I hope you have had a chance to check out the latest installment of my new podcast Five Minutes a Day, Five Days a Week. This week's focus is on the Incarnation: Jesus Christ taking on human flesh for our sake. This week's topics are as follows:

• Monday: Mary's Role in the Incarnation
• Tuesday: Why Did Jesus Take on Human Flesh?
• Wednesday: Jesus, Perfect Model of Being Fully Human
• Thursday: We are Children of God and Fellow Heirs with Christ
• Friday: Jesus, True God and True Man
  

Next week will build off of this week. Next week's focus will be on the reasons and ways that God reveals Himself to us, which itself is one of the primary reasons for the Incarnation. Next week's audio files (whose topics will be as follows) should be available by Thursday afternoon:

• Monday: Mary Reflects Upon and Embraces What God Reveals
• Tuesday: Why Does God Choose to Reveal Himself to Us?
• Wednesday: How God Reveals Himself Through Sacred Scripture
• Thursday: How God Reveals Himself Through Tradition
  
• Friday: Jesus, the Fullness of God's Revelation of Himself
  

Let me know what you think of the new shows!
My hope is that you find them to be vastly improved recently!

I have decided to make a big change to my new podcast Five Minutes a Day, Five Days a Week. From now on, I hope to focus on a given subject every week. I also hope to have every recording ready by Sunday for the upcoming week. For example, this week I focus on the four declared dogmas of Mary:

• Monday: Immaculate Conception
• Tuesday: Mary, the Mother of God
• Wednesday: Mary, Ever-Virgin
• Thursday: Assumption
• Friday: Importance of the Truths of Mary

I hope you will check it out. In fact, it is so vastly improved that I have removed the old MP3s as I think this new form will be more helpful, less random, and generally better. I hope you agree--let me know!

This past weekend marked the beginning of the Pauline year, in honor of St. Paul, a true evangelist. In parallel with the beginning of this Pauline year, I have begun recording a new podcast called 5 Minutes a Day,
5 Days a Week. For those of you who don't know what a podcast is, it's basically a fancy term for a radio-like program in which you can download MP3 audio files to play on your computer or your iPod. (No, you don't need an iPod!)

The idea of this podcast is to encourage you to commit to just
5 Minutes, 5 Days a Week: a small commitment to Jesus and His Church during the week (Monday to Friday) when it's easy to forget what it means to be a Christian.

Why just 5 Minutes? Other than the obvious fact that it would be pretty hard to do a show called "10 Minutes a Day, 10 Days a Week," I chose 5 minutes for the very reason that it's a small commitment. Too often I see people (myself included) making large commitments, only to be discouraged when they fail. What could be easier than downloading 5 shows a week and simply listening to them as you drive to work or walk to class?

As for the content, it will include "all things Catholic." It will not be primarily an apologetics show, though there will be some apologetics involved. There are a number of reasons for my choice of content, but the primary reason is that I want this show to be a show for you personally, not a show about how to defend yourself against those who question you. There are already a number of good apologetics resources online, which I wholeheartedly support. But the focus here will be slightly different. I want the content to be focused on the fundamentals of being Christian; that is, I hope that what I provide will be practical in a day-to-day sense, livable, and more importantly, will help you and I to build a greater relationship with Christ, in addition to a greater understanding of the Church itself.

I am new to this, so I hope you will be patient with me as I figure out how to get the sound quality better (any ideas?) and how to make the content interesting and more accessible for you. Feel free to post questions below (technical or otherwise) in the comments section below and I will answer them. As always, let me know what I can do to improve the content or the technical presentation, and let me know what you find useful or not. In the meantime, I hope you can commit with me to 5 Minutes a Day, 5 Days a Week!

My sister Julia Anne Reagan died twenty years ago today. It has been my hope for some time to write something of this event and its implications on my life; or perhaps I should say the effect that Julia herself has had and continues to have on my life. And while I simply do not have enough free time to justly write such a piece today, I nonetheless feel as though I would be truly remiss if I were not to share just a bit of dulia for Julia today.

St. Bernard of Clairvaux delivered a series of sermons centuries ago on the Song of Songs. In his particularly moving Sermon 26, he writes of the death of "Gerard...[his] brother by blood":

I have made public the depth of my affliction, I make no attempt to deny it. Will you say then that this is carnal? . . . Yes, I am carnal, sold under sin, destined to die, subject to penalties and sufferings. I am certainly not insensible to pain; to think that I shall die, that those who are mine will die, fills me with dread. And Gerard was mine, so utterly mine. . . And it is he who has gone from me. I feel it, the wound is deep (cf. Jn. 1:20, Rom. 7:14). . .

