http://www.ai.edu RSS feeds for Aquinas Institute of Theology 60 http://www.ai.edu/Resources/Blogs/AquinasMatters/tabid/216/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/128/Turkey--A-Concise-Journal.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.ai.edu/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=216&ModuleID=743&ArticleID=128 http://www.ai.edu/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=128&PortalID=0&TabID=216 http://www.ai.edu/Resources/Blogs/AquinasMatters/tabid/216/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/128/Turkey--A-Concise-Journal.aspx June 30 – July 10, 2011 Carla Mae Streeter, O.P., shares highlights from her recent trip to Turkey June 30: Three of us, Harvey Schneider, David Oughton, and Carla Mae Streeter, flew American Airlines to JFK where we met Michael Schneider, Harvey’s son, who joined us for the trip. Harvey is Jewish, a lawyer in St. Louis and form president of Interfaith Partnership, and Michael is a reporter in Orlando. David is a professor of World Religions at St. Louis University. Together we searched out Turkish Air, for the next leg of the journey to Istanbul. We will meet the other six members of our party in Istanbul. The service aboard Turkish Air was remarkable. Gifts of slippers, a travel kit with socks and eye shields, and those hot towels before a meal! And such meals: real silverware and more than one can eat. The plane is large, seven across, with very advanced technology: a full entertainment center for each passenger that folds out before the passenger like a tray table! By some chance we were upgraded and assigned to the business section where the leg room was better. This was much appreciated by all of us for the ten hour journey ahead. It is 12:30 a.m. as I write and we are passing directly over Munich, Germany. Breakfast is being prepared. Rest, with ears plugged and eyes covered, brought no real sleep. Hot towels are being passed…such a nice touch! Our group met the mayor of Istanbul (mayor of both the European and the Asiatic sides of the city) in a park, where he was kind enough to pose with us for this picture - He is the man in the gray suit, second row. July 1: We landed in Istanbul at 10:45 a.m. Turkey time. (The middle of the night in St. Louis!) Aydin Danaci, our tour director, and his wife Handan were on hand to meet us, along with Henry (Hank) Rowold, a Lutheran professor at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, and Natalie and Eve, two black blood sisters who enriched our group of ten immensely. (Their mother, who worked with county executive, Charlie Dooley, had made the trip earlier.) We traveled by van from the airport to Tahir Mutlu College Guest Building, our lodging place while in Istanbul, where we settled in and had a lovely lunch. We then took a walk to a nearby mall where we watched Turkish young people ice skating and visited while Aydin returned to the airport. Our group of ten was complete when we were joined by Jim, formerly a New Testament professor at St. Louis University, who is now teaching in Sweden and Rabbi Ari Henden from St. Louis and her friend Lynnsie Kantor, a Real Estate Sales Associate. Supper at the Pirpirim Restaurant was enjoyed by all. We returned to the Guest House and turned in for the night. July 2: After a hearty breakfast (eggs, cheese, bread, honey, tea, juice, instant coffee) we Traveled by van to Topkapi Palace, the residence of the former sultan of Turkey. The spacious quarters of the sultan and his government is now a museum and tourist attraction since the 1934 birth of the Turkish Republic. The palace includes government rooms used by the sultan, specifically a private room with a flowing fountain and deaf and dumb guards standing at the entrances, where confidential matters were discussed and decided. The kitchen area included food tasters to thwart any poisoning attempts! When the sultan left with his family, he took none of his wealth with him. Among the items left behind was the famous 86 karat diamond that is still on display among the palace jewels. A harum section of the palace, overseen by the Queen Mother, was off limits even for the sultan, where young women were educated, groomed, and dressed. Next came a visit to the famous Hagia Sophia, the Church of Holy Wisdom to Christians. The icons of this famous Church have recently been recovered by the removal of the plaster that once covered them. Used as a mosque when the Ottoman Turks took the city, it was later replaced by the Blue Mosque and became a museum which it is today. Hagia Sophia - Istanbul What Aydin calls “a light lunch” followed at Sultanahmet koftecisi. We all wondered what a full meal would be! Lunch was followed by a visit to the Basilica Cistern, an underground water supply (with fish!) built by Justinian to serve both as water storage and a place of worship for Christians underground. It is famous for its beautiful columns, resembling a basilica. Then on we walked to the Blue Mosque, so named because of the blue tiles of its interior. Larger than Hagia Sophia, it has four turrits, and its huge bulk dwarfs the nearby ancient Christian church now museum. Nearby was the Roman Hipodrome, the ruins of the location for the once famous chariot races. A drive through the textile center of the city brought us to a quiet restaurant and the generous evening meal. By 9:00 we were more than ready for the beddy! July 3: Breakfast began the day at the Guest House, followed by a visit to St. Anthony’s Roman Catholic Church for Sunday Mass. The priest and Mass servers were black, the assistant priest and preacher was from Brazil, and the choir was Filipino, and the liturgy was in English! The experience was indeed a cameo of the universal catholic community in Turkey. A walk down Taksim-Istiklal Street was next, full of people walking both ways, a trolley clanging its way down the middle when it wanted to get through. Lunch was at Taksim Bereket, providing a variety of foods many of us had never tasted. A ride down the hill by way of “The Tunnel” brought us to a Jewish Museum and former synagogue for the Sephardic Jews of Spain who received a warm welcome from the Turkish sultan when they were expelled from Spain in 1492. Returning by way of “The Tunnel” to Taksim-Istiklal Street, we were given time to explore its many shops. Jim and I wandered the side streets looking for towels and scarves for loved ones at home. Some of the group gathered around and played games…vying with one another for wins. A bag of Turkish bagels, and we were off to the airport for the flight to Izmir and nearby Ephesus. July 4: All of us were aware that this was Independence Day back home. The day began with Another fine guide, along with Aydin, filled us in on the land and its history. First we visited the House of Mary Shrine. Under the care of the Italian, this location was pointed out by the stigmatist and mystic Anne Catherine Emmerich (whose writings guided Mel Gibson in the production of The Passion) as the house where Mary, the mother of Jesus lived with St. John after the ascension of Jesus. The foundation of a house was found where she indicated it would be, and the present shrine was reconstructed upon that foundation. Next, a visit to a pottery artist studio revealed the most beautiful pottery, hand crafted with unique designs. Just a short distance