Shopping Our Way to a Brighter Future?

This post by Ken Homan, SJ is also featured on The Jesuit Post.

Have you seen the new piece from Huffington Post Highline, The Myth of the Ethical Shopper? It’s a pretty fierce condemnation of the way we try to make social change happen in the world. For years, our model of creating social change, especially as it relates to consumer products, has been name-and-shame. It has been somewhat effective, but not nearly to the level we hoped it would.

We’ve scolded Nike, Walmart, H&M, Coca-Cola, and plenty more for their absolutely abysmal human and labor rights violations. In April, John Oliver looked at the horrifying history of workplace abuse in several of these companies. It would be nice if we could pretend that these issues were a problem of the 90s. After all, that’s when we all took great offense at the clothes we were wearing. But it’s an issue that has not only persisted, but has become worse. Read More

Six Things to Know About Pope Francis’ Upcoming Encyclical

This post by Henry Longbottom, SJ is also featured on The Jesuit Post.

A thinly veiled piece of climate alarmist propaganda.  A groundbreaking exposition of Catholic ecological thinking. Well intentioned but economically naïve.  A slippery slope towards extremist environmentalist positions.

Such are the reactions to Pope Francis’ ecology encyclical—and it hasn’t even been published yet.  Nevertheless Vatican sources have confirmed that the encyclical will appear in just over one week.  It is reported that it will bear the title “Laudato Si” (Praised Be), a quotation from a St. Francis’ prayer praising God for creation.

The media storm created in the run-up to the forthcoming document is both unparalleled and exciting.  The optimist in me hopes that the encyclical will demonstrate the way the Church is responding to a critical “sign of the times” confronting our age.  I hope it is yet another opportunity to champion the rights of today’s poor, with an eye towards the well-being of future generations as well.  But, I also have a nagging suspicion that the encyclical’s detractors may blunt the evangelical potential of a document showcasing Catholic theology of creation stewardship.  The mainstream media have given platform to critical voices. With characteristic hyperbolic aplomb, a Fox News report has claimed that if Francis goes through with the encyclical, he “will be aligning himself with some Church enemies … which will test the faith of some Catholics.”

So we have a task on our hands.  Building on the legacy of Popes St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the encyclical will further provide a footing and a framework for Catholic environmental initiatives.  But when it is (finally) published, we need to be equipped to answer the critics.  More importantly, we must be in a position to frame the debate on common ground and emphasize the positive elements of this encyclical.  How can we do this?

Here are six suggestions for the task:

1. Remember it’s not only about climate change.

Now the encyclical is almost certainly going to deal with the moral obligations of responding to the challenges of climate change in terms of prevention and mitigation.  But it will put climate change in the context of the bigger picture of the increasing disconnect between humans and their natural environment.  We often speak of humans having “dominion” over the earth. Some frame this as a human response to a divine injunction in Genesis. Others (perhaps of the non-biblical persuasion) appeal to the scientific progress of modernity. Far more than ever before, we can understand, harness, and even re-direct nature to our own determined ends.  In either case, when dominion becomes self-interested domination, we are seeing (clearly, if sadly, in the rearview mirror) that this model of custody is simply not sustainable.

Climate change is just one symptom of an unsustainable consumption and wasteful use of resources, compromising the present and future flourishing of human and non-human species alike.  Other symptoms include the alarming rate of species extinction, destruction of forests, and desertification.  To paraphrase the Catholic broadcaster Mary Colwell, climate change is not the only “environmental” game in town.

The poor are the first to suffer when it comes to any and all forms of environmental degradation.  This is the case with rising sea levels and increased typhoon risk due to climate change.  But it’s also the case when it comes to social and political instability, caused by issues like water scarcity.  Consider: when a country experiences resource shortage or instability, who has easiest access to water: the well-to-do or the poor? Who has the ease of mobility to find (and procure) clean resources?  Impacts on human health — e.g., from air pollution or rubbish accumulation — disproportionately affect the economically disadvantaged.  We might also consider the plight of indigenous people who are functionally evicted from their land and forests to make way for mining activities or logging.  The encyclical will likely talk about care for the environment through the lens of solidarity with the poor.  In doing so, it will critique the shadow side of our consumerist economic models.