Our Savior too, looking at Jerusalem and foreseeing its destruction wept over it. And shall I not feel my own desolation that even now presses upon me? Shall I not grieve for the heavy blow so recently received? David's tears were tears of compassion, and shall I be afraid to weep in my suffering? At the tomb of Lazarus, Christ neither rebuked those who wept nor forbade them to weep, rather he wept with those who wept. The Scripture says: "And Jesus wept." Those tears were witnesses to human kindness, not signs that he lacked trust (cf. Lk. 19:41, Rom. 12:15, Jn. 11:35). . . In the same way, our weeping is not a sign of a lack of faith, it indicates the human condition. . .

"You are righteous indeed, O Lord, and all your judgments are right." You gave me Gerard, you took him away: and if his removal makes me sad, I do not forget that he was given to me, and offer thanks for my good fortune in having had him (cf. Ps. 118:137, Job 1:21). . .

You entrusted Gerard to us, you have claimed him back; you have but taken what was yours. These tears prevent me from speaking further; impose a limit on them O Lord, bring them to an end.

Julia, I hope my tears while just reading this are dulia enough.
I love you!

And Lord, you entrusted Julia to us, you have claimed her back; you have but taken what was yours.

These tears prevent me from speaking further.

There are many things which confuse us. One is the experience we all have in which we believe we understand what somebody else is saying to us, but we interpret the words of the other person completely wrongly. There are many reasons this can happen, but one is a differing understanding of terminology between persons. This is true in all areas of life; theology and ecumenism are not exceptions. Thus clear definitions of terms are important. In this short piece, I will address the major difference between two commonly used terms in ecumenism, which have altogether different meanings: "spiritual ecumenism" and "ecumenical spirituality." To do so, I will have to address some rather mundane facts about the implications of the terms, but my hope is that by the end, the very key to ecumenism for real unity of Christians will be seen.

Let's take a step back and look at the idea of "Buddhist spirituality," for example. Several things become apparent. First, "spirituality" does not imply anything about God at all. Second, there is no implication in such a term of the Trinity, nor of the (Holy) Spirit. Third, the implied focus in such a term is not so much on the second word, a noun ("spirituality"), as it is on the first word, an adjective ("Buddhist").

The same implications are present in the term "ecumenical spirituality." First, there is no implication of God. Second, there is no implication of the Trinity, nor of the Holy Spirit. Third, the implied focus is not on the second word, a noun ("spirituality"), but on the first word, a noun: "ecumenical." Thus, the focus seems to be on ecumenism or doing things ecumenically, which in turn may or may not imply two parties each making compromises on their beliefs. That is, the implication seems to be on unity at any cost.

Therefore taking an approach towards unity simply with an "ecumenical spirituality" is a mistake, for we cannot treat Christ, the Church, and the teachings of both as mere things to be compromised for the sake of unity. If we do so, we fall into a sort of religious business transaction: "I'll give up my beliefs on the resurrection if you give up your beliefs about Mary. Seems like a fair trade to me!" This route simply leads to giving up Truth for unity.

Rather, the focus should be based in the (Holy) Spirit, which is what the term "spiritual ecumenism" implies. In spiritual ecumenism, the implication is that unity is the work of the Spirit. This, of course, implies prayer to the Holy Spirit for unity.

The Holy Spirit is the only one from whom true unity may come. This is because the Holy Spirit is the only one that can transform us appropriately. Transformation here does not mean merely compromising and trading beliefs for the sake of unity, nor does it mean merely changing one's mind on a whim. While transformation may be intellectual, the most important transformation is deeper. When we pray for unity, the Holy Spirit transforms our hearts towards the Truth. Stated another way: the Holy Spirit transforms our hearts towards Christ, who is the Truth (cf. John 14:6).

Being in Rome intensifies many things, because in Rome one sees so much of the universality, the catholicity of the Church. One sees more problems from around the world than simply what we hear from CNN and The Economist. One sees how there really is something for everybody within the Catholic Church.

