"I John, your brother, who share with you in Jesus the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island of Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus." (Rev. 1:9)
Ladies and gentlemen, permit me to introduce you to my blog.
The Patmos Post gets its name from Patmos, a Greek island in the Aegean Sea. The apostle St. John the Evangelist was living in exile on Patmos when he received the visions that are recorded in the Book of Revelation, the last book of the Bible. Revelation 1:9 reads:
I, John, your brother who share with you in Jesus the persecution and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.
While in exile for his faith in Christ, St. John received the incredible vision of the Apocalypse, which he describes in the rest of the Book of Revelation. It is not that book, however, but rather John's epistles and Gospel that are a major source of inspiration for this blog. What I hope this blog will have in common with the mystic John is, quite simply, a pursuit of deeper insights into Truth. Not only did St. John receive divine inspiration as an author of Sacred Scripture, but he also had the extraordinary privilege of being one of Jesus' closest friends, with I daresay a unique knowledge of many of Our Lord's more private thoughts. Along those lines, this blog will be reserved for the presentation and (with your help, esteemed readers) discussion of indubitably interesting insights into reality and Truth, inspired by the example of the Beloved Disciple. Hence the title, The Patmos Post. Musings of a more trivial nature will more likely be relegated to their proper home in the Zuckerbergian Cloud. (By the way, would it be "more-Catholic-than-the-Pope" of me to proudly flaunt my non-membership on Twitter?)
Having said all that, it will not surprise you to learn that the background of this blog (at the time of this writing) is a public domain image of John on Patmos by 17th-century Spanish painter Alonso Cano.
Unlike normal people, my blog is not averse to stalkers. Feel free to follow it.
And just maybe you'll find a few beautifully mind-blowing thoughts along the way.
Holding hands is a sign of human intimacy and the desire to touch (not just sexually) another human that you feel connected with. This is why I am don't like the forced hand holding during the Our Father in some parishes. Its not a real nor a natural desire to hold hand with others you don't know. Its contrived and uncomfortable for people that are now made to feel not in communion with others if they don't hold hands at this time.
Upon reading this comment, I immediately had two thoughts.
My first thought was: what a shame that in today's world, this uncomfortable lack of communion among parishioners exists at all, such that we would even feel the need to attempt the artificial remedy of holding hands! It is a pity that Catholics (at least in America) often know little or nothing about their fellow parishioners these days. One of the great blessings of the Church is Her universality--you can go to Mass anywhere in the world, be a total stranger to everyone there and yet join in the same worship of God, profess the same Faith and be united through the same communion with Jesus. But just because the Church is universal does not give us an excuse to make our parishes impersonal. We have to do something about it; the question is, where to start?
I'm not sure if there is a "best" answer to that question. As a practical suggestion, maybe we could proactively introduce ourselves to at least one new person from our parish every week, learn their name and their story, and try to keep in touch with them throughout the year, if only after Sunday Mass. If everyone did that, parishioners wouldn't remain strangers for long. Even better, get involved in different parish "ministries" and groups. I am convinced that to strengthen friendships and communities demands at some point sharing some common activity, venture or mission together; there's only so far your friendship can go if all you're doing together is hanging out and talking, crucial as those aspects are. Nothing salvages a struggling community better than an endeavor undertaken in common, in community--in communion.
And if parishioners were truly friends, if one's parish was an authentic family, then there wouldn't be a need for anything "contrived," because you're right, Matt H., it's "not a...natural desire to hold hand[s] with others you don't know."
Which brings me to my second thought, which is the real point of this post.
"I hate the giving of the hand unless the whole man accompanies it." These words are attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson. Sadly, I do not know the context of this quote. Emerson may have been talking about simply giving or lending a hand, in which case these words would apply to impersonal, loveless and often forced "charity"--for example, increased taxes so that a government program which has little personal investment in the actual well-being of the poor (other than buying their votes) can pretend to take care of the poor so we don't have to bother. I can understand why Emerson would hate that kind of "giving a hand," also known as a "handout."
But for the purposes of this post, we can think of Emerson's words as condemning insincere handshakes. Or selfish marriages.
Let me explain myself.
Signs and symbols stand for and point to deeper realities, like a kind of shorthand. A hippie peace sign stands for absence of conflict. We use the shape of a heart as the symbol of love, because of the full feeling we have in the area of our heart when in the presence of someone we truly love.
