God's Restorative Justice

Throughout this blog I have attempted to share my growing belief and experience about a God who does not punish, reward or hand out favours.  At the same time I continue to ask myself ‘how else can we come to understand a Being who loves all of his creation UNCONDITIONALLY?  Perhaps we can only ever seem to grasp small portions of this incredible healing and forgiving love.  Is seems simply too far beyond our daily experience!  For many God’s unconditional love  is too difficult to accept since they may never have received or experienced this kind of love from their parents, teachers and even members of their religious institution. And so we continue to demand punishment not just for ourselves but also for others and we continue to suffer. But God has a better plan – it is called restorative justice.

Fr. Richard Rohr,OFM one of my favourite spiritual teachers, suggests that for many God’s love or grace is still based on our false sense of justice which demands that sin must be punished and followed by a lengthy period of repentance and only after that we  might experience or be worthy of transformation.  Fr. Rohr calls this a religion based on meritocracy.  But Rohr provides the following beautiful illustration of God's intended grace pattern as follows:  

Sin - - -  >punishment - - ->repentance - - -> transformation

 The grace pattern is:

Sin - - ->unconditional love - - >transformation - ->repentance

  
 In other words Rohr reminds us that Yahweh’s fidelity is beyond a merit system where we will find the grace of God.  When we are ready and willing to expose our hidden sins under God’s unconditional love, transformation will out of necessity precede any form of real repentance.  And so, Rohr gently reminds us that God cannot heal what you not acknowledge!  Why have we misunderstood this healing message for so long?

A careful reading of Jesus’ parable of Prodigal Son might be of help.  Noted spiritual author and teacher, Henri Nouwen and his powerful reflection on the parable of the Prodigal Son in his book  book ‘The Return of the Prodigal Son’ (1992) so beautifully captures the mixed emotions we probably all experience in such a manner that I, for one, cannot possibly say it or improve on it in any other way.  The themes of homecoming, affirmation, and reconciliation set against our feelings of loneliness, dejection, jealousy, or anger are typically for me a daily struggle.  

Here follow just a few excerpts from Nouwen’s book:     

On the Prodigal Son

Receiving forgiveness requires a total willingness to let' God be God and do all the healing, restoring, and renewing. As long as I want to do even a part of that myself, I end up with partial solutions, such as becoming a hired servant. As a hired servant, I can still keep my distance, still revolt, reject, strike, run away, or complain about my pay. As the beloved son, I have to claim in full dignity and begin preparing myself to become the father.

On the True Elder Son

The return of the elder son is becoming as important to me as—if not more important than—the return of the younger son. How will the elder son look when he is free from his complaints, free from his anger; resentments, and jealousies? Because the parable tells us nothing about the response of the elder son, we are left with the choice of listening to the Father or of remaining imprisoned in our self-rejection.

I have to let go of all comparison; all rivalry and competition, and surrender to the Father's love. This requires a leap of faith because I have little experience of non-comparing love and do not know the healing power of such a love. As long as I stay outside in the darkness, I can only remain in the resentful complaint that results from my comparisons. Outside of the light, my younger brother seems to be more loved by the Father than I; in fact, outside of the light, I cannot even see him as my own brother.

On the Fatherhood of Compassion

Becoming like the heavenly Father is not just one important aspect of Jesus' teaching; it is the very heart of his message. The radical quality of Jesus' words and the seeming impossibility of his demands are quite obvious when heard as part of a general call to become and to be true sons and daughters of God.

Fr. Rohr reminds us that “The dominant culture is one based on an economy of merit and retributive justice. The economy of grace turns meritocracy on its head, aiming toward restorative justice, for “the revelation from the cross and the Twelve Steps, however, believes that sin and failure are, in fact, the setting and opportunity for the transformation and enlightenment of the offender—and then the future will take care of itself. The majority of human history has not been ready to see this revelation, but we are witnessing an evolution of consciousness drawing humanity forward.  Restorative justice emphasizes repairing the harm caused by crime.  When victims, offenders and community members meet to decide how to do that the results can be transformational.”

Rohr invites us to witness a practical example and application of restorativejustice here. Be sure to see how it is being applied in your community as well in other countries.  

For more on this topic readers are invited to listen to Fr. Rohr’s excellent homily on Retribution versus Restoration.

           

FACING OUR GREATEST FEAR

Recently a local member of the clergy announced that Catholics must consider themselves lucky to be able to enjoy the sacrament of reconciliation because they can come directly to a local priest. Protestants, he was quoted as saying, have to deal with their sins directly with Jesus.