Today, for example, I had a chance to go the Pontifical Commission for Interreligious Dialogue. This was very interesting indeed, because I was with a class (not your everyday sort of field trip) in which I am probably one of maybe three people total (out of the whole class) who are neither a priest or a nun and one of maybe a third of my class who is Caucasion. Accents are thick, the universality is blatant. Imagine a class of Filipino priests and African (not African American) nuns and you're starting to get the picture.

These priests and nuns see everything! People--both the rich and the poor--come to them for help. Imagine questions from these priests and nuns about how we, the Church, are to respond to violence by Muslims (not in New York, but on the local streets of Nigeria), how we are to deal with politicians with their own agenda, how we are to break down walls which divide, and the like. Now imagine that these questions are being answered by a priest in the Roman curia (the upper hierarchy) who has the authority to set up meetings with the Pope directly for interreligious matters.

It's hard to be a lay person from the American suburbs and come away from experiences like this the same. A class with no notes: just listening and an attempt to soak it all in. Tough! And that's just today.

In this picture (sitting next to me in St. Peter's on Good Friday), are some of the most amazing people I've ever met: a few Missionaries of Charity I've gotten to know personally. Ten minutes with them is an accidental, tough lesson on how to live.

From time to time, all of us ask ourselves “Who am I?” in varying degrees. This is one of those times for me. But juxtaposed in the vicinity of my mind are other questions. “Why am I?” “How am I to be truly me?” All the while in the back of my skull, I hear a light response to questions I ask of God (John 8:58): “I am.” I change, but God remains as He has always been and always will be.

But then, maybe I don’t change as much as I often feel like I do. I was made in God’s own image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-27), with certain traits inherent to me alone. And amidst these physical and emotional traits lie my spiritual traits, which I’m learning to call my charism. So the discerning of this so-called charism continues. Which leads me to some questions which don’t sound altogether new when compared with my earlier questions: What’s my charism? Why’s my charism? How am I to live out my charism?

Sometimes, however, I make God into my own likeness, or liking. I put God in a box, and limit what He can do. Not to say God has limits, but I decide He does. Not just in terms of His power, but in terms of what He has authorized me to do for Him. And so I run away like Jonah. The only trouble is, it’s hard to run from Someone who’s everywhere.

As if this isn’t enough, God doesn’t seem to like it in the box anyway. He always manages to escape when I'm not watching diligently. And after He escapes, He has the perhaps unsurprising (and altogether annoying) tendency to sneak up on me and to nudge me in a different direction. This is exactly what God has been doing in my life recently.

And so, I throw up my hands, half shrugging and half surrendering. Perhaps I have more in common with the legion of demons than I'd like to think I do: “What do you want with...[me], Jesus of Nazareth?” (Mark 1:24)

Okay, my friend just responded to my prior little piece on "It's Not So Much What I Think that Matters, It's More What Christ Wants That Matters." In responding to her email, I decided to just pull some random points out of that response into a little makeshift piece of fairly random thoughts about what the Church has to say about how she relates to other religions. (I apologize ahead of time for how out-of-place the Abraham section seems, but I think it is helpful information in understanding the Church's position.)

The Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate)
It's important to note the Vatican II document on The Relation of the Church to Non Christian Religions: Nostra Aetate, because it forms the basis of the Catholic Church's approach to other religions today. It's a relatively short, simple, and I dare say interesting Vatican II document which shows the Church's approach to other religions today. Note that "other religions" in this document does not mean other Christians (e.g. Orthodox and Protestants) denominations. This was partly at the request of non-Catholic Christians that attended Vatican II as observers, and partly because it just makes sense. (If you truly want to know what the Second Vatican Council had to say about the Church's approach to non-Catholic Christians, you will have to read both the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) and the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio). And for a more recent view, you'd probably want to read Pope John Paul II's "On Commitment to Ecumenism (Ut Unum Sint).")

Abraham
Allow me to switch gears and (relatively briefly) address Abraham, as he is significant in understanding the Church's approach to other religions:
1) Christians, Muslims, and Jews all point to Abraham as their patriarch; 2) Abraham was around long before Islam, before Christianity, even before Judaism; and 3) this is what was said to Abraham (Genesis 22:16):

"[The Lord] said: 'I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you [Abraham] acted as you did in not withholding from me your beloved son [Isaac], I will bless you abundantly and make your descendants as countless as the stars of the sky and the sands of the seashore; your descendants shall take possession of the gates of their enemies, and in your descendants all the nations of the earth shall find blessing--all this because you obeyed my command.'"

