The Franciscan Way Library

You may have heard the term "New Age" used to describe various events or practices which have a connection to religion or philosophy and wondered what the term means. It's not easy to describe but I think it's important to understand what New Age practices are about. There can be no dialogue with those who are influenced by New Age thought if we know nothing about what it promotes. While much of New Age thinking and practice promotes the search for good things like transcendent values and religious meaning, there are significant differences with Christian transcendent values and religious meaning which need to be explored in a dialogical setting. What are some of the differences between New Age thought and Christian thought?

New Age thought often does not support the idea of any spiritual authority but the self. The two millenia old experience of the Christian community of faith, theological development and practice is not considered to be normative.

In New Age thought there is sometimes no distinction between good and evil, only between bad and good choices. Evil is thought of as having no personification or existence on it's own.

The source of all good is typically depersonalized. Rather than a personal God, the source of good is seen to be impersonal inner or cosmic energy.

New Age replaces the idea of a human relationship with a personal God with the idea that we become absorbed by God who is the universe. Clearly then, God is not a person in this way of thinking. The universe is thought to have an intelligence, and more enlightened people can be channels of this intelligence to other people. What this means on a practical level is that some people have access to special knowledge and others go through them to get it. Special knowledge available only to some is the basis for the ancient heresy of Gnosticism promoted in the book "The Da Vinci Code."

The need for grace is rejected because of the belief that humans can perfect themselves through their own efforts and the help of enlightened people who are channels for cosmic intelligence. In New Age, we are reaching for God and ought to know special techniques for doing this. In Franciscan theology, God is reaching for us. Special techniques may be helpful but they're not required.

In New Age, creation is thought to be eternal and self-sufficient. The human person in regards to nature is seen as one among equals, we are not seen as the reason for creation as we are in Franciscan theology.

Christ is not seen as the one who uniquely reveals the Father as the source of all good, but as one among many enlightened persons and one especially in touch with cosmic intelligence. Christ is not Lord of the Cosmos but is a revealer of it's wisdom.

So, how do you know if something is "New Age" or not? The Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue proposes various questions to ask from which the following list is drawn.

1. Is God a being with whom we have a relationship...or a force to be harnessed?
2. Is there one Jesus Christ, or are there thousands of Christs?
3. The human being: is there one universal being or are there many individuals?
4. Do we save ourselves or is salvation a free gift from God?
5. Do we invent truth or do we embrace it?
6. Are we talking to ourselves or God in prayer and meditation?
7. Is sin a reality?
8. Is diversity good and real or will all diversity be absorbed into cosmic oneness?

So, a summary of New Age thought could include the following points.

I decide what truth is. Evil does not really exist, but bad choices do. God is not a person but something like energy or the cosmos. We humans will eventually lose all distinction between each other and the universe as we become one. People who understand these things rightly are channels to the mind of the universe. I need to work on developing my understanding of the mind of the universe in order to better myself. This is similar to what people used to call salvation. Grace is an old idea now replaced by self-enlightenment. I'm not the reason for the world around me. There have been and will be many Christs and these are people who understand our oneness with the cosmos. Eventually we'll all become one in ways of thinking. Separation and distinctions are generally bad and will be replaced by oneness.

Writings of Brother Joe Schwab, OFMM

Executive Director, Franciscan Renewal Center

Why is Church leadership opposed to stem cell research? It isn't. Certain kinds, yes, all kinds, no. Church leaders support umbilical cord (aka adult) stem cell research which offers better results, no risks, no destruction of human life and costs less. Church leadership does not support embryonic stem cell research which depends upon the destruction of human life in its embryonic form. Umbilical cord stem cells (which contain adult stem cells, despite the term "umbilical") are less likely to be rejected by another person's body, they are easier to match, carry less chance of serious infections, carry no threat to the donor, and cost about half the price of a bone marrow transplant. Such cells can make new nerves, bone, and tissue. Research suggests that use of such stem cells can help heal damage from heart attacks, strokes, types of cancer, blindness, and more. All the embryonic stem cell research done so far does not offer the promise of any of these benefits. In fact, embryonic cells have the tendency to not make the type of cell you want. This tendency is not present in umbilical/adult stem cells. I encourage you to read more on this topic and suggest that you contact the Family Research Council in Washington, DC for more information.

Writings of Brother Joe Schwab, OFM

Executive Director, Franciscan Renewal Center

The eucharistic bread is reserved after the actual celebration of the eucharistic meal so that the grace of Christ's real presence is available even after Mass is over, particularly for the sake of the sick and dying. Other reasons include the possibility that eucharist may be distributed during certain communion services and for the sake of adoration of Christ in his sacramental form as he is continually present in the Church. The 1967 instruction Eucharisticum Mysterium suggests a chapel distinct from the main part of the church as a place for this to occur. This is typically the case in very old churches in Europe, such as St. Peter's and St. John Lateran. The 1978 US bishops document: Environment and Art in Christian Worship suggests a special chapel because the main part of the church is designed for eucharistic action whereas the chapel should be designed for eucharistic devotion. Active and static aspects of the same reality do not claim the human attention at the same time. So, why do we reserve the eucharist for adoration after eucharistic action is over? Because through the reserved Sacrament we recall that Christ is present for the Church as a sign of God's fidelity to humanity. This engenders thanksgiving: eucharistia, in Greek. Christ is present because the Church needs to be comforted by him. Christ is, in short, present for the sake of the world. Adoration of Christ in his eucharistic form should draw our attention outward, both for the sake of those with whom we live in communion and those for whom communion with us is not a reality. This level of prayer will help us in turn to more actively participate in the eucharistic sacrifice, or Mass, when we are present with Christ at the one sacrifice of Calvary.