away were the archeological ruins of the city of Ephesus, the largest excavation in the world today. We walked it with our guide, learning what had once gone on in this city, once a busy harbor on Turkey’s west coast before the land shifted, leaving it inland with a rich valley for the raising of olives, apricots, pomegranates, and corn. The city eventually died as its commerce dried up. From the patrician section of the city to the section of the commoners, we walked, noting an excavated tavern with its attached “love house,” the latrines of the men’s bath, and it once beautiful library of scrolls. Last was its stadium and gladiatorial quarters and nearby cemetery. The trumpets sounded, and we caught a reenactment of a gladiatorial contest just as we were leaving. We breathed a sigh of relief at the “thumbs up” at the exit of the group! We then moved on to visit the ruins of the Basilica of St. John the Apostle, destroyed by earthquake, and the nearby Jesus Boy mosque. A stop at our hotel and we were off to have supper with a family in Izmir. The delightful evening included a meal prepared with great generosity and the warmest hospitality. First, the lentil soup, then the varieties of salads. Then came the rice and lamb. We shared information through Aydin who translated for us, and learned of each others’ work, hobbies, families, and sports. Then came a magnificent surprise concert by two fine musicians. Using a guitar-like instrument called the tamber and a bamboo flute, the musicians shared both religious and secular music with us. Then came Turkish coffee, ice cream, and our own little production of the United States national anthem sung with gusto to mark the day. Then came the baklavah and watermelon! We ended the evening with the traditional exchange of gifts, each guest presenting the host family with something from the United States. We returned to the hotel and got a bit of sleep before our 5:30 a.m. trip to the airport for the flight to Kayseri, the trade center of Turkey in the Cappadocian region. July 5: Somewhat bleary-eyed with the early hour, we made the one-hour and 15 minute flight to Kayseri, stopped for a lovely lunch, and checked in at the hotel. We rested, caught a nap, and some of us took a swim until 2:00 when we met our guide and headed for Goreme-Organ and “the stones with lids on.” We learned with amazement from out guide the way this valley had been home to Christian hermits in the second and third centuries, holy men (and women!) who had made this valley and its caves their homes, carving out space for prayer prior to the monastic movement. We saw the chapels with their icons that fed the faith of these early ascetics until the Christians left as a result of religious conflict. We had supper at the hotel and then an evening to catch up a bit on sleep! July 6: A breakfast fit for kings and queens opened the day. We left at 8 for a hike in the Inhara Valley, descending about 500 steps to follow the river for a little over a mile. The weather was beautiful. As we walked Queen Anne’s Lace and poppies lined the path. The cliffs were on our left peppered with the cave entrances now abandoned. We then traveled to the site of the “underground cities.” Carved out of the soft volcanic rock, these five story underground dwellings are difficult to date. Recently discovered, it is clear that the early Christians used these hidden hideouts because of the orthodox art found in the rooms used as chapels. Wine cellars, kitchen spaces, and even stables for animals were part of these underground tunnels and rooms. Lunch was at a unique restaurant recently carved into the rock to honor the underground city site nearby. The serving was elegant, and included local fare prepared especially for us. Next was a visit to the Turkish Rug Cooperative. We heard the explanation of how these magnificent rugs are made. Persian in design, these rugs are Turkish in the unique double knot technique that identifies an authentic Turkish rug anywhere in the world. The rugs are made of wool, cotton and silk. We handled the cocoons from which the silk is taken and learned how the cocoons are “unwound” to provide the silk strands for the weaving and then dyed beautiful colors. The rugs were then displayed with great pride and opportunity given for those who wanted to purchase them. A trip back to the Hotel Conference Center gave us time for supper and visiting, even getting in on a Turkish wedding! The wedding party welcomed these visitors from America. July 7: We left at about 8:30 the next morning for the trip by van to Konya, the center of the great Sufi poet, Rumi. The trip was about 3 hours through the flat agricultural section of west central Turkey. The soil appeared grayish white, and wheat fields spread far and wide. Konya is an ancient city and gives the appearance of renewal everywhere. We visited the beautiful college (primary and middle school) and the Mevlana University that is part of the movement that has sponsored our trip through the generosity of its members. This movement is working through education, hospitality, and dialogue, both within and outside of Turkey, to restore Turkey to its original cultural and religious values. With the Republic came the secular viewpoint that religion of any kind, including Islam, is not compatible with scientific and technological progress. Consequently religion is merely tolerated. The salary of imams, for example, is paid by the government, and the government supervises what they say. They are regarded as simply performing a civil service. Religious marriages are not recognized in Turkey as legal. The movement of which the Niagra Foundation is a part in the United States is funded by Turkish citizens that believe this must change. The European Union agrees, and with recent elections in Turkey there is hope that the writing of a new constitution for Turkey will now proceed and become a reality that will include human rights. Presently the military has too much power, creating more of a military dictatorship than a democracy. The genuine Turkish spirit warmly welcomed the Jews expelled from Spain back in 1492. Turkish economic, scientific, architectural and technological innovation can be seen everywhere, advanced by devout Muslims, presenting a counter vision to the dualistic viewpoint of the present secular government. The Rumi Museum in Konya is a former mosque. Rumi and some of his family are buried here. Whirling dervishes are trained here in an 18 step disciplinary program that admits both young boys and married men. We attended a program of whirling dervishes in the evening after supper with a delightful family. Once again we were warmly welcomed by the host husband, his wife and three children. A second family came over to help (we were 12 guests!). By adding needed places around 2 tables we finally all fit, and after introductions in Turkish by Aydin, we did quite well as Aydin and his wife, Handan interpreted for us. The food was wonderful Turkish fare, including yogurt soup, tomato and cucumber salad, rice and stew, fruit, and a honeyed dessert. In the midst of our meal the landlord of the building appeared with gifts for us all. To add to the excitement a fuse blew, leaving us to the natural evening light. We shared the gifts we too had brought to share with the family, and then we were off to see the