Such a critique is nothing new in Catholic thinking. It simply picks up and develops Benedict’s notion of the disjuncture between human ecology and the natural order outlined in Caritas in Veritate.   Christiana Peppard puts it nicely in her recent article in America: whilst Pope Francis has a “special charism for poverty and the environment, he is not inventing it ex nihilo, he is amplifying the unified message of his papal predecessors.”

2. Climate change “propaganda” – According to whom?

Much of the rhetoric leveled against the forthcoming encyclical emanates from pressure groups that deny anthropogenic climate change.  Take for example the US based Heartland Institute, which is urging its supporters to “tell Pope Francis global warming is not a crisis!”  They are highly critical of the Pontiff’s frequent calls for action over climate change and were especially dismayed by his personal involvement in the Lima Climate Change talks in December 2014.

The Heartland Institute is keen to spread its message. On April 27 it held a gathering in Rome to persuade the Pope that he has got it all wrong about climate change.  The meeting was deliberately timed to coincide with a Vatican-hosted conference on the moral dimensions of climate change that took place on the following day.

Now I couldn’t possibly comment on the underlying agenda of these lobby groups (their sources of funding, for example) but it’s worth noting the short shrift Church leaders have given them: “The ideology surrounding environmental issues is too tied to a capitalism that doesn’t want to stop ruining the environment because they [certain movements in the United States] don’t want to give up their profits,” quipped Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga, who is a member of Francis’ so-called C9, a kind of ‘papal cabinet’ of nine cardinals from around the world.

Pope Francis has taken a keen interest in those with first-hand experiences of the effects of climate change.  During his visit to the Philippines in January 2015, he made a special point of visiting victims of typhoon Haiyan.  The significance here is that he is more interested in the voices of those who have everything to lose from continued ecological destruction and is less concerned with those who have something to gain in promoting a “business as usual” approach.

3. The Church is not walking into another “Galileo Affair”

One strategy for undermining the encyclical is to overemphasize the unsettled aspects of the science of climate change and give stage to a minority group of scientists who question anthropogenic climate change.  The reasoning given is a fear that the encyclical will commit the Church to an unsettled hypothesis of science, and thus irrevocably fetter the Church to the wrong side of history. Climate change skeptics (it is argued) pick up the heroic mantle of Galileo, whose heliocentrism eventually was proven correct to the shame of credulous Church officials. Thus the Church should cautiously refrain from landing — once again — on the wrong side of history.

The problem with this view is that it portrays climate change as an either/or issue between “self-interested alarmists” and “truth-speaking skeptics.”  The reality is more complex.  Social encyclicals (like the sciences themselves) seek to present the best thinking of the Church at the time.  It is reasonable for Francis — whose own academic background is in chemistry — to side with the scientific consensus (including his own Pontifical Academy of Sciences) on the link between climate change and human activity.

And let’s face it, the stakes are pretty high.  Withholding action (on the specious grounds of awaiting unanimous scientific agreement) is a risky strategy. There’s a justice issue here.  As Cardinal Turkson says, whilst the Church is not an expert on science, it is “an expert on humanity – on the true calling of the human person to act with justice and charity.”  The just and charitable person errs on the side of caution — especially when the well-being of the poor and vulnerable may be at stake.

4. Regardless of our preferences, the encyclical has something to say to everyone.

A more nuanced strategy taken by critics is to relativize — and thus minimize — the encyclical’s potential application. For example, the eminent Princeton law professor Robert George highlights the distinction between papal pronouncements concerning moral norms (binding on Catholics) and statements about disputed empirical fact (not binding). The argument is that since climate change is a question of empirical fact, the faithful are not bound by those parts of the encyclical relating to climate change.