Writings of Brother Joe Schwab, OFM

Executive Director, Franciscan Renewal Center

Our eucharistic liturgy, or Mass, is considered to be a sacrifice because it makes the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross present to us every time Mass is celebrated, but we do not claim that Jesus is re-sacrificed. Instead, through the Mass, what Jesus did in the past is made present to us who live in time and is always present to God. St. Paul taught us that "for as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup (obviously Paul presupposes repetition), you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes (I Cor. 11:26)." Through the Mass we affirm that Jesus made his whole people "a kingdom of priests to God, his Father (Rv 1:6, cf. 5:9-10)." Vatican II stated that "The faithful, indeed by virtue of their royal priesthood participate in the offering of the Eucharist (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 10)." Women and men, boys and girls - all the baptized, unite the sacrifice of their lives to the one sacrifice of Christ as a community of priests. In order for this to be effective we must not be passive spectators but instead actively involved so that the Mass is "planned to bring about conscious, active, and full participation of the people, motivated by faith, hope, and charity.

Writings of Brother Joe Schwab, OFM

Executive Director, Franciscan Renewal Center

The four modes of Christ's real presence in the Liturgy of the Eucharist (Mass) are related to the actions of the all of the liturgy as an act of remembrance. Christ is present in the liturgy of the word to speak to our hearts. Christ acts in the presence of the presiding priest, he is present in all the people gathered into one body during the Mass, and finally he nourishes and unites us in the eucharistic food of consecrated bread and wine. Each mode involves human action - listening, postures, gestures and attitudes, hospitality and movement, singing, even eating and drinking. Reflection on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist can lead us to recognize him when we encounter him as a real, living person and keep us from reducing his presence to a historical memory. First, we need to recognize that his presence is personal and that he wants to lead us to conversion of heart. Secondly, we need to recognize that the presence of Christ is mediated, it is not immediate (he is not present to us in the form of his unique human body). Can we recognize the things which lead us to realize that he is really present? Are we willing to recognize that he is really present in the consecrated bread and wine? Finally, Christ's presence in the Blessed Sacrament means that he remains a person to be met. Which tools will help us to recognize that we are on a communal and personal journey to encounter a living person who is present throughout time?

Writings of Brother Joe Schwab, OFM

Executive Director, Franciscan Renewal Center

How do we Catholics understand the presence of Christ in the eucharist today? The teaching of the Second Vatican Council broadens the focus from a narrow one (only in the consecrated bread and wine) to a wider one - the entire action of the eucharistic assembly of the faithful, including the consecrated bread and wine. Within the action of the liturgy there are four distinct modes of Christ's presence: the proclaimed word (scriptural readings and responses); the priest; the elements (bread and wine); and the assembly (everyone at Mass). The Council also named the reason that Christ is present. It is not primarily for the purpose of adoring him, although that is a purpose. It is primarily that all the people of the Church throughout all time be associated with Christ in his on-going work of salvation, expressed through the life he lead from his incarnation until his ascension. We conceive of the actions of Christ as being forever present through all time, we do not conceive of them as needing repetition. The Mass simply presents them to us again and allows us to take part in them even though we are limited by space and time. His enduring presence is both active and real as he gathers us for the praise of God and acts to save us. Each of the four modes of his presence are real and each serves his purpose in a particular way.

Writings of Brother Joe Schwab, OFM

Executive Director, Franciscan Renewal Center

The Didache (DID ah kay), an early Christian text concerning baptismal catechesis and eucharistic teaching from the 2nd century is another rich source of material for understanding the development of thought on the Blessed Sacrament. It seems to have been composed in Aramaic (Jesus' language) around 95 AD and translated into Greek (the common language of the Roman Empire) fairly quickly. Among other things, it notes the need to organize the ministry of bishops and deacons. Chapters 9 and 10 contain the eucharistic material. There are blessings to be said before the banquet (the banquet was dropped sometime in the 2nd. century for reasons noted in a previous article) over the cup of wine and the broken bread. It notes the similarity between the gathered assembly and the gathering of sown, then harvested grain into one loaf of bread. There is also a series of blessings to be prayed after the meal. They seem to have been clearly adapted from Jewish blessings used at sabbath and special event meals. Maybe the Last Supper tradition was not the only element used in the composition of early forms of the Eucharistic liturgy? The biblical references utilized are from the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. This is the same set, or canon, of Old Testament books that the Catholic Church continues to use today.