Attendants were left somewhat confused behind the implications of this statement. What exactly did this unfortunate priest mean by that? A possible answer eluded me until I shared a few unconnected paragraphs from a book I recently purchased. The book is the classic comic novel 'Clochemerle' by French author Gabriel Chevallier. It was first published in 1936 and describes the efforts of the local mayor to introduce a public urinal, to his lasting memory, in the village from where the book got its title. The author begins with a wonderful introduction to the local characters in the village, sparing little detail about their amorous adventures.

The local curé is innocently drawn into these adventures through his sacred education derived from the amorous but repentant villagers. Unable to resist his aroused feelings he develops a passionate relationship with his housemaid. Filled with remorse and guilt he decides to seek forgiveness by confessing his sin to a neighbouring priest within a bicycle distance from his parish. The tables are quickly turned as his confession leads to the discovery that this priest too is involved in a similar indiscretion. They quickly agree to absolve each other and conduct regular reciprocal visits in the future to justify and carry-on with these amorous but illicit adventures.

This fictitious account probably raised many an eyebrow, among its Catholic readers at the time, when the book was first published in 1936. It may even have been on the list of 'forbidden books' for a time. But can we perhaps draw some parallels from these two separate stories? Is the Sacrament of Reconciliation merely a ritual used to deflect our feelings of guilt and shame? Or is it intended to cause us to wrestle with our false self so that we might grow into our True Self? If so, is the celebrant of Sacrament of Reconciliation experienced enough to challenge us to dig deeper and further? Surely, it must include a means that would encourage us to deal with our failings or shortcomings beyond a simple recitation of a few repetitive Hail Mary's? How willing am I to confront my dark-side? What sins am I not facing that need Christ's healing? How can I expect transformation without first naming my hidden sins? Scripture tells us that there is one sin against the Holy Spirit that cannot be forgiven – and that is the darkness that resides in each one of us that we are afraid to confront!

The priest in the beginning of this story may well have meant that we are probably more comfortable facing a member of the clergy than Jesus. After all, for many of us there still remains a hidden fear of a judgemental God who keeps a record of all our wrongs.

What is Atonement?

How do you as a Christian understand atonement? 

A popular dictionary designed specifically for juveniles defines Atonement as The act of healing the broken relationship between God and human beings.  Through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus we have been made one with God.

According to ‘A Course in Miracles’ The idea of Atonement rests on the notion that there has been a rupture between us and God. We see the evidence of this all around us. We live in the world of the rupture, where every creature walks alone, feeling split off from the Whole, cut off from holiness and goodness, severed from the Source of life and power. Every creature has to scratch out a living with tooth and claw and brain, rather than merely rest in the boundless lap of its Creator. We may not know when this rupture happened, but our entire experience of life tells us that we are living in its after effects; we are riding its shock waves. Where is God? How do we reunite with Him? Every religion, spiritual path, healing modality, and self-help system is trying to answer this question in one form or another. Even every product hawked on TV is trying to answer it. Don't they all promise us that we will feel whole and loved, and that we will belong? In other words, don't they all promise us "Atonement"?

Some adult Christians, today have adopted the more conventional or traditional definition which suggests that Atonement is achieved by paying for our sins; by Jesus paying on the cross for the sin of our break with God.

We may no longer believe, or may have never believed, that Jesus died for our sins. But we probably still retain, at least unconsciously, the underlying belief that reconciling with God means paying for our sinfulness. This hidden belief causes us to view the spiritual life as a series of sacrifices through which we try to make it up to God. In this light, all of our spiritual study, our lengthy meditations, our daily good thoughts and good deeds, add up to a single, massive attempt to atone. Through it all, something deep within us is trying to say to God, "I'm so sorry. Please forgive me." On an even deeper level, this is why we dream into our lives disasters, disease, aging, and death. We hope that if we punish ourselves enough. God will take us back.

This is why the Franciscan definition of Atonement should be such a profound relief. Yes, there did seem to be some kind of rift between you and God. And yes, the cause of that rift needs to be wiped away in order for reconciliation to occur. But—and here is the relief—the wiping away occurs through realizing that your split with God was never real in the first place. Nothing ever happened to your relationship with God. The only split that occurred was between your image of yourself and your image of God. This means that the split occurred only in your mind, not in God's. The real you and the real God have remained completely at peace and at one since the very beginning. What amazing news! The rupture never occurred. The world of the rupture is no more than a bad dream. There is nothing to pay for, no need for sacrifice. And therefore, all of your study, practice, meditation, prayer, good thoughts, and good deeds can be aimed, not at making it up to God, but at undoing your deep-seated delusion that there is something to make up for.