But we make prudential judgments on how to interpret empirical facts — and derive from them moral norms — all the time.  The “theory” of anthropogenic climate change rests on the established fact of our reliance on non-renewable resources. Our current dependence on carbon-intensive forms of energy raises a whole host of underlying moral issues: Not just questions like “Who should profit from their extraction?” or “Whose resources are they to keep, share, exhaust, etc.?”  But more deeply, “To what shared first principles do we appeal when we disagree in our judgments of how to use finite resources?” The environmental and social impacts of e.g., mineral extraction, necessarily raise questions of prudential judgment about competing interests; and how we come to render prudential judgments requires us to reflect on our underpinning (if unspoken) moral norms.  For people of religious belief, moral norms draw from the well of faith claims in order to reflect on empirical facts and make prudential judgments.  For Catholics in particular (like Pope Francis or Professor George), environmental issues deeply involve the non-negotiable moral norms of care of the human person (because of our inalienable dignity, having been made in the image and likeness of God).

So in the end, we cannot realistically draw a solid black line between (1) what the Pope says about climate change and (2) what can be regarded as “real” moral issues.  Though we may be tempted to do so, we cannot nuance our way out of the moral demands presented in the encyclical, because they bear on the well-being of the human person.

5. Collective action on the environment is inherently Catholic.

A major bugbear of libertarian critics of the environmentalism is that a response requires international collectivist action.  As Michael Sean Winters has pointed out, they were are highly suspicious of Francis’ COP-20 address when he said that the challenges of climate change can only be confronted through “collective action” which overcomes mistrust and fosters “a culture of solidarity, of encounter and of dialogue.”  Surely, they ask, there is an anti-business and socialist agenda at play here?

And yet this is not what business leaders are saying themselves.  A recent Vatican-sponsored conference for business executives, academics and civil society leaders underlined support for just the sort of collective action on climate change the Pope is calling for.  Ecological meltdown can only be prevented through a framework of global governance that will stimulate enterprise and develop innovative solutions.  A ‘green economy’ incentivizes initiatives like the development of the Solar Impulse plane, which made its maiden voyage earlier this week.

The Church, as the world’s oldest and largest international organization, is uniquely placed to shepherd a collective response to environmental challenges.  The Church can help forge what Benedict’s Caritas in Veritate described as more “fraternal” ways of doing economic development.  The agenda here is strictly Catholic, geared towards universal human flourishing rather than narrow political ends.

6. Read it, absorb it, and talk about it!

Now I know we all lead busy lives and the general principle of “why read it first-hand when you can rely on another’s summary?” works pretty well more often than not.  But this encyclical is different.  Given the partisan nature of the reporting in the lead up to the document, the summaries that will be doing the rounds when it is finally released will be particularly agenda-driven.  So go to the source — read the encyclical itself.  And before reacting, meditate on the text with the same spirit of magnanimity with which we would hope our secular counterparts would receive other Church pronouncements.

Underlying the fears of many intra-ecclesial critics of Pope Francis is a lurking suspicion that he is yielding too much to secular peers.  His fans, on the other hand, argue that Francis is seizing an opportunity to make bridges with those outside the Church on a challenge confronting the whole of humanity.  But Francis’ fans and detractors alike recognize that the whole ecology debate is characterized by divergence and line-in-sand drawing. As in other politicized issues, the various “actors” are prone to simply talking past each other, relying on settled political allegiances and truisms.  And there is a real danger that this polarization is being brought into the Church in the interest of expediency.  So tolle, lege: pick it up and read it yourself, as a responsible citizen and Catholic!

* * *

In our reactions to Pope Francis’ ecology encyclical, let us aim to be conduits for dialogue and see it as our mission to “reconcile the estranged.”  Reconciling the estranged is, after all, one of the founding goals of the Society of Jesus.  The world may very well depend on it.

Invisible Things

This post by Brendan Busse, SJ is also featured on The Jesuit Post.

I held the mic. That’s about it. I had been asked to serve as an acolyte for the diaconate ordination of eight Jesuits here in Madrid. During an ordination liturgy the presiding bishop moves around more than usual — sit, stand, kneel, from one chair to another and back again. It’s like a byzantine improv game and mic-stands don’t walk. So, that was my job. I was a big bearded mobile mic-stand all dressed in white. I held the mic so that everyone else could hear what the bishop was saying and pray along in a language I still struggle to understand.

I held the mic and that was enough for me.

You get a pretty good view of the action when you’re the mic-man. You can look over the bishop’s shoulder and read along if you like. You can scan the congregation and see who’s paying attention or who’s sleeping, who wishes this place had better air-conditioning or who’s crying. You can wonder why they’re crying. Or, I suppose, you can watch those being ordained.