Writings of Brother Joe Schwab, OFM

Executive Director, Franciscan Renewal Center

There are a number of writings from early Christian times which were not included in the canon of Scripture but which are instructive of the practice of the early Church. The Letter of Clement (an apparent early leader/pope of the Roman Church) from around 97 AD mentions the structure of the community as similar to that of the high priests, Levites, and people of Israel as they offer sacrifice. Obviously, the early Church at Rome and Corinth understood the Eucharistic meal as a sacrificial and structured liturgy quite similar to that of the Jews or else the analogy would make no sense. St. Ignatius of Antioch before the year 117 wrote about the importance of one eucharistic community (clearly there were splinter groups doing their own eucharist) gathered around the bishop priests, and deacons (others must have been claiming such authority) in order to express that "there is only one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup to unite us in his blood." The story of the Martyrdom of Polycarp (burned at the stake in 155 AD), a disciple of St. John the Apostle says that Polycarp prayed gratefully that he had been "deemed worthy of the cup of Christ" and asked that he be received as "an acceptable sacrifice. "Polycarp is the first saint of whom we have a definite record that the members of the Church gathered his remains to keep for use as relics. His prayer seems to be part of the eucharistic prayer that he used as bishop of Smyrna, today Izimir, Turkey.

Writings of Brother Joe Schwab, OFM

Executive Director, Franciscan Renewal Center

ohn's Gospel omits the Last Supper Eucharistic story from the accounts of the Passion, referring to the meal indirectly. Instead, he adds the account of the Washing of the Feet and says that it should be continued (Jn 13: 1-11). Where John does speak in strong Eucharistic terms is in the telling of the miraculous feeding and the identification of Jesus as the Bread of Life (cf. John, cpt. 6: 1 to 14 and 22 to 66), and this story's relationship with the Old Testament story of the manna in the desert (Ex 16: 1-15). When John speaks of the Last Supper, his source (or tradition) places it before the feast of Passover (Jn. 13:1) unlike the chronology in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In John, Jesus is crucified on the day that the Passover lambs are slaughtered. In this way a theological link is made with Jesus as the Lamb of God who is sacrificed so that God's people may be fed on its flesh and blood, an indirect reference to Exodus, Chapter 12.

Writings of Brother Joe Schwab, OFM

Executive Director, Franciscan Renewal Center

The first written records of Eucharistic practice from the early Church that we have are in the Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:17-34). While the foundation of the Corinthian Church seems to have occurred around 51 AD, this letter seems to have been written around 56 AD. In it, there are 8 main points in St. Paul's teaching on the Eucharist. He teaches the Church that 1) the festive banquet should not be eaten and 2) the special blessing for the bread and wine should not be given before everyone arrives. Please note, the festive banquet part of the Eucharist died out as a practice due at least partially to practicality. As the community grew in size, it would have become increasingly difficult to do the work of a banquet on a weekly basis. He mentions 3) the "tradition" that he had received and passed on to them (11:32 ff), 4) as specific words and practices that Jesus did, and 5) the command to do it in memory of Jesus. 6) Paul claims that this presents the death of the Lord until He comes again (11:26). 7) He understands the death of Jesus to be like that of the paschal lamb, that is, the Passover sacrifice (5:7,8). Paul also teaches that 8) the reception of the Lord's body effects the development of the Body of Christ, that is, the assembly (12: 12-27).

Writings of Brother Joe Schwab, OFM

Executive Director, Franciscan Renewal Center

Many people recently have read the novel "The Da Vinci Code," and I've had a lot of questions about the assertions in the book concerning the development of early Christianity. Among other items, the author claims that Gnosticism (a religious movement from the time of the early Church) contains suppressed truth about the story of Jesus and some early followers. While it would take a great deal of time to explain the story of Gnosticism in detail, let me offer a brief summary of its principal beliefs, some of its forms, its history, and its relationship to Judaism and the early Church.

The basis of the name "Gnosticism" (pronounced NOSS ti cizsm) lies in the Greek word Gnosis, meaning knowledge. This religious movement is based on the assertion that special knowledge was conveyed to a select group of people by a heavenly revealer. This teaching was relatively common from about 150 AD to 350 AD, and again in the Middle Ages among the Albigensians. There were both Christian and Jewish forms of Gnosticism. An early form called Manichaeism was founded by a prophet named Mani (died 276 AD) who rejected standard forms of Judaism. Manichaeism became popular for a time among some Christians also. Pope Leo I (444 AD) was concerned about the presence of Manichaeans among the clergy.

The Christian teachers of Gnosticism claimed that they possessed knowledge of special revelations that Jesus gave to selected followers. Their belief was that only those who possessed this special knowledge could attain salvation and that they would regain the possession of male-female unity possessed by Adam and Eve before sin. This would happen by the escape of the soul from the body, the soul then being reunited to a heavenly soul. Other souls, less enlightened by Gnostic teaching, might attain a lesser form of salvation and probably will have to be reincarnated until they are successful at understanding Gnostic teaching. Some humans are not able to attain salvation at all. The non-saved are ruled by the evil God of the material world and so, like the material world, are not worthy of salvation.

