show that, since the foundation of the world, the victims of all Passion-like murders have been victims of the same mob contagion as Jesus. The Gospels make this revelation complete because they give to the biblical denunciation of idolatry a concrete demonstration of how false gods and their violent cultural systems are generated.

This is the truth missing from mythology, the truth that subverts the violent system of this world. This revelation of collective violence as a lie is the earmark of Judeo-Christianity. This is what is unique about Judeo-Christianity. And this uniqueness is true.

Christ is Risen! Alleluia!

40 Days, 40 Graces: Day Forty

Grace Forty: An Everyday Faith

Fourteen years ago this evening, I was received into the Catholic Church in a brief but beautiful ceremony during the Easter Vigil Mass. In one fell swoop, I received the Sacrament of Confirmation and made my public profession of fidelity: “I believe and hold to be true all that the Catholic Church proposes and teaches.” Then, within a few moments I encountered my Lord for the first time in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The gifts I had received from my wonderful, faithful parents decades earlier – an intimate knowledge of Jesus Christ, an ingrained appreciation for the the Scripture, and a thoroughly Christian world-view – reached their full flower in a matter of moments. Meanwhile, in a touchingly sad commentary on the continuing disunity of the the Body of the Christ, my mother, the finest Christian I know, sat weeping in the second pew, bewildered by what to her appeared to be a tragedy, a loss.

I have often reflected on the strange fact that the Easter Vigil passed without much much meaning or intensity for me. After so many months and years of preparation, the actual event was anticlimactic. The late hour, the incense, the music, the crowd, the bishop in his magnificent vestments; it was all a bit too much to process within the moment. We were actors in a liturgical drama that evening, moving deliberately across a grand stage in accordance with an ancent script, but with the detachment of jaded thespians. Objectively, the drama was tailor-made for a peak experience, but one of the things I realized that evening was that Catholicism isn’t about peak experiences. Catholicism is an everyday faith, suitable for the mountaintop surely, but divinely configured for the valleys in which most people spend the days of their lives.

And so, it wasn’t until the 7:00 AM Mass on Easter Monday that the truth of what had happened to me became real. I wobbled into the silence of St. Brendan Church and took my place among a tiny cluster of five or six others. The lingering scent of incense hung in the air, a reminder of Saturday night’s revelry; but the crowds were gone, the bishop decamped to his chancery, the tiny tongues of Resurrection fire extinguished, and the choir dispersed. In the half-light of a Monday morning, the 100,128th Monday morning since the Resurrection, a sleepy priest ascended the altar nearly unnoticed. He crossed himself and said in a reed-thin voice, “We begin as always in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost …”

In that moment I knew I was home.

“We adore you, O Christ, and we praise you because by your Holy Cross you have redeemed the world.”

40 Days, 40 Graces: Day Thirty-Nine

Grace Thirty-Nine: Mother of Sorrows

Morning. 6:00 am
You never really slept last night, and now the ache is settling in. At 47, you are already quite old, and your body is beginning to betray you. This rootless existence you’ve led since your husband died isn’t helping any. Without warning an image floats into your mind of a beautiful young woman and her snuffling baby boy, the two of them curled up in sweet, dreamless repose, without back pain or worry. What you wouldn’t give …

How can I even think of sleep at a time like this? you ask yourself. Not a half hour ago, the sun rose over the baked bricks and cut stone of Jerusalem. Somewhere nearby a rooster cried and you startled from dozing. You caught a glimpse of Kephas leaving the courtyard, his head down, lips fluttering. Now none of your son’s friends are here except Ioannes. Of course, faithful Ioannes. More like a son than a nephew. Salome begged him to return with her to the little room she rented, but he insisted on remaining by your side all night, right outside the windows of Caiaphas’ palace.

7:00 am
There has been much coming and going already this morning, and the crowds have steadily grown. Angry faces flash. Brutal words are tossed and returned. Rumors swirl in little eddies of conversation, then break off and float away. Suddenly, an electric jolt and the crowd begins to move, slowly at first, then at breakneck speed. Carried along on the tide, you and Ioannes are helpless as the throng courses down narrow streets, turns left, then right, then left again before spilling into a large square before a columned courtyard. What is this place? you ask Ioannes. Pilate he answers, and you shudder at the name.

8:00 am
You would like to know what is going on, but you are wedged next to a wooden fence outside the stable, without a clear view of Pilate’s courtyard. There is a lot of shouting and cursing. The crowd roars its approval one moment, its condemnation the next. Between the roars a lone Latinate voice pierces the early morning air. What charge do you bring against this man? I find no fault in him! Shall I release him? Who do you want? As that last question ends, a low rumble begins in a certain segment of the crowd. it quickly rises to a chorus, and then a chant. Barrabas! Barrabas! You wonder Who is Barrabas? Perhaps this is all a mistake. Perhaps this is all about someone named Barrabas!

9:00 am
Somewhere you hear laughing. A man nearby shouts to his friend They just released Barrabas! That preacher is taking his place! Ioannes curses them under his breath. Taking his place how? you wonder. Suddenly, flashes of white and red dance at the edge of your vision. That sound of laughter is now mixed with the sharp retort of a whip and the dull thud of … something else. Curious, unsuspecting, you lean your head to peer through a slim gap in the fence. It takes a few moments to process the hell unfolding before you, and a few moments longer for the bile to rise in your throat and pour out of your mouth. Ioannes looks through the fence and recoils. He looks again and falls to his knees, wailing beside you. Then, as suddenly, he’s back on his feet and roughly carrying you away from the fence. Ioannes doesn’t stop until he reaches a column at the back of the courtyard.

10:00 am
Perhaps this is the worst that will come of it you say to no one in particular. Just then the crowd stirs to life once again. A Roman wearing the vestments and laurel of governor strides to his chair. Behind him the hunched, bloody figure of your son shuffles across the portico. A tattered purple blanket hangs from one shoulder. His head is encircled by a bramble of some kind. Behold the man! Pilate says, but all you can see is the boy, all skinny legs and tousled hair, with a wide grin and dark eyes. He always looked just like Joachim, and even now there is a way of standing, a set to his hips and shoulders that reminds you of your father. You watch as Pilate bargains with the crowd for his life. But they’re not buying. A man beside you screams “Crucify him” so hard that he begins to cough, his spittle splashing on your neck. By the time he recovers the portico is empty. They have taken your precious boy to be killed.

6:00 pm
Night creeps over the horizon. It is the Sabbath and you are in the room where Ioannes and his other friends are staying. Your son now lies in a borrowed tomb, his broken and bruised body spiced with myrrh and wrapped in fresh linens. Ioannes tenderly cradles you. I am your son now, and you are my mother he sobs in a hushed whisper. Suddenly, an unimaginable sorrow wells up within you as you recall the words of that old man in the Temple, the one who spoke on the day of the brit milah: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.”

“We adore you, O Christ, and we praise you because by your Holy Cross you have redeemed the world.”