The ordination rite includes lots of promises. The deacons-to-be kneel and promise and kneel and promise again. It’s a bit like a nervous parent giving their kids the car keys for the first time. They responded to each inquiry like every kid does, “Yes, yes, yes, I promise, I promise, I promise.” Our adolescent wisdom tells us that in these circumstances it’s best not to say too much; just say ‘yes’ and get on with it. Eventually, instead of car keys, they receive the book of the gospels. In both cases, car keys or holy orders, they receive an enormous privilege.

And then we all watched the new deacons get dressed. This is not something you often do in public, watch another person getting dressed. That makes us uncomfortable, so we use another word — vested. I watched them get vested, in sparkly new vestments, freshly pressed and golden. And, in spite of my cynical self, I couldn’t help but notice something happening, something both very old and surprisingly new, something simple and sacred, something we call a sacrament.


Sacraments are like weather vanes; in the sacraments we make invisible things visible.

Why did I want to be a priest? I didn’t. But, in ways I don’t fully understand and can’t always articulate, things changed as I said yes to my vocation as a Jesuit. At some point I came to realize that while I don’t have all the answers (even if I sometimes foolishly think I do) I know enough to want only what God wants for me. I began to trust that this is what I’m asked to do by the Society of Jesus and, in turn, the Church. I suppose I also came to appreciate that what we all want most profoundly is to give ourselves in love and the Jesuits I knew lived their priesthood in this way, in loving service. I never imagined myself a Jesuit, nor a priest, yet somehow, in time, something I couldn’t see became visible, something I couldn’t imagine became real.


After the mass, in the cool evening air of the parish plaza I watched another father vesting another servant. She was maybe three or four years old and hesitant — I don’t want to wear the coat, Papa. But he was insistent, gentle, but insistent — Ay mija, but it’s cold tonight and you’ll need it. Her hesitance softened and she seemed to enjoy his embrace as he knelt behind her, wrapped his arms around her and buttoned the coat, thoroughly, carefully, one toggle at a time.

As he stood up again she leaned back against his legs. Looking up from her freshly toggled coat, she caught me watching her vestiture. I smiled. She threw her arms wide open and beamed a joyful grin of pride, as if to say, Look at my coat! Isn’t it lovely! Her joy had nothing to do with my liturgical celebrity status (even if I was the best mic-stand ever) but it did have something to do with recognition. She was overjoyed because an invisible thing — the love and care of her father — had been made visible in her well-buttoned coat.

Hers was the joy of the sacraments. Mine was the joy of witness.


To watch these companions of mine be ordained was a beautiful thing; something I’ve known to be true (their capacity to serve, to proclaim, to comfort) was recognized publicly; something invisible was made visible. They are generous men. This was not the first time they had lain humble before the saints, not the first time they held someone’s hand in prayer and promise, not the first time they offered themselves in service. And it will not be the last. Still there are other invisible graces that they can and must make visible in our Church.

If the sacraments are about making invisible things visible, then so too unthinkable things thinkable, unknowable things knowable, and impossible things possible. In any Christian community worthy of the name the impossible to imagine must become the rock of faith; the mute given voice, the naked clothed, the hungry fed. As baptized members of the body of Christ we are all called to be who God is in the world. Take that idea seriously, that is to say, actually believe it, and it will change everything.

And what about that little girl? Where will she find a place of leadership and ministry? She stands with many women in our Church waiting for and worthy of recognition, deserving of more meaningful authority. That ordained ministry has been a prerequisite for administrative responsibility in the Church has both corrupted our sense of the priesthood (confusing sacramental service for power and prestige) and excluded women from positions of ecclesial leadership. To see the treasure of their talent, however, we’d be fools to think that a generous grace is not already given them. And yet, if we’re slow to recognize this grace our daughters may grow cold; their joyful enthusiasm may fade away.

Invisible things beg for recognition and we ought to rejoice in their revelation. There is more grace begging for visibility and more faithful servants ready for responsibility. There are more coats and more toggles. There are more voices in need of a microphone.