Christian forms of Gnosticism claimed that Christ was the heavenly teacher who brought knowledge of how to help your soul escape the evil material world. They believed that the god revealed by the Old Testament was an angry God named Ialdabaoth (also known as the Demi Urge) who resented heavenly wisdom, called Sophia. In order to get revenge on Sophia, Ialdabaoth created the world to imprison humanity so that it could not discover the divine world. Among other Gnostic teachings is the idea that the division of male and female in the present world is a punishment inflicted on humanity by Ialdabaoth. According to this thinking the desire for sexual expression of love is also bad, for it causes more souls to be imprisoned in material form. The only way we can know how to escape the evil of our bodies is through the messages of a heavenly messenger, sometimes claimed to be Sophia herself, other times angels, or Jesus, or Jesus who is both male and female.

You might guess that some Gnostics claimed that the practice of chastity was the best thing to do, and that it would be good to practice harsh self-discipline in order to achieve this. You'd be right. One small group, the Mandeans, has survived until the present in Iraq and Iran. Mandeans are called "baptizers" by the Moslems because they practice a purification rite using water. This rite is repeated so that the soul might reach the heavenly world.

From about 150 AD on, leaders of Gnostics gathered their followers from the early Christians and a few Jews. Many of their texts, written in Coptic from the mid fourth century, were discovered in 1945 at Nag Hammadi, Egypt.

The differences between the Gnostics and the Christian Church are strong. Christians do not believe in more than one God, an impersonal God (for example, God as a concept, like wisdom), or in an evil God of the material world. Gnostics propose other books as revelation, including writings of transmitters of special knowledge who are claimed to be John, Peter, Paul, Mary Magdalene, Thomas and James. Some Gnostics asserted that Jesus was not a real person at all, but rather only appeared to be one so as to communicate with humans. Consequently, Jesus didn't die on the cross, only an apparition did. No one is saved through Jesus' life, cross, and resurrection. Jesus would not have had any human experiences at all because this would have made him a lower life form than a heavenly being. Some Gnostic writings, like the "Gospel of Thomas" claim that Jesus will make women into men so that they can be elevated. The bodily resurrection of the just was rejected by them because the body is seen as evil material in which souls are imprisoned. Sacraments were seen as bad by Gnostics because they use material things like oil, water and bread for the sake of material things like human bodies.

Because of the presence of parts of Orthodox Christian texts like 1 Corinthians 2:6, Ephesians 6:12, and 2 Corinthians 5:1-5 within Gnostic writings, most scholars propose that Christian Gnostic writings are later than the composition of Orthodox Christian texts (You can't incorporate pieces of writings that aren't written yet!). The fact that many Christians were attracted by Gnostic teaching also requires the presence of prior Christian communities from which to draw converts. This was certainly happening by around 150 AD, at which time all the texts used in our New Testament today were already composed for at least 50 years and were ordinarily (not always) accepted as authoritative scripture.

If you are interested in studying the relationship between Gnosticism and the Early Church, you may be able to locate a copy of Charles Hendrick and Robert Hodgeson's work "Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity," published by Hendrickson of Peabody, MA in 1986.

Writings of Brother Joe Schwab, OFM

Executive Director, Franciscan Renewal Center

You can't do much traveling in California without coming across the legacy of Junipero Serra. Names of town and cities, historical monuments, and geographical features are frequently associated with him. His name is in novels and historical books of all kinds. You can find him on postcards and trinkets. Yes, he's also to be found on the Web. Because he is so well known and so much has been written about him, it seemed pointless to me to try to write yet another short explanation of his life. Instead, I propose to offer the reflection of a friar today on the life and legacy of a friar who lived more than 2 centuries ago in the land that my province works in today. We have inherited a good deal from my brother, Junipero.

Born in 1713 on the island of Mallorca off the Mediterranean Coast of Spain, Junipero (known as Miguel to his family) worked as a farm boy. At this time he received a great deal of practical knowledge of the basics of farming and animal husbandry. This part of his education was highly important for his later success as missionary in Mexico and California. After entering the Order on his native island, he was trained by the friars in the complexities of Scotistic philosophy and theology. He was so talented in this area that he became the highest ranking theology professor at the local university. Additionally, he was a talented preacher. Yet, at the height of his success, he left everything he knew to begin a new vocation as a missionary in America, something he knew almost nothing about.

If a friar with a similar record came to our province today, how would I react? My reaction would be one of intense interest and curiosity. I would wonder how this friar managed to balance the practical knowledge of how to run a farm with the academic knowledge of understanding and teaching a theological system. Why did he want to join the form of life that St. Francis proposed? What prompted him to pursue his academic career in the first place, not to mention his outstanding success at it. What was it about his preaching that made so many people eager to hear him? How did he lead people to Christ? Finally, after being a success at all of that (as if that wasn't enough), what kind of vocational call did he receive which was so strong as to impel him to start over with something he knew almost nothing about? That involves risk taking and humility. It demands a strong spiritual life. It also demands some measure of foolhardiness, a characteristic known to be possessed by his patron in the Order, Bl. Juniper, a companion of St. Francis. I would like to know this brother better. He combines qualities which I find to be conflicting. I think I would have liked him.