whirling dervishes at the Rumi shrine. The evening ended with welcomed sleep at our Konya Hotel in anticipation of our 6:00 breakfast and departure to the airport for our flight back to Istanbul in the morning. Whirling Dervishes - Konya July 8: We arrived at Pegasus Airlines by 7:00 a.m. and ran the gauntlet of security checks. The unique experience of this airline was its on board pre-flight routine: the video presentation was done completely by children from how to put the seat belts on to life-vest use! I was delightful, and needless to say every passenger was paying attention! We landed on the Asian side of Istanbul, the city twice the size of New York, and our 8th day began. Our first stop was Neve Shalom Synagogue, twice attacked by terrorists: once by Hamas who were attacking several other Turkish sites as well, the second by Al Queda. About 30 Jews died, and the security for the synagogue was extremely tight. One reason Aydin chose this synagogue for our visit was the fact that the Jewish community in Baltimore helped the synagogue rebuild as they mourned their dead. After a delicious lunch we visited The Journalist and Writers’ Foundation, and learned more about the quiet movement for a truly free Turkey inspired by Dr. Gülen, who is now in the United States for health reasons. The movement has no formal membership, yet inspires various organizations within and beyond Turkey, including the Niagra Foundation in the mid-west United States, China, and elsewhere. Two young women, both wearing the Turkish scarves so common here, explained the movement and showed us a video. At our request, some of us were able to obtain a copy of the DVD to take with us. The movement is financed by businessmen and volunteers. We understood from this that it was these unnamed persons who had helped finance our trip. We then toured the Sakirin Mosque, also called the woman’s mosque because it was designed by a Turkish woman architect. The structure and interior were modern, emphasizing a water theme. There was a fountain at the entrance and a tear drop motif in the interior. The curved lines and soft beauty of the structure were a clear signature of the woman whose creative imagination created the building. Supper was enjoyed at Izhar, where we had enjoyed a meal once before. We settled in once again for the night at the beautiful and simple Guest House where we had stayed our first two days. July 9: Our final day permitted a bit of sleep catch up, as we gathered for breakfast at 8:15. We then left for the unforgettable experience of the Grand Bazaar and the Spice Bazaar. A maze of covered shops provided us with a final chance to pick up items for loved ones at home and final remembrances to take home from so rich a Turkish experience. We then gathered fish and beef sandwiches for our boat trip on the Bosphorus and headed for the dock. A turn of events resulted in our boarding a private boat, captained, we learned later, by the owner of several of the cruise boats at the dock. We had a wonderful trip up one side of the Bosphorus and down the other, at times narrowly missing an encounter with much larger ships. The breeze was delightful, the sun was just right, and we were content to return to the hotel after the trip for a nap before joining our final family for supper. We bid farewell to Ari and Lynsee, two of our Jewish companions, who extended their visit a few days to the south of Istanbul. Our hosts Our third family welcomed us along with two other couples and a spunky little six year old who added much to the visit. Grandma and Grandpa were there, the host parents of the six year old, and the sister of our hostess, married just 8 months. The meal was lavish, consisting of several courses. First there was the yogurt soup, then a tomato and beef stew, then the main dish of rice, chicken and potato accompanied by stuffed eggplant and a variety of salads. When we returned to the living room area it was announced that we would be marking several celebrations: our host husband[s birthday, the birthday of Hank, our companion from Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, the coming birthday of Natali, another of our companions, on July 21st, and finally, the new emerita status of Carla Mae. I big two layered chocolate cake with candles appeared as the lights were dimmed, and with gusto we sand “Happy Birthday” in both Turkish and English at the same time! Cake, fruit, and ice cream followed, the ice cream made from goat’s milk to be eaten with a fork it is so firm! The family presented each of us with a gift, and we shared with the families the little gifts we had brought with us for them. Then we headed home for the final packing. July 10: Aydin arranged breakfast for us at Guest House even though it was Sunday, a thoughtfulness only matched by his and Handan’s care in staying with us at the airport throughout the entire check-in process. We all boarded safely, and began the journey home after a remarkable week of generosity, education, and dialogue!  ] Jim Hubbman Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:58:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:128 http://www.ai.edu/Resources/Blogs/AquinasMatters/tabid/216/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/126/The-Doctrine-of-the-Immaculate-Conception-Ever-Deepening-Treasure.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.ai.edu/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=216&ModuleID=743&ArticleID=126 http://www.ai.edu/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=126&PortalID=0&TabID=216 http://www.ai.edu/Resources/Blogs/AquinasMatters/tabid/216/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/126/The-Doctrine-of-the-Immaculate-Conception-Ever-Deepening-Treasure.aspx Marty O'Bryan is currently enrolled at Aquinas Institute. She is studying towards a Master of Arts - Catechesis of the Good Shepherd degree. The most Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, was preserved immune from all stain of original sin. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 124, #491) In the entire history of the Roman Catholic Church, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Ineffabilis Deus, was the most protracted and controversial of all the questions ever posed for its consideration. Formally introduced around the year 1100, the question was not settled until 750 years later when, on December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX promulgated its doctrine. Two factors had slowed its acceptance: there was no clear evidence for it either in scripture or in the patristic writings. Regarding the former, the greatest scriptural evidence against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception lay in the writings of St. Paul where it is stated that all have sinned in Adam (Romans 5:12) and “all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) (O’Connor, vi). By the time the Church began to actively consider Mary’s sanctity, it was universally accepted that she had committed no sin during her lifetime. Thus, the dilemma: in light of her purity, how could Mary have been exempt from the universal need for redemption? From the early charges of heresy by some of the most illustrious Doctors of the Church (Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure) (Balic, 188-191), to the full and loving embrace