This is how l understand the Franciscan way of atonement. It strongly suggests that we need to take personal responsibility, towards all others and ourselves for our deeds, actions and words? As Anthony de Mello, S.J. would say 'God won't do for you, what you can do for yourself'.  In this way we may finally come to understand the true meaning of At-Onement! 

Update: February 05/2014

 Fr. Richard Rohr recently (January 21, 2014) posted the following wonderful reflection on the  of subject Oneing on his Daily Meditation e-mails as follows:

 The divisions, dichotomies, and dualisms of the world can only be overcome by a unitive consciousness at every level: personal, relational, social, political, cultural, in interreligious dialogue, and spirituality in general. This is the unique and central job of healthy religion (re-ligio = to re-ligament!). A transformed person unites all within himself or herself, so they can then do the same in the outer world. My favorite Christian mystic, Lady Julian of Norwich (1342-1416), used the Old English term “oneing” to describe what happens between God and the soul. As Julian put it, “By myself I am nothing at all, but in general, I am in the oneing of love. For it is in this oneing that the life of all people exists” (Showings, 9). She also says, “The love of God creates in us such a oneing that when it is truly seen, no person can separate themselves from another person” (65), and “In the sight of God all humans are oned, and one person is all people and all people are one person” (51).  This is the perennial tradition. Our job is not to discover it, but only to retrieve what has been discovered—and enjoyed—again and again, in the mystics and saints of all religions. As Jesus put it in his great final prayer: “I pray that all may be one” (John 17:21).

If you wish to receive your Daily Meditations fromFr. Richard Rohr you can do so here.

Forgiveness

It was reported earlier this week that the Vatican had approved an iPhone app that would help guide Roman Catholic worshippers through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, sometimes better known as ‘confession’. Two days later a disclaimer was issued by Vatican officials when it was revealed that those U.S. users could download an application for the Apple gadget that would help the faithful gain absolution.

That story reminded me of an article I submitted to the Catholic New Times in 2003 about the Sacrament of Reconciliation . I argued that when our Canadian bishops disallowed the celebration of general confession and absolution, we lost the all-important community aspect of this rite. (Think of what the electronic gadget might have done). 

Perhaps this is a good time to consider the deeper spiritual and wholistic implications reconciliation can have when we are open to God’s input. As children many of us may have been reminded of God’s wrath whenever we were caught in wrongdoing. Maybe this is the reason why we find it difficult to believe that God does not keep a record of our wrongs (1 Corinthians 13). At the same time it is important to realize that God also keeps no record of our right actions either. He does not bless us because of the good things we do. He blesses us because He loves us. He does not save us because of the good things that we do, but because He loves us UNCONDITIONALLY.

Scripture does remind us to ask for forgiveness from our neighbours for any wrongs or pain we may inflicted upon them and visa versa (Matthew 18:15-18). When we have hurt others reconciliation with that person is paramount for our spiritual health. In some instances more for ourselves. Confessing our ‘sin’ privately to a priest is only the beginning of this sacramental process. Forgiving, or asking for forgiveness from the other person(s) completes the cycle and thereby brings forth God’s communal healing. We do not need to ask God for forgiveness. God does not condemn the sinner (Romans 8:1) but we condemn ourselves.

There are many modern stories about the impact of communal reconciliation. One of these was provided by celebrated author Paul Theroux in his book ‘Dark Star Safari’ (2003) about such an event that took place during the South African Truth and Reconciliation process.

Amy Elizabeth Biehl (April 26, 1967 – August 25, 1993) was a white American graduate of Stanford University and an Anti-Apartheid activist in South Africa. She studied at the University of the Western Cape in Cape Town as a scholar in the Fulbright Program.

When 26-year-old Biehl drove a friend home to the township of Guguletu, outside Cape Town, on August 25, 1993, a black mob pelted her car with stones and smashed its windows while shouting racial epithets. Biehl was struck in the head with a brick, then dragged from her car. She was surrounded as she tried to escape and was stoned and stabbed to death. Four of the men complicit in Biehl's murder were convicted for it; however, in 1998, several years after the end of Apartheid, all four were pardoned by South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Biehl's family supported release of the killers, and her father shook the murderers' hands, stating that:

“The most important vehicle of reconciliation is open and honest dialogue...we are here to reconcile a human life which was taken without an opportunity for dialogue. When we are finished with this process we must move forward with linked arms.”