The work of the sacraments is this: to make visible the grace already given, to make possible the promise already present. We hold the mic, we give voice to silent prayers, we lay our hands on one another in blessing and we vest one another in love. The grace is God’s to give and the promise fulfilled in mercy. As I imagine my own ordination, still a few years off, I hope always to remember my vocation as a big bearded mic-stand and I hope never to forget the joy on that little girl’s face after her father’s love was finally made visible in something as simple as a well buttoned coat.

No SNAP for You!

This post by Nathaniel Romano, SJ is also featured on The Jesuit Post.

Seinfeld, once the anchor of NBC’s “Must-See TV,” gave us many memorable characters, including the so-called “Soup Nazi.” A temperamental restaurateur sells soup that is praised far and wide. However, he is very particular about how his customers must behave. Only the worthy get soup; the rest are dismissed with a curt “No soup for you!”

Apparently the Soup Nazi is the role model for a new strain of legislative misbehavior. Missouri Republican Rick Brattin wants to ban poor people from eating steak and seafood, as well as energy drinks, cookies, chips, and soft drinks. That’s not hyperbole. The language is taken straight from the bill he has introduced to the Missouri State Legislature. Thankfully, though, he won’t ban coffee. So, hey, at least we know that the working poor will be caffeinated enough to get through their hectic and irrational work days.

To be clear, the bill would not tell stores to refuse service to poor people. Rather, it would eliminate what sorts of foods would be eligible for purchase for those on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). SNAP, more commonly referred to as “food stamps,” is a federal program to ensure that everyone in the United States has sufficient and nutritious food. Although a federally-funded program, it is administered by the individual states. Thus, each state is able to set certain requirements over and above the federally-mandated income rules, and each state has leeway to limit how the program is used.

Legislators like Mr. Brattin are apparently seriously agitated by the possibility that SNAP recipients are indulging in luxury items, like the aforementioned seafood and steak. They are upset at stories, like this one Fox News ran a few years ago, where someone proudly discusses how getting a job “isn’t for him” and uses “our wonderful tax dollars” for such indulgences as lobster and sushi. It is, in all honesty, a re-hash of  Ronald Reagan’s old “welfare queens driving Cadillacs” trope. These stories play on fears and anger that someone is gaming the system and avoiding real work to get big payoffs.

It was a ridiculous charge when Reagan made it. It is a ridiculous charge when Mr. Brattin and his colleagues (and Fox News) make it. And it will be a ridiculous charge the next time someone decides to announce publicly what financially distressed individuals should or should not be allowed to buy.

SNAP is not a set of coupons allowing someone to get what she wants from any old grocery store. One does not simply walk into Whole Foods, hand over your SNAP card and announce, “Oh, I’d like some surf & turf tonight. Give me lobster tail and a juicy porterhouse.”  Or, if you did, you’d likely not be eating too much the rest of the month.  Because, of course, SNAP, like many forms of public assistance, is incredibly stingy, both in terms of who qualifies and in terms of what benefits are received.

To start off, the federal government already limits what can be purchased with SNAP benefits. Generally speaking, you can only use SNAP benefits to purchase groceries – grains and breads; fruits and vegetables; meats, fish, and poultry; and dairy products. “Junk foods” do qualify as foods (at least legally), and so can be purchased, as can live animals traditionally purchased for human consumption (think the lobsters in the tank at your local fishmonger).

That seems fairly broad, but there are restrictions. Benefits cannot be used to purchase hot meals, vitamins or nutritional supplements, non-food groceries, pet food, beer, wine, or other alcohol, or food to be consumed on the premises.1 Also, retailers must be approved to receive SNAP benefits and, of course, must agree to accept them, something they are not required to do.

Beyond these restrictions, the government limits who can receive SNAP benefits and how much an individual receives. The calculations are quite strict.2 Restrictions come in two flavors – income limits and asset limits. Households are limited both in the amount of income coming in, as well as the amount of personal assets — bank accounts, vehicles, etc. — that they can have.3 For example, a single individual can make no more than $1,265 per month; for a family of four, the limit rises to $2,584 (the numbers are slightly different if there are elderly members). To put that in perspective, $1,265 a month is $7.90 per hour, assuming a forty-hour work week over a four-week month. So, if you make just over minimum wage and are full-time, you won’t qualify.