by others with minds equally astute, theologians argued the truth of is claim, employing the theological practices of their respective moments in time. Throughout its long history, many came within its reach, some holding the treasure of its revelation in their hands, only to let go when faced with its paradox. Their tools of human thought and language developed with its history, beginning with effusively wrapped language of logic and followed by systematic analysis to dissect and articulate the argument. In the decades after its promulgation, the new lens of anthropology was employed to deepen the understanding of its truth; and today, the hermeneutic of the psychology of being is furthering the conversation. This paper will present a brief history of the development of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, pointing out along the way how near to it so many came before its official promulgation. The paper will also present its current meaning for the Church and new vistas for its interpretation that have opened in the light of faith. In addressing the history of the doctrine of Mary’s preservation from original sin, it is necessary to present the Church’s understanding of this sin. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), original sin is not an individual’s “personal fault.” It is the “deprivation of original holiness” in humankind’s nature, a deprivation that inclines human beings to sin (CCC, 102, #405), sin being the lack of the fullness of love for God and neighbor caused by a persistent attachment to certain goods (CCC, 453, #1849). This deprivation of original holiness that marks “the whole of human history” is due to “a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man . . . by the original fault freely committed by our first parents [Adam and Eve] (CCC, 98, #390).” This is frequently referred to as “the sin of Adam.” The Catholic Church, therefore, distinguishes between personal sin and original sin, the latter a term coined by St. Augustine (350-430). Early Christian writings do not offer evidence of the belief that Mary was free from personal sin. In the Eastern Church, Origen (185-254), when interpreting Simeon’s statement to Mary, “ . . . (and you yourself a sword will pierce) . . .” (Luke 2:35) as referring to the presence of sin, claimed that it was at the foot of the cross where Mary had sinned by doubting her son’s divinity and mission (Joussard, 55-57). Tertullian (c.160-220) held a similar teaching in the West (O’Connor, xi). A light, however, began to shine on the Church’s thought regarding Mary when St. Ambrose (340-397) spoke and wrote only of her sanctity and her “Divine Maternity.” St. Jerome (347-420) maintained the same and even more so (Joussard, 68). By the time of the Council of Ephesus in 431, the Church, moving further toward the doctrine, was now in agreement regarding Mary’s sanctity (her never having sinned); and it was at this council that she was given the title theotokos, God-bearer, “Mother of God” (Journet, 43). Prior to the Council of Ephesus, St. Augustine had articulated the doctrine of original sin. He held that original sin is transmitted in the marriage act, through which a person first comes into existence, and that all persons inherit it (McBrien, 187). A contemporary of his, the ascetic Pelagius, taught that all sin was personal sin and that one could overcome it through the strict exercise of one’s will (a heresy that was officially rejected at the Council of Ephesus). He also maintained that Mary was all holy and completely free from even the slightest stain of sin (Journet, 40). Augustine, completely agreeing with him regarding Mary’s personal sanctity, yet, finding it impossible to deny the teachings of Paul, declared in response to Pelagius that “pure grace” had exempted Mary from this universal principle. Here it was, the gem of truth; yet, he was unable to articulate how this had happened. Consequently, a few years before his death, Augustine, again faced with the question of Mary’s exemption from original sin, responded in the negative, writing that Mary was born with original sin and that only later was she sanctified by grace (Joussard, 69-74). For centuries, through the end of the patristic era, this opinion remained uncountered in the writings and preaching of the Fathers of the Church. There was one exception, however—the Venerable Bede (672-735). Reflecting on John the Baptist being filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb of Elizabeth, his mother, Bede preached that this was John’s purification from original sin (Journet, 77-78). That neither he nor others applied this insight to Mary is remarkable. Hence, fertile ground lay fallow. The Council of Ephesus in 431 had fueled the veneration of Mary, and it was in the Byzantine East that Mary’s sanctity was first celebrated liturgically (Dvornik, 90). By the end of the 7th century, the Feast of Mary’s conception, known as the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne, Mother of the Theotokos, had been added to other liturgies celebrating her sanctity (Dvornik, 90). The feast expanded to Byzantine southern Italy, possibly as early as the first half of the 9th century. Its celebration spread to Ireland; and, in less than two centuries, it was being celebrated in the monasteries of southern England (Bouman, 123-125). The veneration of the Blessed Mother’s conception and its liturgical celebration spread throughout Western Catholicism. While there yet had been no approbation from Rome, the dictum, “lex orandi, lex credendi,” (the law of prayer is the law of belief) was being borne out (Bevans, 97), thus opening the door more widely to official consideration. At the beginning of the Scholastic period in the Western Church (11th – 15th century), the schism with the East prevented any further nourishment of the West with the teachings from the Eastern Fathers on the Conception of Mary (Balic, 162). In addition, Augustine’s doctrine of the universality of original sin ruled absolute in the halls of theology (Balic, 162). Two beliefs prevailed. One was that the Holy Spirit had sanctified Mary at the moment of the Annunciation (Balic, 163). The other was held by St. Bernard (1090-1153). In a break from Augustine’s doctrine that sanctification from original sin occurred only after birth, Bernard claimed that Mary was purified while still within her mother’s womb. Almost 500 years after Bede, St. Bernard continued the conversation by moving the moment of her sanctification further back, closer to the very moment of her conception. The idea of her immaculate conception was very much in his mind, for Bernard wrote that her exemption from original sin would have lessened the redemptive act of Christ (Balic, 183-184), the thought of which he could not bear to embrace. St. Anselm (1033-1109), the father of Scholasticism, wrote that he was open to a “higher explanation,” believing that Mary “was brought into existence from Adam, in the same way as all others,” but that she “was one of those who were cleansed from their sins by Him [Jesus] before He was born” (Balic, 168). While not indicating at what moment in her existence she was cleansed, he nevertheless was also intimating an immaculate conception. Bernard’s and Anselm’s instincts could have flung open the gates to epiphanies for the next