What is so important to keep in mind when studying someone who lived in the past is: do not expect that people in the past thought like I do today in every way. They had a different system of cultural values to work with. One of the most important pieces of that cultural value system was that they did not place the individual human in the same place of value that my culture does today. An idea of we rather than me was central. Their unspoken assumptions would have included issues like: What is our group identity as Mallorcans, Spaniards, Catholics? What is my role in proclaiming this? How do I serve the group identity? What role does God have for us to play on the world stage? I would not normally have had self-doubts about my place, the group identity or its value in human society. Today, we critique our cultural role in the world, whether as Church or Nation. Not so in the mid 18th. century. Theirs was a much more self-assured world.

Today, missionaries of the Order spend a good deal of time trying to appreciate the cultural values of the people they are called to. They even try to understand if the people are calling them - in other words, the people help bring forth the vocation of the missionary through the grace of the Holy Spirit. Missionaries today ask themselves how they see the action of grace already present in the culture they are going to. Junipero's Church was barely beginning to ask that question.

Yet, within that Church with its set of limited horizons (we have ours, too) I find him remarkable. He saw the signs of grace in a non Christian culture. He remarked on the cleverness of the native people, on their capacity for the reception of grace and even on their spiritual and social virtues in their pre-Christian state. He was clearly concerned for their physical and spiritual welfare and did what he understood to be best toward that end. In reading his own writings, I can catch a sense of how invigorated he was by his experiences among natives in California. The college professor and doctor of theology, farm boy/famous preacher was having a good time among people who barely understood him. Some of them were clearly inspired by him and were dear to his heart. He liked the challenge of the unfamiliar. Many of the natives seem to have taken a liking to him as well, and this friendship remained to the day of his death.

Reflecting on the reality of his death scene at Mission San Carlos is instructive. It was public - no surprise there, given his culture - and poignant, with the testimonies of people united in their sorrow at his passing. Yet, our present historical spin doctors feel comfortable making negative judgments against Junipero from the event. I remember being told once by a historian that the wailing of the natives was a sign that they did not want the ghost of the person (Serra) to be anywhere near them, that the memory of the person was to be distanced from the experience of the living. This proved, according to this particular historian, that the native people didn't want him around. Well, what the historian didn't say was that there are clues that tell us that this was not the situation with Serra. Like what? The natives were eager to gather and preserve relics, namely objects he had used, bits of his habit, things like that. When native religion is practiced, any objects that the deceased had used are ritually "killed" by making them useless through breakage. Often anything the dead had touched is burned. The name is not used again. You don't ask the dead for assistance. What the people don't do is keep relics of the deceased around them and invoke the name of the deceased. They do not tell tales of the person's holiness or extraordinary deeds to the next generation if they think that the person was bad in some way. Yet, this is precisely what the natives of Carmel did in Serra's case. The canonization process documents preserve a number of these stories which older people remembered many years later. According to the tradition of those elders, both native and Hispanic, Junipero was a saint and a person they confided in, a person they invoked in their troubles, and someone whose relics and memory they were eager to preserve.

Why does my brother Junipero continue to be a sign of contradiction in Church and historical circles? Why do some people support his labeling as a saint on one hand or proclaim him a misguided bigot on the other? My opinion is that the basis of the controversy is a lack of understanding that people of the past did not think the way we do today. Their cultural biases were different from ours. Junipero had to work with the ones which were available to him. He did not have modern missiology to inform his practices. But within the limits that he had I find him to be a remarkable friar who was leading his brothers into the gradual development of a new way of looking at people of different cultures and religions. His experience of relating to the natives as clever, amiable, capable-of-grace people was a step toward our idea today of trying to see the action of the Holy Spirit in other religions even before they know the Gospel. It was also a step toward valuing their native culture as a gift rather than a challenge. I can't blame him for not getting as far along the path of missiology as I would have liked. He did great work in helping us to take small steps many years ago. Only remarkable people help entire cultures make steps into the future. This friar is a brother I'm happy to recognize as my brother.

Writings of Brother Joe Schwab, OFM

Executive Director, Franciscan Renewal Center

The labyrinth as a spiritual tool is being used more and more frequently on our property. 'm happy! At the same time, I would like to upgrade the area where it's located. We've begun by planting some native trees which require little extra water for healthy growth. We're also in the process of reseeding trampled areas with native wildflowers. Pray that we get some good rains this winter and spring.

Because of the love people have for the labyrinth area we're beginning to have problems of environmental destruction. It takes many years for desert topsoil to develop due to our low humidity and consequent slow rate of decay. The nearby areas are being walked on more and more frequently, very many of the cobbles in the washes (placed to slow erosion and increase water penetration) are being removed to make messages, and more soil is being blown away or washed into the retention basins. This degrades soil fertility and texture, making it harder for native grasses to be established. The soil in the labyrinth itself is being pulverized and blown away.

So, enjoy the upgrades that will gradually happen over the next year! We will begin by replacing many of the cobbles (not all) and sowing wildflower seed. We've planted a few native trees. We're talking to some community members about the project including the person who originally designed it to get more ideas (for example, how to make it more handicapped accessible). We'd like to create a special area to make messages with cobbles, like a community message center. Like human conversation, these messages can be changed and altered over time. We want to raise environmental awareness about the care of the desert and relate that to spiritual growth. It's a fun project!