Assuming you do qualify, your benefit is relatively limited.4 An individual with no income gets the monthly maximum of $194. As her income goes up, her benefit will go down. But, even if you get the maximum amount, you haven’t won the grocery jackpot. That $194 works out to just under $7 per day in a 30-day month. At three meals per day, that is just about $2.67 per meal. Hardly luxurious.

Remember our surf & turf eating friend from above? Were he to actually try to eat that on his SNAP benefit, he would find himself scrimping for the rest of the month. At a local Omaha-area Walmart, a relatively inexpensive place to buy groceries, a simple and inexpensive version of surf & turf would run just over $20 dollars, or about a tenth of your total maximum potential allotment for an individual. For one meal. Clearly, no one is getting rich off SNAP (or other government assistance for that matter). So why the fuss?

Mr. Brattin admits it openly to the Washington Post. He thinks poor people should not be spending taxpayer money on what he considers luxurious.

“My intention wasn’t to get rid of canned tuna and fish sticks,” he said. But he also insists that people are abusing the system by purchasing luxury foods, and believes that that must be stopped, even if it ends up requiring the inclusion of other less luxurious items.

“I have seen people purchasing filet mignons and crab legs with their EBT cards,” he said. “When I can’t afford it on my pay, I don’t want people on the taxpayer’s dime to afford those kinds of foods either.”

As you can see, his concern is not with the nutritional values of the food, but with the perception that these people should not have this kind of food. Canned tuna is OK. Ahi tuna, though, is clearly out. Processed fish sticks are acceptable. Fresh fish, not so much.

Nutritionists already are concerned about SNAP benefits and healthy eating. And that might be an interesting discussion to have. The conversation sparked by this kind of legislation, however, is misguided. Worse, it is uncharitable. It reflects an unhealthy attempt to stigmatize, marginalize, and control a population already suffering under heavy stigmas, living on the margins, and heavily controlled by burdensome government regulations and police interactions.

Why should any of us care how a particular family chooses to spend its money or what it chooses to eat? All of our families make choices regarding food that is subject to second-guessing by others. Maybe we splurge on steak because it is our son’s birthday. Maybe we buy a pack of cookie-dough flavored Oreo’s just to have a simple snack at the end of the day. Maybe we just buy whatever’s on sale.

Rules such as the law being proposed in Missouri aren’t about healthy eating. And they are not about preventing fraud or making the system function better. They are about shaming. They are about judging. They allow us to make a moral judgment about a person and tell that person how to behave. At some level, they allow us to punish someone for being poor. Food is an essential human right. And rules like this embarrass people for daring to try to exercise that right with dignity.

If we say we’ll feed someone, but only on our own terms, we are not doing it for them, but for ourselves. It is already difficult enough for someone to get access to sufficient nutrition. There is no need for us to be smug and insufferable about what sorts of nutrition we’ll let them have access to. We don’t need to be latter-day soup nazis.

— // —

  1. Certain elderly and disabled recipients can use SNAP benefits in exchange for hot meals at pre-approved restaurants. The idea behind this is that food is not particularly helpful when someone lacks the means to actually cook it.
  2. Similar calculations govern most, if not all, programs that form part of the so-called “safety net.” Beyond income limits, certain immigrants or other non-citizens are excluded from these programs. Because, of course, poor immigrants don’t need to eat?
  3. Such calculations are quite complex. The link above contains the full chart for both assets and income limits.
  4. The government assumes that a household will spend 30% of its income on food. Thus, a “maximum allotment” is determined based on the income eligibility. The specific applicant has his or her monthly income multiplied by 0.3, that amount is subtracted from the monthly maximum allotment, and the difference is the actual benefit.

How Long? Not Long: Our Need of Rest and Renewal

This post by Brendan Busse, SJ is also featured on The Jesuit Post.

At the end of the 5-day march from Selma to Montgomery, Martin Luther King, Jr. noted that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” Some days we may feel the curve of this arc but many days we sense only its length. “And how long?” they had asked. It was a dignified version of the question every tired child knows too well: “Are we there yet?”