generations; however, the great theologians of the golden age of Scholasticism (approximately 1230-1340)—St. Bonaventure, St. Albert the Great, and St. Thomas Aquinas—dispensing with the effusive and mystical language of their predecessors, employed the analytic systematic, and didactic method of their day. Overlooking the writings of St. Anselm, they clung to Augustine’s teaching of the universality of original sin. Yet championing St. Bernard’s claim of Mary’s sanctification while still in her mother’s womb, they each wrote that, while without sin during her life, the Mother of God nevertheless required purification from the sin she had inherited (Balic, 186-192). It was the Franciscan and Scottish priest, John Duns (1266-1308), known as Duns Scotus, who solved the dilemma and reconciled the contradicting doctrines of original sin, of Christ as universal Redeemer, and of Mary’s preservation from original sin. He reasoned innovatively that Mary’s preservation from original sin would not have lessened Christ’s redemptive action at all and that, in fact, it would have made Christ’s redeeming act “more excellent,” writing that it would be “a more excellent benefit to preserve a person from evil than to permit him to fall into it and then deliver him from it (Balic, 207). With regard to Augustine’s doctrine of Original Sin, Scotus was delightfully perceptive, writing that, since “everything is possible to God that is not manifestly contradictory in itself” (Balic, 204), and because of the merits of Christ, her Redeemer (Balic, 207), “God could have conferred as much grace on her in the first moment of her soul’s existence as He does on another soul at . . . baptism” (Balic, 205). With this insight, the brilliant and “Subtle Doctor” became known as the Doctor of the Immaculate Conception (Balic, 204), synthesizing and reconciling nearly 1000 years of argumentation and opening wide the path to its promulgation by Rome. This, however, would not occur for at least another 500 years. In spite of Scotus’ brilliant and synthesized articulation of the schools of Augustine and Anselm, their followers argued in opposition to one another, “maculists” against “immaculists.” The latter were led by the Franciscans with their allegiance to Scotus, their brother. The maculists were led by the Dominicans whose beloved Angelic Doctor, Thomas Aquinas, had argued with Augustine (Sebastian, 214). Aquinas’ canonization in 1323 fueled their vigor, as they saw it as an official sanction from Rome (Sebastian, 214). In 1477, Franciscan Pope Sixtus IV approved two offices and a Mass in honor of Mary’s Conception, which served as a catalyst for renewal of the argument. The argumentation and animosity rose to such fever pitch, each camp denouncing the other as heretics, that in 1482, and again a year later, Sixtus IV issued a Bull vehemently threatening with excommunication anyone who denounced another as being a heretic (Sebastian, 238). Beneath the raging battle of theological argumentation and name-calling, another sentiment was welling up. Encouraged by Sixtus IV’s approval of the offices and Mass in honor of the Virgin, universities began requiring students to take an oath to defend the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; and by the end of the 17th century, nearly 150 universities in Europe had expressed support of the doctrine, approximately 50 of them requiring the oath (Sebastian, 239-241). Theologians and saints of religious orders became known for their support of the doctrine—Carmelites, Jesuits, Augustinians, Sts. Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Joseph Cupertino (Sebastian, 241). The establishment of ecclesiastical congregations and confraternities throughout Europe dedicated to the Immaculate Conception and the widespread embrace of the doctrine by the faithful proved another doctrine at work, sensus fidelium, which states that the entire body of the faithful has a “deep instinct within the bosom of the mystical body of Christ” on matters of faith and morals (Bevans, 78-79). And so, the doctrine was advanced. Throughout this long period, provincial generals and heads of State were increasingly petitioning Rome to grant special privileges in observance of the Conception of Mary. While granting the status of “feast,” accompanied by days of obligation and dates of is celebration on the calendar, the magisterium remained silent regarding the feast’s status as dogma (Laurentin, 274-278). Over those 500 years, what appeared to be delay and uncertainty on the part of the magisterium was, instead, a prudence that encouraged deeper study and clearer articulation of the subject (Laurentin, 270). Finally, after consulting the bishops of the entire Church, Pope Pius IX, on December 8, 1954, read the decree of the bull, Ineffabilis Deus, “revealed by God” and therefore, to “firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful” (Laurentin, 312). Since that day in 1854, theologians have continued to reflect on the meaning of the Immaculate Conception, deepening and widening its implications for all. French Cardinal Charles Journet (1891-1957) saw in her immaculate purity “the Woman” who is united to Christ and whose history is the history of the Church itself—1) the Church before Christ, in her struggle with the serpent that continues to her glorification at the end of the age; 2) the Church in the time of Christ when, bound together, they battle the serpent with the shared weapons of purity and exemption from sin; and 3) the Church after Christ, when at the foot of the cross the Lord Jesus entrusts to her the members of his mystical body to stand with them in the victory over death, the “last enemy” (Journet, 34). In this perspective, the Immaculate Conception serves as the icon for hope and faithful perseverance until the triumphant return of Christ. German dogmatic theologian, Karl Rahner (1904-1984) sought the nucleus of Marian doctrine, aware of their historical and cultural contexts and examining them for what was eternally valid (Vorgrimler, 91). Through his anthropological lens of human freedom and responsibility and self-determination, Rahner saw in the Immaculate Conception Mary’s sign to the world of the graced human person with an inner orientation toward the divine and with the human capacity for the self-communication of God (Dallavalle, 265). In her book, Christianity & Feminism in Conversation, Regina Coll cites Sr. Carol Frances Jagen, B.V.M., who reflects on Mary as patron of the United States of America and on the popular image of Mary as the woman of Genesis, Chapter 3, who crushes the head of the serpent with her heel. Expanding the personal image to a societal one, Jagen asks if the image of the Immaculate Conception could be our symbol of freedom unbound by sin and calling us to the struggle for justice and peace (Coll, 96). American philosopher, Beatrice Bruteau, using the images from Lourdes—the Lady and the spring—sees the Immaculate Conception as the archetype for the revelation that each person possesses a true and unblemished nature (as opposed to the nature of original sin). For her, the Immaculate Conception is the archetype of the eternally “free-flowing” grace of God and the sharing of divine life that forms one’s personhood, transcending sin and upholding one’s human dignity (Bruteau, 181-195). Rahner emphasized keeping