Writings of Brother Joe Schwab, OFM

Executive Director, Franciscan Renewal Center

Franciscans view the world and God's creative presence in a particular way. How we understand this and our relationship to God is at the heart of what we call Franciscan spirituality. The following are key themes in Franciscan theology (how we understand God) and consequently in Franciscan spirituality (how we relate to God). We owe this understanding to the experience of St. Francis first, then to his followers throughout the ages, particularly St. Clare.

1. God is absolute love, being and creativity. Creation is dependent upon God to exist. No created thing exists because of it's own capacity to be, only God is capable of being without depending on something else. The development of created things through time reflects God's inexhaustible ability to be creative and to remain the source of demonstrated love.
2. God has freely chosen incarnation (taking on human form) before the human choice for sin. Jesus Christ comes to us because God loves us, not because we sin. Because of sin, Jesus comes in a particular way out of free will, not because a particular method of human behavior is needed to save us. God can simply will salvation, because God is always free. Christ chooses to be with us physically now through the Eucharist until he comes again. This is reflective of God's willingness to be with us in humble ways and to nourish us physically and spiritually.
3. Christmas is of primary importance to us. Easter is the outcome of Christmas. The Incarnation is the greatest thing God could do for creation. The death of Jesus on the cross remains a mystery, because even given human sin, God was not constrained to act in this unbelievable self sacrificial way. It was done to attract us to divine love.
4. Christ is the perfect image of who God is for creation. He is the mirror of who and what all humanity and created things are meant to be. Creatures participate in this perfection to the capacity of their natures. Humans can choose to not participate in Christ. Mary is the human person who has most perfectly chosen to participate in imaging God, both physically and spiritually.
5. Every creature is unique, gifted, and living in relationship. No human life is a mistake, because every one is uniquely gifted. The relationships of life are meant to be deepened according to the nature of the creature. This reflects the nature of God, who lives in Trinity and is therefore capable of the greatest depth of relationship.
6. Nothing humans have the ability to do has the capacity to make God do something. God is always freely choosing love for humanity, even when we don't see that the choice is the best. Our knowledge is too limited by space and time, while God is not limited by them. We all remain poor at God's table, because God doesn't owe us anything.
7. Mercy, forgiveness and justification are God's actions. They do not result from our actions. We work on our salvation, while recognizing that even our capacity to want to do good comes as a gift from God. We must do what we can - the freedom to choose comes from God - but realize that God is behind the ability to do good. God respects our freedom so much that he asks us to cooperate with him.

Writings of Brother Joe Schwab, OFM

Executive Director, Franciscan Renewal Center

With the rise of interest in the Church community concerning the ministry and stories of women, a similar rise in interest in the Franciscan family has occurred concerning Clare of Assisi, Angela of Foligno, Rose of Viterbo, Margaret of Cortona, Elizabeth of Hungary and many others. However, Clare is the first Franciscan woman. Her acceptance into the Order mirrored in every way the practices followed by the earliest brothers who joined Francis. It is only now that the Order can become more interested in Clare's role because the primary need to understand Francis better is being partially satisfied by the publication of the Early Documents series. Just as importantly, our cultural prejudices against women are in the process of change. We are beginning to see in Clare the figure of the necessary female complement of Francis.

In recent decades, more professional research has been done on the life of Clare than had been done for centuries. Up to the 1970's, relatively little had been accomplished because so much work had to be done on the life of Francis. Secondly, there was less interest in feminine aspects of the Church's heritage. That situation has changed. The story of women in the Church is becoming much better known, and a great deal of foundational work has been accomplished concerning the life of Francis.

Just a few years ago, all the discovered early documents concerning Francis were collected into one set of books. Francis alone wrote 3 documents in his own handwriting which we still have. He either dictated or composed 30 others (perhaps more that we haven't found yet) with the help of his secretary, Br. Leo, or that of papal secretaries. Then there were the letters, biographies, official documents, liturgical texts, sermons, poems, songs, manuals, testimonies and other writings about him to consider. So far, only the English speaking world has this complete collection. Granted that all this work has been done on Francis, why is there a resurgence of interest in Clare? What kind of woman did Francis come to know?

Clare was a very independent minded woman for her age. Although medieval Italian women were more free in terms of social and economic possibilities than many European women until fairly recently, it would be a mistake to characterize the female role of her time as one of freedom. Despite limitations, Clare asserted her rights and duties as a woman within a Christian context and so stretched the boundaries of the medieval woman's world. She broadened the possibilities for lay people to offer direction to the Church and society.

While still living in her family home, she determined to lead a life of spiritual renewal, mapping out her own destiny. This forced her to oppose her noble family's plans for gaining social, political and economic alliances through marriage. She even helped her sisters in their opposition. She absolutely refused to accept any other Rule which well meaning Churchmen tried to impose on her. She became the first woman in Church history to act as a legislator by writing her own Rule. She violated a strong social value code by deciding to do manual work. Such work was considered to be degrading in the society of her day, particularly for nobles. She led a hunger strike against Pope Innocent IV who wanted her to accept endowments to support the lives of the nuns. She supported the successor of St. Francis, Br. Elias, even when he became a controversial figure. She counseled a well-known princess of the day, Agnes of Prague, to reject a number of high society marriage proposals in favor of life as a poor nun.