So, there is a strong belief amongst Christians, Jews, and Muslims that this last bit is going to happen: God will bless all the nations through the descendants of Abraham. There are, of course, varying theories as to how this will happen. The general Christian idea is that Jesus (whom God, like Abraham towards Isaac, did not withhold as his only beloved son) is the one who brings blessings to all mankind.

I'm getting deeper than I intended, but let me make two key points here:
1) If you look at the New Testament with regards to Gentiles (which simply means "non Jews"), you see constant statements about how the Gentiles and the Jews can both be saved through Jesus. This is because Jesus is seen as the one who opens blessings to all mankind. This is also why you see John Paul II saying so much in defense of Jews and even asking for pardon, because Pope John Paul II and others believe (in the fullness of time), there will be an ultimate unification of Jews and Gentiles into the kingdom of God; that is, into the Church. In fact, this has already happened somewhat, from the beginning of the Church. From the beginning, Peter and the other apostles preached to Jews (and to Gentiles), whereas Paul, though himself a Jew, focused his preaching on the Gentiles (and indeed their cause). Both Jews and Gentiles entered the Church and continue to do so.

2) I hesitate to bother to say this second point, because it's getting even more theologically deep and that is not my intention. But what is also interesting is how in the very first verse in the book of Matthew and thus the Church (cf. Dean P. Bechard's The Scripture Documents) would say in the first verse of the four gospels: "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." The desire here is for the author (Matthew) to show that Jesus is the the descendant promised to both Abraham (for the salvation of all) and to David for: Jesus is the one who blesses all the nations (as per God's covenant with Abraham) and the promised King (as per God's covenant with David). Matthew is ripe with examples of what the Kingdom of God will look like.

Jesus Christ, The Truth, is Not Opposed to:
"The Spirit Blows Where the Spirit Wills (John 3:8)"
Back to other religions: our departure point in the Church and indeed our experience in the world is that there are many different types people around the world, of many different religions. So, if Jesus is to bless all nations, what's the point of being a Christian at all? This is a bit of a quandary. After all, I do believe what my favorite priest says so often: "the [Holy] Spirit blows where the Spirit wills (John 3:8; cf. footnote 4)." And yet I cannot deny that Jesus is "the way and the truth and the life (John 14:6)." So how can we reconcile these seemingly opposed ideas?

Pope Benedict XVI says: "We live on Truth. This Truth is a Person." And thus, we have the answer to Pontius Pilate's question to Jesus that many of us ask every day: "What is truth? (John 18:37-38)" And we understand Who--not merely what--the Holy Spirit is sowing when the Holy Spirit sows Truth in men around the world.

More clearly stated: The Holy Spirit is sowing Christ in the hearts of men and women around the world. And it is through Him, through the Truth, that all shall be set free: "Jesus then said to those Jews who believed in him, 'If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.' (John 8:31-32; cf. John 1:1)" And it is for this reason that Nostra Aetate #2 says:

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these [other] religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.

"Tolerance" seems to be the word of our era. But note that the Church's position is more than mere tolerance, her position is "sincere reverence." For what? For reflections of the Truth; that is, for reflections of Christ. (Note that the Church certainly does not revere--nor tolerate--anything contrary to the Truth, that is, contrary to Christ.)

How Does Christ Bless The Nations?
But how will Christ bless even those who reject Him in His very essence? For example, how will Christ save those of other religions who reject Him outright? Or if you prefer, how will Christ save those who reject one or more aspects of who He is and what He did on the cross? Well, there is another Second Vatican Council document that addresses this (though not primarily). In #7, Ad Gentes says:

God, "who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:45), "neither is there salvation in any other" (Acts 4:12). Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it." Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity.

Nearly every sentence is important here, and I recommend re-reading it (now). This statement of the Vatican II Council Fathers makes it very clear that the Church (that is, all Christians) have a sacred duty to preach the Gospel, though "God in ways known to himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel." Furthermore, the Church recognizes that those that are inculpably gnorant of the Gospel--and indeed all--are judged by God Himself (cf. 1 Samuel 16:7).