in mind historical and cultural contexts when mining Marian doctrine for its eternal validity. When the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was announced in 1854, the Western world had entered the “Age of Enlightenment.” It had left the medieval era where religion informed every aspect of life and was now rejecting God’s influence in people’s lives and religion’s hold on humankind’s view of the world. God had become secondary to science and reason. Narcissism reigned and awareness of sin waned (Streeter). Thus, the Immaculate Conception and her partnership with Christ in overcoming evil was a call to the world to recognize the true source of strength and wisdom. While its truth is being mined today with the new tools of psychology, the light of its initial interpretation still shines on the 21st century. The fact that its development spanned the longest time in the history of the Church suggest that it may be the most profound dogma ever proclaimed by the magisterium and that it holds centuries more of deposits yet to be discovered by the hearts and minds of the faithful. Works Cited (All scripture quotations are from the New American Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990.) Balic, Carlo, O.F.M. “The Mediaeval Controversy over the Immaculate Conception up to the Death of Scotus.” In The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, edited by Edward O’Connor, 162-163, 168, 186-192, 204-205, 207. Notre Dame, Indiana: Notre Dame Press, 1958:161-212. Bevans, Steven. An Introduction to Theology in Global Perspective. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2009. Bouman. Cornelius A. “The Immaculate Conception in the Liturgy.” In The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, edited by Edward O’Connor, 123-125. Notre Dame, Indiana: Notre Dame Press, 1958:113-160. Bruteau, Beatrice. “The Immaculate Conception: Our Original Face.” Cross Currents 39 (Summer 1989): 181-195. Coll, Regina A. Christianity & Feminism in Conversation. Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 2001. Dallavalle, Nancy. “Feminist Theologies.” In The Cambridge Companion to Karl Rahner, edited by Declan Marmion and Mary E. Hines, 265. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005:264-278. Dvornik, Francis. “The Byzantine Church and the Immaculate Conception.” In The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, edited by Edward O’Connor, 90. Notre Dame, Indiana: Notre Dame Press, 1958:87-112. Jouassard, Georges. “The Fathers of the Church and the Immaculate Conception.” In The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, edited by Edward O’Connor, 55-57, 68-74. Notre Dame, Indiana: Notre Dame Press, 1958:51-86. Journet, Charles. “Scripture and the Immaculate Conception: A Problem in the Evolution of Dogma.” In The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, edited by Edward O’Connor, 34, 40, 43, 77-78. Notre Dame, Indiana: Notre Dame Press,1958:1-50. Laurentin, Rene. “The Role of the Papal Magisterium in the Development of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception,” translated by Charles E. Sheedy, C.S.C. and Edward S. Shea, C.S.C. In The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, edited by Edward O’Connor, 270, 274-278, 312. Notre Dame, Indiana: Notre Dame Press, 1958: 271-326. McBrien, Richard P. Catholicism: New Edition. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1994. O’Connor, Edward C.S.C. “Preface.” In The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, edited by Edward O’Connor, vi. Notre Dame, Indiana: Notre Dame Press, 1958:v-xvi. Sebastian, Wenceslaus O.F.M. “The Controversy over the Immaculate Conception from after Scotus to the End of the Eighteenth Century.” In The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, edited by Edward O’Connor, 214. Notre Dame, Indiana: Notre Dame Press, 1958:213-270. Streeter, Carla Mae, O.P. Outline, “World views. How Theological Reflection is Done.” Introduction to Theology and Theological Method, D503, Spring, 2011. United States Catholic Conference. Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: Catholic Book Publishing Company Co, 1994. Vorgrimler, Herbert. Understanding Karl Rahner. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1986.   Jim Hubbman Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:19:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:126 http://www.ai.edu/Resources/Blogs/AquinasMatters/tabid/216/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/123/A-Theology-of-Ministry-As-Expressed-in-Relationship-to-Conversion-and-Forgiveness.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.ai.edu/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=216&ModuleID=743&ArticleID=123 http://www.ai.edu/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=123&PortalID=0&TabID=216 http://www.ai.edu/Resources/Blogs/AquinasMatters/tabid/216/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/123/A-Theology-of-Ministry-As-Expressed-in-Relationship-to-Conversion-and-Forgiveness.aspx Michael Durbin is V.P. and General Manager of Midwest Diversified Technologies, Inc., and has been a part-time graduate student at Aquinas Institute of Theology for the past four years. Michael delights in the awareness of our spiritual journey in life. This article will examine a spirituality of ministry in relationship to conversion and forgiveness, identifying the need to forgive oneself, forgive one’s family and community, and the need to forgive the institutional Church. Forgiveness is essential to understanding our ministerial role and revealing the needs and requirements of those around us. Without forgiveness our relationship with God becomes stagnant and does not develop. Our communal and sacramental life also becomes lifeless and self-absorbed. Our prayer time becomes occupied with hurts and faults of ourselves as well as others. Our human and holy relationship comes to a stand-still. Our desire to develop an intimate relationship with God is impeded by personal hurts, perceived, received and given, which require healing. In order for forgiveness to take place it is necessary to experience conversion of heart; a transformation of ourselves. Our thought processes and our behaviors need to change. The process of conversion is not something that we can initiate, but it is something to which we can respond to from awareness and attentiveness. Bernard Lonergan identified three types of conversion: intellectual, moral and religious (see Lonergan, 238-242). Intellectual conversion is knowing which goes beyond our senses of touching, tasting, smelling, hearing and seeing. Intellectual conversion includes experiencing, understanding, judging, and believing. Moral conversion takes place when we abandon personal self-satisfaction and make decisions and choices based upon values which we hold more important. Moral conversion does not mean moral perfection. It means that we are aware of what is morally correct but we may still be a slave to our passions. Saint Paul lamented that he did not understand his own actions as he did not do what he wanted, but continued to do the very thing he hated (see Romans, 7:15) We must discover our individual, group and general biases which keep us from true moral conversion. Religious conversion is being in the grasp of an overpowering total love that