At the same time, Clare was strongly committed to the Church and commended her community to its protection and support. She insisted on fidelity to the Church as a prerequisite for entry into her monastery. She personally enjoyed the assistance of Bishop Guido of Assisi, as did Francis. Clare won the respect and gratitude of the papacy despite disagreements. She was deeply devoted to the practice of contemplation that led her to a very high degree of mystical union with God. She was gifted with the power of healing and there are many stories about her compassion for the physically and even mentally ill, despite her own serious illnesses. She wanted the official sanction of the Church to live her type of life, and, in the end, received it from the pope on her deathbed. Civil and ecclesiastical magistrates came to her for advice and counsel. She acted as a defender of her native Assisi twice when the city was under military attack.

At the insistence of Francis, she accepted the power title of abbess. Yet, she changed the title's political meaning to become that of a servant-leader: neither a slave to majority opinion nor an autocrat. She found the interior strength to live her life from the personal acceptance of the power of the Eucharist. Christ's physical presence with her became so strong a reality in her life that her own body required very little physical food to sustain it. It is not that her practice of fasting is so important. What matters is that she became a sign of the physical, all sustaining presence of Christ in her through fasting. She reminded Christians that, at a time when physical realities were considered to be an occasion for sin, Clare said: "Indeed, is it not clear that the soul of the faithful person … is greater than heaven itself? For the heavens with the rest of creation cannot contain their Creator. Only the faithful soul is His dwelling place…" When women were told they were inferior creatures, Clare told her sisters to look in a mirror and see the union of divinity and humanity, Christ.

Clare is not the meek, harmless nun so often depicted. She is a woman who sees God reflected in her femininity, yet who is comfortable in the world of men. She deserves to be remembered for the balance she achieves between autocracy and democracy, contemplation and action, obedience and assertion, prayer and practicality, service and leadership, healing and endurance, masculine and feminine. Clare is a woman who has great gifts still available to and needed in the Church.

She is a woman about whom we have much to learn. We are now at a stage in historical research and cultural development where her gifts can be learned and appreciated. All Franciscans should be in expectation of great research to be done as we rediscover who this woman was for Francis and his followers, and who she can be for the whole Church today. Take an opportunity to learn about her.

Writings of Brother Joe Schwab, OFM

Executive Director, Franciscan Renewal Center

We live in a time of great interest in spirituality (experience of God), but a lessening interest in religion (organization of the experience). In other words, many people like the idea of relating to a “higher power” in some personal way, but they often don’t like the idea of doing this in any social way that develops rules, guidelines, or organizational structures which affect their personal ways of thinking or behaving. Many things have led to this situation. Some of these might include a lack of religious training in youth, a sense of relativism (what I decide is truth = truth), a sense of being bored by church services or unwelcomed, and many others.

Many then turn to a kind of secular (non religious) spirituality, revealed by personal descriptions of what spirituality is: harmony; living your truth; cosmic interconnectedness; compassion; being at one with the universe; unconditional love; relating to the energy; et cetera. We often call them Seekers, as they are not particularly interested in questions about God but are looking for something greater than themselves. They want to find some sense of truth.

The scientific search for truth has led many people to assume that the only things that are true are those that can be measured or calculated through instrumentation. For example, your interest in your children’s growth is nothing more than an interest in promoting your genetic code, and feelings of love are only the result of electrical activity in the brain. Consequently, the development of science over the last 150 years has been utilized by many people to develop a rationale for rejecting religion. Just think, we now realize that our planet is merely a tiny speck of dust in the universe. How does this square with the idea that we have dominion over creation as we are told in the book of Genesis? Besides this, Quantam Physics is leading us to understand that all life is connected and interdependent. So what happened to human dominion?

These questions should not remain unanswered by the churches, but it seems that the most popular response right now is simply an assertion of belief in the Church or the Bible as the depository of all truth (Fundamentalism) coupled with a refusal to engage the question for fear that there is no good answer. Yet, we need to realize that there are many people in all professions - scientists included - who are people of faith and who encourage the churches to respond in a way that reveals Christ to those outside of the faith community.

There are a number of ways to make a response. One is to recognize that the Holy Spirit is active within and outside of the Church. We should enable people to see that the Spirit of God is active in their lives even if they are not aware of the divine presence. We can do this partially by utilizing ideas they are interested in while bringing a God message into the topic. This needs to be done through gentle invitation, not a shove-it-down-their-throats kind of revelation. Think of it as watering a seed that’s already planted and recognize that the seed is, in fact, planted by God, not you.

Secondly, let’s recognize that many spiritualities in the Christian family have focused to the point of obsession on the idea that our bodies and created objects are occasions for sin rather than grace. Importantly for us, Franciscan spirituality is not one of these.

Thirdly, don’t feel smug that you have a personal experience of God and that Seekers often don’t. Remember, Jesus told us that God can raise children of Abraham from the stones under our feet.