Now, natural signs are signs that by their very nature signify or point to certain deeper realities. When a natural sign is used, but the deeper reality that it signifies is not actually present, then that natural sign or symbol is a lie. For example, it is a lie to passionately kiss somebody that you do not deeply love, because a kiss is by nature a sign of love. (Remember like vs. love?) Sadly, this is often forgotten in friendships and dating relationships, resulting in situations wherein friends share expressions of affection that represent a level of love and commitment they don't have in reality. It's like writing someone a check for $1,000,000 when you only have $1,000 in your account. It's a lie, even if well-intentioned--you might honestly want to give someone a million bucks despite only having a thousand, but it's still a fraud.
And as such, it usually has devastating results.
I have seen relationships that have gotten too physical too fast, and the results were downright nasty: nasty breakups with nasty drama continuing for years, with closure and healing almost nowhere in sight. And by "too physical" I don't mean sexual; in fact to my knowledge all the nasty breakups that come to my mind were between "good" Catholics who never "went too far" in their relationship.
That's because, despite the current meaning of that euphemism, you don't have to fornicate to "go too far." It's like I said: making out with somebody whom you merely have a crush on, or even with someone who is just beginning to be your friend, whom you're just starting to get to know (philosophers: think "friendship of pleasure"), is a lie and a fraud, a false beacon luring a ship to wreck upon a rocky coast. Why? Because passionate kissing is a natural symbol of love.
In fact, depending on the circumstances of the relationship, even something as seemingly harmless as one's conversation--telling somebody "I love you" when actually you just "like" them, for example--can be going too far. I have had to guard my own speech regarding this, and thanks be to God I believe I can sincerely say to all my friends to whom I have said, "I love you": it really is true. But I have certainly been tempted in the past to do what everybody else is doing these days: telling someone "I love you" for the sake of strengthening an emotional attachment between that person and oneself, when in fact the love that should naturally underlie such attachment is just not there (yet).
Which brings us back to Matt H's comment. He said, very insightfully, that holding hands is a sign of "human intimacy," of being "connected with" the other person. And if in fact that level of connection and oneness is not already there, then holding hands can be a lie just as can kissing or amorous conversation--or any other action meant to express love.
We're going about things backwards. We want the feelings without the reality--or the commitment that comes with it. Or else, we hope that if we can make the other person feel in love with us, eventually they will come to actually love us. And despite our good intentions, we're playing a dangerous game. Because another person's emotions and affections are not a game. A priest I know often says of fornication, and I paraphrase, "You led your boyfriend or girlfriend into sin, jeopardizing their eternal happiness and yours, because you say you love them? A fine love that is! Love does not put another in danger of losing their immortal soul--that is hate." Sure, holding hands does not endanger one's immortal soul as fornication or adultery do. But artificially creating emotional attachments without the necessary degree of love to back them up, and then risking the extremely likely possibility that the relationship will break up, causing immeasurable damage and leaving scars for life--that is no way to treat your friends. And everybody's doing it.
Don't be that guy. ("Guy" as used here is gender-neutral; I'm not sexist.)
So take Dr. Esolen's excellent advice, but with a grain of salt. (But maybe you didn't click on the earlier link to his article; if not, here it is again.) Yes, by all means keep alive the time-honored traditions of courtship like holding hands. Just remember: those traditions took into account the various stages of relationships and allowed for certain expressions of affection based on the reality of the degree of love expressed. (Translation: You should hold hands when your friendship has matured to that stage of commitment that holding hands expresses, and not before.) Despite what the hook-up culture tells us, we shouldn't completely give ourselves to another human being all at once. That's not how relationships are meant to work. You can't force it, or you're setting yourself up for disaster. So take it nice and easy. Nice 'n' easy does it every time.
Our English language (even in its American variety) has a rather serious limitation. We only have one word for love. So we use the word "love" to stand for every possible gradation and variety of affection and preference we can have for anything or anyone.
This problem--and the accompanying rant that many, including myself, are prone to deliver on the slightest provocation--are given something of a summary, with a unique twist, in this funny and sarcastic youtube video by Blimey Cow which has nothing to do with the actual point of the rest of this blog post. I include it here mostly because it amuses me.
But that isn't really what I'm writing about today. Moving on...