So, Where Does This Leave us?
As frustrating as the answer may be, the Church humbly states that she does know how God leads "those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel." But this ought not be frustrating, for this is good news. It is good news to know that God does lead others outside his visible Church to Himself. It is good news to know that "the Spirit blows where the Spirit wills, (John 3:8)." And at the same time, it is good news to know that there is no inherent contradiction, for though many do not know His name, it is ultimately Christ that blesses all. After all, "there is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved. (Acts 4:12)"

Mentioning something about how I don't believe I'm meant to do formal interreligious dialogue or ecumenical work (though I believe informally perhaps), prompted my friend to send me the following message:

I guess because of your comment, it seemed like you were saying that you could never imagine Christianity being united under one common practice. I guess I was curious if the reasoning is because you think certain Christianities or one in particular Christianity is inferior to others. Meaning some Christians are correct while others don't have a good grasp on their practices. Just trying to understand the motives behind your comment, but maybe trying to get into your head is a scary thing?

All of my friends realize this last point to be true, so a question mark is not necessary here. (The reason getting in my head is so scary is somewhat telling though.)

Reading this even now, I have a flood of thoughts, because these are the questions that one begs for inside--and yet dreads--if one loves God and the Church. This is because there is only one "best way to answer" such a question (and one rarely knows exactly what this "best way" is), but even that "best way" will be an answer that one person hates, another hates more, another loves, and another loves more. (The "best answer" is not the same as the "best way to answer" by the way, because the subtlety and "soft skills" to say the objective "best answer" in the way that a particular audience of people will understand it best--and absorb it--is a touchy thing indeed.) On top of this and perhaps more horrifying and exciting at the same time, there is the inherent realization that in answering the question, one's level of understanding and need for growth become obvious to oneself.

Enough of that though. I can't possibly answer the multiple (and implied) questions completely, so here are a few random thoughts:

1. Christians can and will be and are (in different senses) united, but I sadly don't think I have the patience to help make it happen in a formal, fuller, and visible sense. Thank God some people do!

2. Which is a good segue, to saying: of course some Christians are correct and some are incorrect, and some have a good grasp on their practices and some do not. This is the very reason that Jesus told parables (Matt 13:10-15):

The disciples approached him and said, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" He said to them in reply, "Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted. To anyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; from anyone who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because 'they look but do not see and hear but do not listen or understand. Isaiah's prophecy is fulfilled in them, which says: 'You shall indeed hear but not understand you shall indeed look but never see. Gross is the heart of this people, they will hardly hear with their ears, they have closed their eyes, lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted, and I heal them.'

Sadly, almost all of us reject this healing in little and big ways. Those in the Church--however you define its bounds-- are no exception, for the Church is made up of both sinners and saints (Matt 13:24-30):

He proposed another parable to them. "The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a man who sowed good seed in his field. While everyone was asleep his enemy came and sowed weeds all through the wheat, and then went off. When the crop grew and bore fruit, the weeds appeared as well. The slaves of the householder came to him and said, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where have the weeds come from?' He answered, 'An enemy has done this.' His slaves said to him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?' He replied, 'No, if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them. Let them grow together until harvest; then at harvest time I will say to the harvesters, "First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles for burning; but gather the wheat into my barn."'

That is, Christ predicted long ago that the weeds would grow amongst the wheat. Some people are indeed weeds, others are wheat. And even the wheat, the saints, tend to have their blemishes. If I am a saint, then one of mine is impatience with the lack of fuller, visible unity.

3. There are not "Christianities," there is one Christianity. There indeed are different professions though. The Second Vatican Council addressed this quite directly in Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #15:

The [Catholic] Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter [ie. Christians not unified under the Pope]. For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ [ie. baptism is the visible sign, the sacrament, which points to unity in Christ and membership in His Church]. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God. They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits [which are good things]. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined [a key word] with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces [another key word] whereby He is operative [another key word] among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

This last bit is the point from which my impatience with the lack of a fuller, "visible" unity stems. The third sentence of Lumen Gentium (#1) is "The Church is in Christ like a sacrament or as a sign and instrument both of a very closely knit union with God and of the unity of the whole human race." And yet, the unity of the Church is not visibly present for all the world to see. The world does not see one Church--though it is one Church. Though we are as one flock under one shepherd, Jesus Christ, the world often enough sees "certain Christianities": if not altogether different, minimally separated. This is the major drawback to an "invisible" unity in my own mind and the source of my impatience. I believe the visibility of a truly unified Church is a message to the world which takes note of whether the Church is visibly unified or not.