Fourthly, we need to use present day cultural ideas to bring the message of Christ to all nations, just as the Early Church did in the composition of the New Testament and the Creeds that we still use. We can utilize science as a friend to faith rather than an enemy, and many professionals do. Listen to them.

Fifthly, the riches of the Christian mystics (people who have had direct experience of God through Jesus) can lead us to be more heart oriented - loving - in our spirituality and less head oriented – trying to intellectually understand everything. This would help so much in reaching out to Seekers who are more individually than communally focused. It does not mean we reject understanding basics of faith, but rather that love is primary to understanding. This is a classic and foundational point in Franciscan theology. The Feast of the Epiphany speaks to this, as Christ is revealed to us as a baby who needs to be loved first, then grow in understanding.

If we shift our focus to love first, then good actions orthopraxis will be beautifully joined to good belief orthodoxy. This is a job for the faith community. It will provide a reason for the increasing number of Seekers to search in our midst for a reason to believe and hope in the future, for Christ will be revealed in us.

Writings of Brother Joe Schwab, OFM

Executive Director, Franciscan Renewal Center

Before the time of St. Francis a custom had developed of staging Christmas pagents. In many cases, these had become more entertaining, even comedic than spiritually focused, so in 1223 Francis asked the Pope for permission to develop a different kind of program. He presented his idea to the people of Greccio because he knew them to be a spiritually minded community. "Blessed Francis often said to the brothers about the men and women of this small village that 'even in a large city not as many people have been converted…as in Greccio'. (Assisi Compilation c. 1244)". The people of the village and their animals became the actors and the historical figures in the Christmas story, so that they not only saw the Gospel come alive but were part of the living Gospel. They did not entertain with, but rather participated in the event, and made the nativity of Christ part of their everyday lives. We can do the same by giving birth to Christ in our thoughts, words, and deeds. May God give us the gift of grace so that we do not only cry out Lord, Lord, but do the will of the Father (Mt. 7,21). Faith needs to be put into action or it's useless. Let God's grace on this feast be the gift that leads to a living faith this New Year.

Writings of Brother Joe Schwab, OFM

Executive Director, Franciscan Renewal Center

Thanks for your question. The friar's habits were originally whatever color the locally available undyed wool was. Brown, brownish gray, light to dark gray. One of the original parts of St. Francis' habits that we have is brownish gray, but since it's faded and 800 years old, it would be hard to tell what color it was when new. As the Order grew and the need for more uniformity was felt, the color became standardized as gray. However, as the Order split into separate units again in the 16th through 19th. centuries, the color changes came back in and black was introduced in some groups, gray in others, still others, brown, tan, maroon, and even blue. The friars in Latin America and North America worn gray until the 1880's when brown was introduced by the German friars. When numerous units of the Order were united into the Observant reform movement in 1896, brown was mandated as the color, although white is allowed in the missions. The Capuchins wear brown, the Conventual's, black. There is some interest in going back to gray. A lot of recently started Franciscan groups wear different colors, each one claiming to be the original color. Since there was no uniformity in color originally, we don't really care. In the English and Spanish speaking worlds until about 110 years ago, we wore gray and so are usually called the Greyfriars, even though we have to use brown now. Carmelites were called Whitefriars, Dominicans Blackfriars, and so on. Pretty complicated! Br. Joe Schwab

Writings of Brother Joe Schwab, OFM

Executive Director, Franciscan Renewal Center

God intends to take on human flesh (incarnate) into creation whether or not humans choose to sin. The sin of Adam and Eve does not make God "decide" to become incarnate and act as a redeemer. God incarnates because God loves creation and wants it to experience His love in a way appropriate to creatures. We can be intimate with God because of the incarnation. Because of the human choice for sin, however, God incarnate (Jesus the Christ) comes as a redeemer, not because it's the only possibility but because God wants to show us that self sacrifice is the strongest way to conquer sin. It's the most obvious way for God to show that He loves us, once we've chosen sin. Since we've chosen sin, we're all affected by it, so how can God (sinless) take His human form from humanity which is all affected by sin?

His solution is that God must have chosen to create a human who is protected from being affected by sin (Mary) because she would be the mother of the sinless redeemer. Remember, God is taking on human nature as part of Himself, it's not like a mask or costume that God takes off later on - Jesus is fully God and fully human, He doesn't just seem to be one or the other and certainly not 50% of each. God cannot take a sinful state into His own being, because that's contrary to the nature of God - sinless.

The logical solution is the Mary was preserved from the sinful state we share because she would be the Mother of God, not just the mother of an amazing person. The preservation from sin is what Catholics call the Immaculate Conception. In Mary, God has worked an act of perfect redemption- that is, she's preserved from a sinful state and didn't commit sin, because it would have made her unfit to be God's mother were it otherwise. The act of redemption is complete in her, for the rest of us it's in process. Because of this complete redemption, Mary stands before us as the fulfillment of all the potential that creation and humanity shares. God will bring us all to complete redemption, and He has given us proof of this in Mary. Because of God's loving power, Mary is the best model of what we're called to be, and she consequently stands foremost in the spirituality of the Franciscan Order. She is the best human model and guide we have to enriching our life with Christ.

Writings of Brother Joe Schwab, OFM

Executive Director, Franciscan Renewal Center