In 1994, Biehl's parents, Linda and Peter, founded the Amy Biehl Foundation Trust to develop and empower youth in the townships, in order to discourage further violence. In 1999, Biehl's parents were honored with the Aline and Norman Felton Humanitarian Award.

In his speech accepting the Congressional Gold Medal on 23 September 1998, Nelson Mandela said:

“Among those we remember today is young Amy Biehl. She made our aspirations her own and lost her life in the turmoil of our transition, as the new South Africa struggled to be born in the dying moments of apartheid. Through her, our peoples have also shared the pain of confronting a terrible past, as we take the path towards the reconciliation and healing of our nation.”

Bring back communal confession

On the first day of Lent 2010 it might be beneficial to reflect on the following letter originally published in the Catholic New Times 2/23/03

We, as Catholics, have just begun to realize that we will no longer be able to celebrate a form of reconciliation known as general confession and absolution. Recent liturgical directives issued from Vatican offices and an apostolic letter from the pope in April 2002, prohibit communal absolution except under extreme situations or circumstances.

General absolution will no longer be permitted due to concerns that individuals conscious of serious sin may mistakenly assume that they have received the full benefits under the general application of this rite. Canon Law (961) requires penitents who have committed such a sin to make an individual confession within the year.

This unfortunate ruling probably means that even fewer Catholics will take advantage of the sacrament of reconciliation. To take away this form of general absolution indirectly punishes and denies forgiveness to those individuals who have indicated a preference and a need for this public form of absolution. The practice of individual reconciliation has fallen into serious decline in recent years. Communal celebrations of this sacrament, on the other hand, have seen a growing and healthy attendance.

The rite of reconciliation (penance), based on criteria proposed by Vatican II from the document, "The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy," states: "The rite should clearly express both the nature and the effect of the sacrament. The role of the church community must be emphasized. The reading of the word of God should be central. A public form of worship should predominate over a private form. And, the rite should be short and clear, free from useless repetitions and not requiring extensive explanation."

Accordingly, the rite, until recently, was presented the sacrament in three different ritual forms: Rite for Reconciliation of Individual Penitents, also know as Form Number 1; Rite for Reconciliation of Several Penitents with Individual Confession and Absolution, also known as Form Number 2; Rite for Reconciliation of Several Penitents with General Confession and Absolution, also known as Form Number 3.

For the last 400 years, and prior to Vatican II, Catholics observed the weekly rite of examining their conscience, sorting out greater and lesser sins and entering the confessional box to anonymously whisper them to the priest who sat on the other side of a tiny screen door. Today, few Catholics celebrate the weekly rite of individual or private confession.

When our Canadian bishops disallowed the celebration of general confession and absolution, we lost the all-important community aspect of this rite. There is no greater sign of unity than when we celebrate our faith together. Sr. Sandra DeGidio, O.S.M., noted Catholic lecturer and author, writes: "Sacramental celebrations are communal because sacramental theology is horizontal. Sacraments happen in people who are in relationship with each other and with God. In the area of sin, forgiveness and reconciliation this is particularly evident. Our sinfulness disrupts our relationship in community as well as our relationship with God." Furthermore, she states: "There is no room for the attitude that forgiveness comes 'only when you have recited your list of sins, agreed to suffer a bit for them and proven yourself worthy to join the rest of us who haven't been so foolish.'"

In no way am I suggesting that the church should abandon the practice of individual reconciliation. This meets the needs of many, but we need to examine our hearts and souls and search for an answer at a deeper level.

Jesus' Parable of the Prodigal Son reminds us of the father who stood at the end of the road each day anxiously waiting for the return of a son who had already claimed his inheritance and left. And when that son finally returned, filled with remorse and shame, the father did not even give him an opportunity to express his sins, but immediately embraced him, forgave him and celebrated his return.

We must urge our Canadian bishops, to enter into full collegial agreement and the spirit of Vatican II on this issue. And to, once again, permit regular communal confession and general absolution under this healing sacrament so that we, in turn, may continue to experience the feast of forgiveness of the Christian community and of God with increasing joy and thanksgiving.

January 29, 2010, Worcester, MA -- Faced with a continuing decline in the number of Roman Catholics who go to confession regularly, Most Rev. Robert J. McManus, Bishop of Worcester, issued today a Pastoral Letter on the Sacrament of Penance. In it he provided a brief summary of the church's teaching on the need for the sacrament and called for Cathlics in the Diocese of Worcester to partake in the sacrament, particularly during the season of Lent. - Cath. News Service, Feb.18

Note: To date both the American and Canadian bishops have failed to exercise the wishes of the people they serve to reinstate the option of General Absolution - despite the continuing & dramatic fall in overall participation in this sacrament.