elicits an unconditional love response that affects us emotionally, intellectually and very often physically. We often attribute this experience to the Holy Spirit. We completely surrender ourselves to being in love with God. We recognize that God is our ground and that we are nothing without God. This experience is most difficult to describe as we do not always have an adequate vocabulary to express the experience. God is always providing us opportunity to experience, question, judge and make decisions about the people and actions within the world taking place around us. Thomas Aquinas understood this as the experience of the Incarnate Word of Jesus. Through the incarnate Jesus, God descended to us in the human form, using human words as understood in our world, and we must use the same means of communication to respond and ascend again to Our Father (see Congar, 117). Traditionally, we have understood this as grace; God’s grace acting upon us. But grace understood as the source of love must be returned as love. Love must become our response. The practice of psychological counseling, prayer, and proper spiritual direction can result in God’s healing grace which can provide us strength for forgiveness of the many hurts that we inflict upon or receive from each other. We must be attentive and aware of God’s call to conversion and our need to respond. The call and response is not necessarily supernatural but very natural as it takes place with the people and the world around us. Our response is an act of free will and it must be intentional. We cannot fall into conversion by accident. We must be fully aware and fully vulnerable to accept what will be required of us for conversion. We recognize the love of God and we intentionally respond with love. We intentionally respond in a loving manner to Jesus, our incarnate God, to our self, and to our community through the sharing and reception of the sacraments. Our conversion takes place when we respond through prayer in relationship with God and when we respond charitably in relationship with those around us. Our intentional change or conversion results in behavioral change which is observable and measurable. Our relationship with those around us is the means by which we come to know the incarnate Jesus. Jesus provided us many examples of healing and forgiveness as well as how we should pray to Our Father. A passage from John’s Gospel (John 20:19-23) is often cited as an example of how we are to forgive. When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” After he said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." This passage is most often interpreted, and preached from the pulpit, as Jesus assigning the authority for forgiveness of sins to the institutional Church. The Church is given the authority to forgive and to retain sins. Forgiveness is an act performed by the Church to absolve sins. This authority is given by Jesus to the Church. This is the traditional understanding of this Gospel pericope, but the passage cries out for another interpretation. The story begins in the evening on Sunday; the very day of Jesus’ resurrection. The disciples are a small group and they are gathered together because of their common fear of being beaten or crucified for following Jesus. This gathered fearful group is no “church”; they are a Jewish faction of men and women who have lost their beloved leader to crucifixion and they are worried that they may now be subject to the same fate. Some of the disciples have been notified that earlier in the day Jesus had risen from the dead and Mary Magdalene had seen and talked to Jesus. As if there was not enough to be afraid about, some of the disciples are now seeing ghosts! There are some very human and very natural emotions that we can presume were present with the disciples in the room. As a group they are anxious and fearful. As individuals they are just plain scared and wondering if they will live to see the next day. They are also angry with one another and blaming each other for getting themselves into this mess. These crazy rumors brought by Mary Magdalene that Jesus is alive and risen from the dead only make the hurt and anger worse. The disciples are also likely to be angry with Jesus for coming to Jerusalem, getting himself killed, and placing them all at risk. The disciples’ anxiety levels are at the breaking point. With everything that has happened, and continues to happen, the disciples really miss the calming influence of Jesus. Jesus always knew what to do. Jesus would speak to the disciples and calm them. Jesus spoke to their hearts. Jesus spoke to the disciples as personal friends and as individuals. When Jesus appeared to the disciples he immediately says, “Peace be with you”. He is telling them to calm down. He is telling them that he is with them and that everything will be okay. He shows them his wounds so that they know he is real. Jesus emphasizes his call for calmness by saying a second time, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” Jesus is not only greeting the disciples and emphasizing the need for calm and cool heads, he is also notifying the disciples of their mission; of their challenge. Jesus then breathes on them and says, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” The Holy Spirit is revealed as life. Breath is life. The breath of Jesus exhaled upon the disciples is the love of God as revealed in the Holy Spirit to bring life. The call of love from God brings life and must be returned as love, with our life, when we respond to God. The challenge to the disciples is to respond in love as they are given love: “As the Father has sent me, so I send you”. Jesus, sent in love by the Father, now sends his disciples in love to the world. The forgiveness of sins is an admonition given by Jesus to the disciples as a challenge that must be met by each of them if they are to live in love with the Trinity, and if they are to live in love with each other. This is an individual challenge as well as a community challenge. It is a daily challenge for the individual members of the community as well as the entire community. We are all called to forgive sins. If we forgive the sins of anyone, including ourselves, they are forgiven. If we retain the sins of anyone, including ourselves, they are retained. Psychologically, Jesus is telling the disciples that for good mental health it is necessary to let go of the pain and hurt they have caused themselves and the pain and hurt they have caused others. Forgiveness of sins is necessary for the disciples to enter into a loving relationship with God and each other. Jesus is speaking to a theology of forgiveness which is necessary for our very salvation. Jesus is also pointing out that when we hold onto sin, our own sin, others’ sin, or the sin of the institutional Church, we are damaging our relationship with God. When we receive the Holy Spirit we are receiving the gift of love from God. Because we are beings with free-will we have the choice to accept or to deny the offer of love, and forgiveness, from God. When we accept the offer of love from God we respond in love and the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity bring gifts from God through the Holy Spirit. The Gifts of the Holy Spirit are for us and cause us to exhibit changed and converted behavior. The Gifts of the