We’re not there yet. It appears to be, as Mandela would say, a long walk to freedom…and even longer still to justice and peace.

During our many years of Jesuit formation our Constitutions require us annually, in addition to an 8-day retreat, to take a few days of silence and prayer to renew our vows. It’s a strange thing to do since our vows are perpetual and they don’t, technically speaking, require renewal. But the wisdom of our founder Ignatius is evident in the fact that we — work-addicted Jesuits, like all mission-driven people — need the rest and the reminder that these retreats provide.

We need to remember, even and especially, the things we know to be permanent. We need to remember what we’re living for, what’s worth fighting for. We need to remember our fundamental call to love and to serve and we need to ask for the grace necessary to fulfill it.

For this, we need time and space. We need renewal and rest.


On the first day of our retreat I took a short walk to a small outcropping of rocks up the hill behind the retreat house where I stumbled upon the foundations of an old castle watchtower. This happens when you live, as I do, in a place like Spain where an old pile of rocks isn’t always just an old pile of rocks. There was a wide view and plenty of solitude. There was a strong breeze, some hardy shrubs, and a few lone pines gnarled by years of, well, simply standing their ground in this rocky and windswept place.

Among the scrub brush and the boulders I noticed an impressive collection of trash, the usual detritus one finds in the transitional places between our great cities and the wilds that surround them. The trash in these liminal places is always medicinal — cigarettes and beer bottles, condoms and junk food. There is a hint of desperation in every piece: a butt, a bottle, a bag, and a bang. I don’t mean to be crass, only to acknowledge that this trash was carried here by someone in want of something. What had been a watchtower was now a field hospital for the urban soul.

Here was something human. Here were traces of cravings and the quest for their relief. Here were hidden love affairs and lonely acts of self-destruction too shame-ridden to be shared. Here was someone looking for something or running from it. Here was a person on the long walk to freedom hoping for a bend in the road.


The second day I walked a bit further on than the first; just a few hundred yards further up the trail, but here there was no more trash, only the cold breeze and the brush. I crushed some dried lavender buds between my palms and held my hands over my nose and mouth drawing the first few deep breaths I can remember taking in months. I let my fingers rake down through the full length of my beard which is now too long or not long enough – I’m not sure. And then there were tears. For no reason at all. Or tears for every suffering yet unfelt yet suffered still. And yet, it wasn’t sadness that I sensed, but a kind of freedom — serenity.

I found the sunny side of a boulder to lean against. Between the light of the setting sun and the cold breeze, the tears and the lavender, something very much like peace came over me. I sat there without urgency or concern. I sat still for a moment and received something lovely, something worthy of the name Spirit. I sat with a heart full of gratitude for the life I’ve been given to live, for the labor I’ve been called to undertake. I sat there until I felt ready to stand and walk again. How long? It wasn’t long. But it was enough for me.


We need rest. We need hard work and creativity and struggle and sweat, but we also need rest. If we’re going to respond to the challenges before us, if we’re going to heal the wounds behind us, we need rest. The world is a weary place of late and we could use a break, a few deep breaths and a moment of silence. We need a place to get off of our feet for a while. We need to set our eyes on a distant horizon. We need to sense again the arc in this long road that bends towards justice.

During the final night of our retreat it snowed. Light flurries continued throughout the morning as I walked along the same path as the days before. Soft flakes had fallen on the hard places and the barren, on the trash and on the trees. All was blanketed with snow. There is no better word for this than ‘blanketed.’ There is a tenderness to it — something of the heavens reminding us to be still, reminding us that sometimes conditions are perfect for the magical, the tranquil, the beautiful, and the free.

This is not only a convenient metaphor. As my drought-stricken Californian friends will understand, snow is also water in reserve for the dry months ahead. I hope the memory of this moment sustains me like the snowpack sustains our urban life. But even so — even as a metaphor, a reminder of serenity — it was a turn towards peace, and that was enough for me.

I returned to the over-heated retreat house full of retired nuns and young Jesuits. We gathered together in the chapel. We knelt before the consecrated bread and wine and we spoke again the formula of our vows: “Almighty and Eternal God… you have given me the desire to choose this life…I ask you now, again and always, only to give me the grace I need to fulfill it.