Facing our Greatest Fear

Recently a local member of the clergy announced that Catholics must consider themselves lucky to be able to enjoy the sacrament of reconciliation because they can come directly to a local priest. Protestants, he was quoted as saying, have to deal with their sins directly with Jesus.

Attendants where left somewhat confused behind the implications of this statement. What exactly did this unfortunate priest mean by that? A possible answer eluded me until I shared a few unconnected paragraphs from a book I recently purchased. The book is the classic comic novel 'Clochemerle' by French author Gabriel Chevallier. It was first published in 1936 and describes the efforts of the local mayor to introduce a public urinal, to his lasting memory, in the village from where the book got its title. The author begins with a wonderful introduction to the local characters in the village, sparing little detail about their amorous adventures.

The local curé is innocently drawn into these adventures through his sacred education derived from the amorous but repentant villagers. Unable to resist his aroused feelings he develops a passionate relationship with his housemaid. Filled with remorse and guilt he decides to seek forgiveness by confessing his sin to a neighbouring priest within a bicycle distance from his parish. The tables are quickly turned as his confession leads to the discovery that this priest too is involved in a similar indiscretion. They quickly agree to absolve each other and conduct regular reciprocal visits in the future to justify and carry-on with these amorous but illicit adventures.

This fictitious account probably raised many an eyebrow among its Catholic readers at the time when the book was first published in 1936. It may even have been on the list of 'forbidden books' for a time. But can we perhaps draw some parallels from these two separate stories? Is the Sacrament of Reconciliation merely a ritual used to deflect our feelings of guilt and shame? Or is it intended to cause us to wrestle with our false self so that we might grow into our True Self? If so, is the celebrant of Sacrament of Reconciliation experienced enough to challenge us to dig deeper and further? Surely, it must include a means that would encourage us to deal with our failings or shortcomings beyond a simple recitation of a few repetitive Hail Mary's? How willing am I to confront my dark-side? What sins am I not facing that need Christ's healing? How can I expect transformation without naming my sins? Scripture tells us that there is one sin against the Holy Spirit that cannot be forgiven – and that is the darkness that resides in each one of us that we are afraid to confront!

The priest in the beginning of this story may well have meant that we are probably more comfortable facing a member of the clergy than Jesus. Because for many of us there still remains a hidden fear of a judgmental God who keeps a record of all our wrongs.

On Vatican Challenges

The following letter was mailed today to our Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops

Dear Bishops:

I have read your letter to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, March 19, 2009 as well as his initial letter to the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, of March 10, 2009.

I am deeply concerned about the recent events that have so troubled our Church and its leaders and thereby all faithful. At the same time I want to express my disappointment with the two exchanges mentioned above. Archbishop Weisgerber’s response to our Pope is typical of the hierarchical restraints used to adequately deal with the problems that face a fearful church today. From my own personal experience, I find that the Church has failed miserably to "bring reconciliation to those who are estranged from the community of faith".

Church leadership continues to pour new wine into old wine skins. A new way of seeing and communicating with the community of believers is needed. The role of the Church must be seen, in teaching its followers to discover and claim the God within – not outside, isolated and subject to a dominant hierarchy! Reading our Pope’s letter one will immediately detect a strong pre Vatican II Roman Catholic flavor. Far removed from the spirit I embraced as a convert more than twenty-five years ago. Accordingly, I am compelled to respond to our Pope’s words – see bold text in italics below:

Pope’s concern for reconciliation

Many will ask “is Pope Benedict XVI sincere about his desire for reconciliation with groups like Society of St. Pius X *? And, should it not have included the one hundred of more theologians, and other members of the clergy who were silenced or dismissed in the last twenty five years? Compared to the Lefebvrist the latter individuals were ‘punished’ for what now seems a whole lot less. God created us as unique individuals to be bound together through diversity.

*We were told by Vatican officials that the Pope made the decision independently and without consultation or collegialy through his fellow bishops.