Holy Spirit include wisdom, understanding, knowledge, counsel, piety, fortitude and fear or extreme respect of the Lord. When we enter into relationship with God, we become transformed and we begin to exhibit a change in behavior that is often identified as Fruits of the Holy Spirit. The Fruits of the Holy Spirit are tangible and palpable. They can be observed and felt by those around us. The fruits are not for us but are an expression of God’s goodness working through us for the good of those around us. God’s gifts to us are realized by others working with us as virtues. The fruits can be named and include: charity, joy, peace, mildness, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, modesty, longanimity, continency, and chastity. Relationship with God quite literally results in transformation of the human by the Holy Spirit. We no longer desire to retain psychologically unhealthy behavior that prevents us from coming closer in relationship to God. We begin to shed our self of biases. We accept the offered gift of understanding and we forgive ourselves. Likewise, we no longer have a desire to retain unhealthy hurts and memories about our family and community. With the grace of the Holy Spirit we make an intentional choice to forgive and we intentionally seek love and forgiveness in return. Very often, our transformed behavior compels us to seek reconciliation with offended family members, members of the community or with the Church. If we choose to deny the offer of love from God we retain the sins. We keep the sins of our self as well as the sins of others. We do not let go of the sins and we keep our self from experiencing the love of God in a close prayerful relationship and we deny our self the experience of a close loving relationship with our family and our community. When we retain the sins of the institutional Church we distance ourselves from the Body of Christ and we deny ourselves the grace of the sacraments. When we deny the Holy Spirit to do his work with us and with our church community we are only hurting ourselves. When we choose to retain the sins of our self and the sins of others, we choose to distance our self from God. We are creating an impediment to our own salvation. We are making a choice and we are intentionally denying the forgiveness of sins in our self and in others. Our response to retain sins may be logical and it may be righteous, but it is not healthy and it is not holy. Whose relationship with God is impaired by the retention of sins? Is it the person whom you will not forgive, or yourself? Perhaps the person you will not forgive is in a healthy and loving relationship with God and the rest of the community. The person you will not forgive may not even be aware of the hurt you continue to carry. Perhaps he or she sought reconciliation with you many years ago and you chose to retain his or her sin. His or her answer to your lack of forgiveness may have been to forgive your stubbornness. In this scenario, the lack of forgiveness hurts no one but you. If we fail to forgive our self we are placing our own ego and our own intentions ahead of God. We are declaring our self to be better qualified than God to judge. We are allowing our pride to control that which does not belong to us: God’s forgiveness. Negative and self-destructive behavior cannot always be dealt with in spiritual direction but may require professional psychological help. If we need further proof for a theology of ministry based upon forgiveness we should look to The Lord’s Prayer. As we recite the words of the prayer that Jesus taught us, we become aware of the following phrase: “…and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” We are asking God to forgive us our sins just as we forgive those who sin against us. We are making a promise, perhaps an implied contract, that we will forgive others who require our forgiveness, as long as God forgives us our sins. What happens when we do not forgive the sins of others, but we retain them? Does God stop forgiving us our sins and begins to retain our sins? Probably not, but God certainly could! When Jesus taught us to pray he was teaching us how to live. Forgiveness is a necessary part of life that we all must recognize if we are to have life and live it fully. Many of us recite The Lord’s Prayer daily. Some of us use the prayer for contemplative reflection daily. Our daily spiritual journey requires us to be attentive and aware of the Divine Indwelling (see Keating, 5). The Holy Trinity is present within us on every level of our lives, from the most physical to the most spiritual. The human and the holy are united in prayer and in action. Our call to holiness requires us to develop a theology of forgiveness which will benefit us in our entire life as well as in our ministry. A healthy theology of spirituality based upon forgiveness should be reflected in a life of goodness that is seamless and uninterrupted in expression. As a member of the Body of Christ we should reflect the forgiveness of Jesus as seen and experienced by the world. At the risk of proof texting a theological spirituality of forgiveness, in the Gospel of Matthew Jesus responds to a question from Peter about, “… how often should I forgive? As many as seven times?” Jesus responds, “Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven times” (Matthew, 18:21). The response given by Jesus is not to be taken literally, but is to be understood as an infinite number of times that Peter must forgive. The message from Jesus is clear: if you are to become a Christ-follower you must become a person of infinite forgiveness. The Body of Christ is not always a metaphor. The Body of Christ becomes a reality when Christian human beings, walking, talking and interacting with each other in the world, become an expression of the real presence of Christ. This Eucharistic language is intentional and is the mystery of God present in the world. We receive what we are and we become what we are. Our ministry is our “being”, and our being is in Christ. When the focus of our life is on Christ, our behavior is transformational and we quite literally become Christ-like. We no longer need to worry about “doing” ministry because we become ministry. The human and the holy is realized in the reality of our being like Christ. Resources (All scripture quotations are from the New Oxford Annotated Bible, New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha. Oxford University Press, 2007.) Congar, Yves. I Believe in The Holy Spirit. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1983. Crosby, Michael H. The Dysfunctional Church: Addiction and Codependency in the Family of Catholicism. Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 1991. Day, Dorothy. The Long Loneliness. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1952. Hahnenberg, Edward P. Awakening Vocation: A Theology of Christian Call. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2010. Keating, Thomas. Fruits and Gifts of the Spirit. New York: Lantern Books, 2007. Lonergan, Bernard J. F. Method in Theology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971. Zizioulas, John D. Being as Communion. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985.   Jim Hubbman Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:21:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:123