But then, why I couldn't do formal ecumenism or interreligious dialogue wasn't the question, nor should it be. Just as visible disunity is opposed to visible unity, my impatience with this is opposed to what ought to be my patience with Christ's timing. Furthermore, the "manner determined by Christ" for full unity ought to be good enough for me and for all Christians.

And thus the dreaded and (to quote myself) "inherent realization that in answering the question, one's level of understanding and need for growth become obvious to oneself" finally hits home for me: even the wheat needs "purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ [the Church] may shine brightly over the face of the earth."

"[The Church's proclamation must be] humble, in the awareness that the fullness of revelation in Jesus Christ has been received as a free gift (Ep 3:2), and that the messengers of the Gospel do not always fully live up to its demands (Joint Document of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Congregation for Evangelization of Peoples, Dialogue And Proclamation: Reflection And Orientations On Interreligious Dialogue And The Proclamation Of The Gospel Of Jesus Christ, Rome, 19 May 1991, #70c)."
I sincerely apologize to you for being so delinquent in getting something, anything out on my website.

This being said, I need to appeal for help from anybody who has the time and the desire to help me out in the short term. Basically, I have been writing a few works that are essentially longer than I would typically post to my website. While I am in Rome, I have access to some sources [books, articles, and libraries themselves] that I will not have access to once I return to the United States (which will probably occur in June). I have thus been researching a few topics related to these works to which (I believe) God has pointed me. The problem at the moment is that I have too many things to research in too little time. Thus, I need to narrow down the focus a good bit. This is where I can use some help.

More specifically, I have two very different types of help that I need:
1) I need questions that people have about the topics I believe I am supposed to research. The more questions I have the better. This may contrary to the idea of narrowing down my research on these topics. I assure you this is not the case, as I have far too many questions on these topics already (both written down and in my head). Your questions will help me to identify the questions most common for people other than myself. This will help me to narrow down my research to those things which will actually help people, rather than those I find most interesting personally.

If you are interested, please email me a short list or paragraph about what about religion or spirituality has typically interested you most in the past. From this, I can try to choose one or two topics I am looking at which may be most interesting to you (and for which I need questions from you).

2) I have a moderately long list of Bible passages I need to look up, but every minute I spend looking them up is a minute that I can't spend researching (using materials that only exist here in Rome). I have reason to believe that these Bible passages all are related to the topics I am researching (I believe this because the books I have been reading over here reference these Bible passages, but usually do not quote them. It is highly inefficient to have to flip for each reference knowing the library will be closing soon.) I need to be able to quickly group these passages into topics and to be sure that I have thoroughly researched the main topics they contain.

More specifically, what I would need here would be for someone to type up (or to simply cut and paste) passages into a text document or an email. I need this because I need to be able to print out these Bible passages and carry them with me to the library, because the primary library I use here does not allow me to check out materials. I do not care much which version of the Bible you use at this point.

If you can help me out with this, please email me and let me know or just leave a comment out at TomReagan.com. I will try to split the passages between whomever says they can help (and depending on how much each can help). I do not need immediate responses. (At the same time, the faster I do get responses, the more focused my research can be.)

I realize all of this is a bit unusual, but nonetheless I believe it can help me out a great deal and I have been praying to God that He will show me how to accomplish what I understand that He wants from me (which is a bit overwhelming at the moment). Here, I must add a third area of help: any and all prayers you can lend.

Thanks in advance for any ways you can help and for your continued prayers!

In Luke's account of the crucifixion, the two criminals crucified to the left and right of Jesus take very different approaches to Jesus on the cross. In one, we see mockery (Luke 23:39); in the other, we see a strong defense of Jesus and this criminal's famous last words: "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom (Luke 23:42)." It is the words of this second repentant criminal that I want to address, as an Ash Wednesday reflection.

At the same, it is not on the previously-mentioned famous last words of the second criminal that I want to address. Rather, I want to address this repentant criminal's prior words while hanging on his own cross. I am sure some will say that I have missed the point of Luke's account by addressing the criminal as opposed to Jesus' response to this criminal: "Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise (Luke 23:43)." Others will say that I have missed the point by addressing what the criminal has to say about his own condition, rather than by addressing his final plea to Jesus. I assure you that the point regarding the power and the authority Jesus Christ has to save us with His grace and mercy even in the last moment of our lives--if we but turn to Him--has not been lost on me. (Before moving on and without comment, I will only add that while it is nice to know we can cry out to Christ at the last moment, Jesus makes it quite clear that we ought to be careful with this approach: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven (Matthew 7:21).")