“Some groups openly accused the Pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before the [Vatican II] Council: as a result, an avalanche of protest was unleashed”

There is very little doubt about Benedict’s position regarding Vatican II. His actions and words, as head of the CDF* and subsequently as Pope, are very clear on this point. There are volumes of books, such as ‘The Rule of Benedict’, by David Gibson that support the Pope’s opposition to much of the Council. More importantly, when the Vatican received an ‘avalanche of protest’, regarding the changes implemented by the Council, why did the Vatican choose to ignore the cry of the people? Or was this simply a matter of imposing convenient hierarchical truths?

“I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility.”

Sadly, millions of Catholics are not listened to or consulted about issues that directly affect their spiritual lives. Many find themselves condemned instead of offered compassion when they expressed their right and duty to challenge Church teachings.

“the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity.”

This is probably the most damaging statement made by a Pope since the Spanish Inquisition. A statement made all the more confusing considering it was his predecessor John Paul II who initially excommunicated the Lefebvrists. It begs the question which Pope was right? Additionally the overemphasis on the term 'punishment' revives the old pre Vatican II image of a angry and punishing deity. Jesus never refused those who came to him for healing and understanding. Did Jesus not invited sinners to sit with him and dine? Would Jesus really excommunicate or deny his presence (Eucharist) to us for any reason?

“Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.”

The Church must teach & guide us to be obedient to the Divine Indwelling the very roots from which the tree draws its life. So many Catholics profess faith in the Church but express little trust for the God within. A perfect recipe for co-dependency on both sides.

“the faith is in danger of dying out . . . God is disappearing from the human horizon”

Institutional religion is certainly dying out, witness the dramatic decline in Church attendance/participation worldwide. Recent statistics show that close to ninety percent of people believe in God. The same statistics show that people no longer accept the ‘traditional understanding of God’ and want to experience a strong healthy & responsible faith instead of being spoon fed. Dogma, doctrine and church rules can be helpful when dealing with life’s painfull problems but is no substitute for the ‘real thing’.

“At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate.”

When we label some people as ‘intrinsically evil, or fail to demonstrate God’s understanding & compassion with regard to abortion, responsible use of condoms, prayers for the conversion of the Jews, etc. are we then not attacking them?

"Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh”

I choose this final statement as a typical example of the kind of archaic ‘churchy’ language that people can no longer relate too. The term ‘flesh’ is understood probably by most people, especially clergy, to have sinful sexual connotations. When it is used to define the ego or false self, as I believe St. Paul did, it takes on a much deeper meaning for all humankind and their struggle to die to self.

As a once active and involved Catholic, I stand on the many wonderful Catholic friends and volumes of uplifting authors that continue to inspire me to remain faithful to the Christ within.

Yours in Christ

The following story (not included in the above mailing ) by master story teller Fr. Anthony de Mello, SJ, perhaps best illustrates what I hoped to convey in the above letter to our Canadian Bishops.

There was a man who invented the art of making fire. He took his tools and went to a tribe in the north, where it was very cold, bitterly cold. He taught the people there to make fire. The people were very interested. He showed them the uses to which they could put fire — they could cook, could keep themselves warm, etc. They were so grateful that they had learned the art of making fire. But before they could express their gratitude to the man, he dis­appeared. He wasn't concerned with getting their recognition or gratitude; he was concerned about their well-being. He went to another tribe, where he again began to show them the value of his invention. People were interested there, too, a bit too in­terested for the peace of mind of their priests, who began to notice that this man was drawing crowds and they were losing their popularity. So they decided to do away with him. They poisoned him, crucified him, put it any way you like. But they were afraid now that the people might turn against them, so they were very wise, even wily. Do you know what they did? They had a portrait of the man made and mounted it on the main altar of the temple. The instruments for making fire were placed in front of the portrait, and the people were taught to revere the portrait and to pay reverence to the instruments of fire, which they dutifully did for centuries. The veneration and the worship went on, but there was no fire.

Where's the fire? Where's the love? Where's the drug up­rooted from your system? Where's the freedom? This is what spirituality is all about. Tragically, we tend to lose sight of this, don't we? This is what Jesus Christ is all about. But we overem­phasized the "Lord, Lord," didn't we? Where's the fire? And if worship isn't leading to the fire, if adoration isn't leading to love, if the liturgy isn't leading to a clearer perception of reality, if God isn't leading to life, of what use is religion except to cre­ate more division, more fanaticism, more antagonism? It is not from lack of religion in the ordinary sense of the word that the world is suffering, it is from lack of love, lack of awareness. I have run into individuals, here and there, who suddenly stum­ble upon this truth: The root of evil [ego or 'false self'*] is within you. As you begin to understand this, you stop making demands on yourself.

* Congregattion for the Doctrine of the Faith.