Since today is the Feast of Guadalupe the second reading in the Office of Readings in the Liturgy of the Hours has the account of the miracle by Don Antonio Valeriano from the sixteenth century.

While I already knew the details of the story, I was struck by something while reading it again. The fact that just the Castilian roses were really enough of a miracle in itself to convince the Bishop of the authenticity of Juan Diego’s contact with Our Lady. Or at least good evidence when investigating his claims. This combined with the life and humility of Juan Diego certainly provided solid evidence in this regard.

The aspect that struck me is that God went further and produced the miraculous image on Juan Diego’s tilma. I started thinking about how often God works in our lives and how the answers to our prayers can seem so astounding. Yet when we look back at this we might see that this answer to prayer was multi-level and was even more amazing in further effects. That we can be really joyful in an answer to a request and reflect later that this initial answer had secondary effects that were larger in scope in your life and for others.

That God not only will answer our prayers but in a way that is unexpected and better than our initial request. Our Lady of Gudalupe’s answer to prayer became a miracle of evangelization and devotion. No doubt we only see the surface of this effect, even if amazing in itself. Plus we can’t see the future horizon of the effect.

This also makes me realize that probably in the majority of cases we don’t see secondary effects. Whether they are answered prayers or seemingly unanswered ones. It probably won’t be until the General Judgement that we might understand this. I guess this is the iceberg of prayer and that still only seeing the surface we can be thankful for this and trusting God regarding what we are unable to see.

We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28).

Connie Rossini’s Is Centering Prayer Catholic is an excellent source to see a critique regarding Centering Prayer. What I really liked is the distinctions she makes and how she compares the various statements made by the late Fr. Thomas Keating compared to what St. Teresa of Avila wrote regarding contemplative prayer. She really is trying to be as fair as possible, and does an excellent job of explaining the problems along with also accurately explaining what authentic Catholic contemplative prayer is.

Previously I have looked into some of Fr. Thomas Keating writings and statements and found them problematic. This book does a good job of focusing on the claims of the centering prayer movement.

This book also makes good caveats. For example what people might encounter under the umbrella of centering prayer, might actually be something much closer to authentic Catholic contemplative prayer. There is a good amount of confusion regarding what exactly centering prayer is as understood by some people practicing it compared to what the centering prayer movement advocates.

She also uses the document Jesus Christ the Bearer of the Water of life, a Christian reflection on the “New Age”, to compare the concerns raised with the statements of the centering prayer movement. This new edition answers objections raised by Contemplative Outreach, the organization started by the founders of the centering prayer movement.

From Amy Welborn on Devoted Bishops.

One of my regular blog reads is Ann Althouse, retired Wisconsin law professor. I don’t see eye-to-eye with her on all issues, particularly social issues, but at least once a day, she posts something interesting in a clarifying way. One of the tags she frequently uses on blog posts is [“civility bullshit.”  As in: (https://althouse.blogspot.com/2018/06/calling-bullshit-on-calls-for-civility.html)

 …because the real motivation is political advantage. Usually, the civility-demander is trying to get opponents tone it down and not take advantage of whatever hot passion and energy they’ve got on their side.

And this is absolutely, one-hundred percent correct. It applies in all types of discussions, including churchy ones.

Related is what I guess I’ll call _Collegiality BS._

(In deference to those who might be offended…)

You might recognize it as the call for a _Kumbaya_ moment. You might recognize it in calls for us to prioritize our sense of community – closeness, good feelings, acceptance at some level – above anything else. It’s a certain _interpretation_ of the Christian notion of communion. The problem is that it’s superficial and theologically incorrect. For the Catholic/Christian understanding of authentic communion is rooted in Christ’s actions, not ours. All the baptized are already in communion with Christ and each other. We don’t do it. He does. Our call is to _recognize_ that communion and build on it.

She then clarifies by providing an example of this.

After that, she talks about Cardinal Mahony’s short talk at the USCCB meeting.

But communion-awareness can shift into Communion and Collegiality BS when those preaching it are really just trying to deflect, distract and move on from uncomfortable matters. _Always_ be skeptical when someone frantically tries to “build community” with you.

Take, for example, Cardinal Mahony.

It’s appalling enough that he spoke at this week’s weird and pointless (although not _useless_ – see the difference? As in God can bring good out of anything?) bishops’ gathering.

And they all just sat there and listened. At least they didn’t applaud.

Anyway, Cardinal Mahony’s five minute talk said not a word about abuse or corruption. He was all about … our devotion to each other as members of the conference and the college of bishops.

Words to wisely follow, “Always be skeptical when someone frantically tries to ‘build community’ with you.” This is certainly one of my pet peeves when I detect what I call faux community building. This usually goes not deeper than glad-handing. Maybe as an introvert my quick-triggered detection of this is a bit skewed, yet I pretty much always detect it happens. I really desire true community and find it off-putting to find the counterfeit.

As they say, “Read the whole thing”. Especially as she goes on to pick apart what the Cardinal said along with pointing out and quoting what Bishop Steven Biegler of Cheyenne had to say. Quite a contrast.

I am not surprised that Cardinal Mahony, who covered up so much abuse and caused so much damage to his former Archdiocese, had the nerve to speak there at all. He was not the only one with more ego than self-awareness who appeared at the meeting.