Now, most of you have probably heard things like this a hundred times: "You have to love everyone, but you don't have to like them." In other words, you have to desire and work for what is truly good for each person, but you don't have to enjoy their company or feel friendly towards everyone you meet. Knowing this makes us feel better--just think, what if we had to like the people who hurt us or annoy us!? Surely that would make life miserable. Or would it?
Still, we must love everyone, which is hard enough--and we must love them as God loves us (Jn. 13:34), which is even harder since we know that God loves us more than we can ever imagine. Which leads me to my next thought...
God loves every single one of us. Jesus is God. So Jesus loves everybody. Yes, even you. Even me. Even His executioners. (Even the devil--that's why the devil is in hell. Think about that one for a minute.) And even though Jesus is fully human, He is still able to love everybody infinitely, because He's also fully divine.
But does Jesus like everybody? Are there people that Jesus genuinely doesn't like? Jesus was fully human, after all, and conventional wisdom tells us that "you have to love everyone, but you don't have to like them."
On first glance, it makes sense to say that there were a lot of people Jesus didn't like. Take for example many of the scribes and Pharisees. Jesus repeatedly said, to their faces, things that could hardly be mistaken for words of endearment, though they were words of warning rather than of hatred. (It's called tough love.)
It does seem absurd to suggest that even when He was castigating evildoers and turning over tables in the Temple, Jesus intensely liked (not just loved) every single person He met.
But we will never know what it is like to be a God-man, and to that extent we can't "get inside Jesus' head," so to speak. What if Jesus not only loves but even likes every single person? Let's try a thought experiment. Maybe when He saw a hypocritical Pharisee, Jesus' thoughts sounded something like this: "Oh Father, here comes dear old Benjamin again, putting undue burdens on ordinary people who are trying to serve God... Look how he's destroying himself and hurting everyone around him with his pride and self-righteousness... This has got to stop. Poor Benjamin... he mustn't keep on like this." (At this point Jesus launches into a tirade about hypocrites and whitewashed tombs.)
It all depends on what liking entails. "Disliking" doesn't mean "hating;" that would be "disloving." So, is disliking people something, if not sinful, at least a result of our fallen and imperfect state? Is it in the same category as getting sick or injured or hungry? Even Jesus, though sinless, could become injured or hungry while He walked this earth.
Or do liking and disliking pertain to our personhood rather than our universal human nature? In other words, is our dislike of certain people at least partly due to our temperament, personality and preferences as a unique human individual--at least, those preferences and personality traits that do not come from sinful tendencies?
Perhaps we dislike people because of their imperfections--or perhaps because of ours. Or is there in fact no moral right and wrong involved in our likes and dislikes?
Now you're looking for the secret. But you won't find it. Because of course, I don't have an answer for you--it's your turn to think now. And when you're done, let me know what you think by posting a comment, so we can discuss this more!
I would like to present for your edification, consolation, and motivation, some of my favorite election night facebook posts from my IRL friends, unedited for spelling mistakes (sorry Gus).
John Bertucci IV
Hahahaha another round of debt on the house! Also here's a side of DEBT with your debt. More debt you ask? Sure! We have enough for even your kid's GRAND KIDS! Glad you asked! We'll keep it comin ;)
Angela J. Sus
Keep your chin up for the result tonight can only kill your spirit, your hope, your fight if you let it. The Lord says, "I know well the plans I have for you, plans for a future full of hope." He is with us always, so let us surrender our spirits, our hope, our fight, and our country's future to our Creator. And then. Go buy a gun.
Kyle Richard Therese George
"In this world you will have trouble, but take heart - for I have overcome the world." - John 16:33
Augustine Welsh
"i wish none of this had ever happened" said frodo. "so do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All they have to decide is what to do with the time they are given. And that is an encouraging thought..." replied gandalf. "i must decieve them that all hope is lost" said sauron, "when it is never lost, just needs to be found in the deep and dark abyse. But few.....ever have the courage and perserverence to go there. And therefore, because they despair, i live." Despite the slight misquoting of the movie by Gus, his and Kyle's posts struck me almost physically. Spot on, gentlemen. Of course, credit goes to Jesus/St. John the Evangelist and J.R.R. Tolkien/LOTR:FOTR scriptwriters, respectively.
I myself posted on facebook when the election results were still coming in and not looking good... But we'll save that for an entire post, coming soon. Right now, I need to sleep.