But earlier in the same passage, we see what seems to me to be one of the major challenges in this account of the crucifixion. We see the repentant criminal not only recognize Jesus as a sinless man (though I will be the first to say that this, in and of itself, is a lot), but also his partial (if not total) realization of his own sinful state. As this repentant criminal says to the unrepentant criminal: "We have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal (Luke 23:41)." Herein lies the challenge.

I dare say this non-Christian criminal--sentenced to death--had a better understanding of his sinful state than many of us do. In truth, many of us dare not examine ourselves and who we truly are for fear of what we will find ever-present within: sin, anger, fear, pain, lust, unforgiveness, envy, and the like. Unlike many of us, the repentant criminal seems to take on the attitude present in the words of the Psalmist: "For I know my offense; my sin is always before me (Psalm 51:5)." The truth is, most of us don't want our sins before us. We'd rather ignore them, and simply sweep them under the bed.

Yet this attitude of looking at ourselves as offenders of God, as criminals worthy of a just sentence is one lesson Luke intends to portray. Yes, Jesus can save us from the just punishment we each deserve; He can save us from the wrath of God. But perhaps to truly be able to call out to Him and be heard (again, Matthew 7:21), we must begin to look at ourselves as we truly are. And perhaps, like the repentant criminal, we need to put ourselves--or minimally those personal traits which are offensive and criminal in the eyes of the Lord--on our own cross.

Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit. Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will preserve it for eternal life. --John 12:24-25

I pray that this Lent we can die in ways the Lord would have us die.

A Call for Introspection
He said to him, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it:You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments (Matthew 22:37-40)."

Tomorrow is Ash Wednesday and the beginning of Lent. I want to suggest that Lent is an opportunity to do something we might not otherwise do. Many people give up chocolate or caffeine for Lent and admittedly (as a Mountain Dew addict) this can be quite a sacrifice. However, I want to suggest that rather than merely giving up something material for Lent, that it may be possible to do something a bit more radical. That is, I want to recommend the idea of possibly making an attempt at some sort of (small or large) personal transformation.

Lent, among other things, is about contemplating what Jesus Christ did and continues to do to save sinners. It is also an opportunity for introspection. Not to be too cliche, but God helps those who help themselves. Ought we not take the opportunity of Lent to look inside and find one thing we can give up that is keeping us from God (Matthew 9:13, Luke 15:7)? Or, ought we not take the opportunity to look inside and find some spark of Love within us that we can bring to others (Matthew 6:14, Matthew 5:44-47, 1 Corinthians 13:1-3)?

I realize that the sort of introspection I'm calling for is tougher than simply giving up chocolate (or even Mountain Dew). So I decided to put something together that might help spark some ideas. Still, I hope that my call for personal introspection (in prayer, if possible) is not glossed over. I want to recommend looking again at the two greatest commandments for the introspection I'm calling for here (Matthew 22:37-40).

The Greatest Commandment
Again, the greatest commandment is: "You shall love the LORD, your God, with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength (Deuteronomy 6:5)." It ought to be simple to find one way to love the Lord more:

• through giving God back the time He gave us by praying or attending Mass
  
• through giving up something that keeps us from God or spending time with Him(at work, at home, or in our "free time")--easy examples: wasting time in front of the television, the computer, or magazines
• through becoming involved at one's parish
• through learning more about one's faith, via reading the Bible or another spiritual work
  

The Second Greatest Command is Like the First
Very related, is the second greatest commandment: "The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39b)." In truth, this one can be looked at through two lenses: a)love of neighbor and b) love of self.

In many ways, loving one's neighbor is very much like loving God Himself:

Then the righteous will answer him and say, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?" And the king will say to them in reply, "Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me (Matthew 25:37-40)."

Again, it ought to be simple to find one way to love one's neighbor more:

• through forgiving another whom we have not truly forgiven
• through helping another person in need: at a soup kitchen or a nursing home
• through recognizing Christ in a person others ignore
  
• through teaching or talking with another about Christ and His saving grace
• through truly loving a person we interact with daily rather than merely criticizing them
• through being loyal and faithful to a friend or family member
• through looking on others with love rather than lust
  
• through not giving up on another labeled "a lost cause"

Love of self is often much more difficult to think about, because it is often considered selfish. Yet the verse does not merely end with "Love your neighbor." To th