A SHORT SUMMARY OF BELIEF

In today’s world, Christians face increased scrutiny for their beliefs. This is particularly true in Catholicism, where church scandals and papal doctrines have alienated many. I have recently felt challenged on a personal level to strongly evaluate what, and more importantly, why I believe what I do. I hope herein to shed some light on the questions which today’s Catholics face all the time. I will focus on the following points: why I believe in a supreme being… the responsibility that comes as a created being… why is there pain & suffering in the world… why I have chosen Christianity as my path… why I take pride in Catholicism despite its obvious flaws and sometimes blatant corruption… and finally, what the idea of Jesus means to the world.

  THE GIFT OF BEAUTY 

I could delve into many argument I feel point to the existence of a supreme being, employing philosophy, science and history, but instead of taking such an intellectual approach, I will make my appeal to the human heart. Meditate for a moment on the mere existence of a thing we call beauty.  Beauty is in everything we see—in the world, in our bodies, in our feelings and passions. There is no logical or scientific reason why there should even be such a thing as beauty. Rather, beauty is a gift, one which is superfluous to survival. If there was no beauty would we miss it? What if the concept of beauty had never touched our consciousness? Do we only find our world beautiful because we are accustomed to it? If we had only known the grotesque, would we consider it beautiful? Is beauty only, as they say, in the eye of the beholder? If so, then the wonder is no less stunning, for consider the amazement that is the ability of the beholder to find beauty–that the eye for beauty is written into the nature of humanity. This is arguably more wondrous than the beauty itself!  How could this beauty come about but by the generosity of a giver? To say that we and the world came about by pure chance is a great exercise in selfishness. By such a hypothesis, we avoid the responsibility of thankfulness for our gifts. But beauty contradicts the theory of chance. If all existence was an accident, would it not have evolved toward functionality alone? We can see in science that each species grows and mutates toward functionality, power, even comfort. But what mutations can explain beauty? How can the natural causes of water, stone and gravity over millions of years produce the glory of a waterfall? How can the grim quest for survival of a single mountain fir high in the alps explain a tree so sublime? How can the simple instinct of propagation manifest in the passion and unity of human reproduction? Each of these phenomena can be explained very accurately and scientifically, but science cannot explain the consistency, and most importantly, the why of beauty in our world. Does each beautiful phenomena not point to an incredible creativity, an incredible love? The majesty of nature, art in all its forms, the capacity to love, the complex workings and passions of our bodies, the very order of the universe, all point to life itself being a remarkable gift which only selfishness could claim was not given. Could this beauty all come about by chance? Perhaps. But would it? The overwhelming beauty of the world points to the necessity of there being a Creator, and this demands us to consider what it means to exist, as a “created being.” Most obvious is the fact that I am at the mercy of the Supremity. Some Christians would say I exist only because of that mercy. I disagree. Instead, I believe I exist because of love. The beauty of the earth’s gifts show me that God created because s/he desired to love, and that love made him/her desire to give its creations a bounty of good. 

WHAT RESPONSIBILITY DOES HUMANITY OWE ITS CREATOR? 

Now, existing as a being created out of love, and as a part (more than a possessor) of all earth’s beautiful gifts, I must examine what responsibility I owe to my Creator. Just as a child owes respect to its parents, and grieves them when it fails to give it, so the created should honor the Creator. There are several ways in which this can be most easily manifested… first and foremost, in thankfulness. Knowing I did nothing to deserve the life I was given, I should live in thankfulness for the gift. This thankfulness should be manifested by not taking anything for granted. I have lived twenty-eight years. If tomorrow I learn I have a deadly disease and will die in the next month, modern cultural norms tell me I should be bitter for a short life. But what did I do to deserve twenty-eight mostly good years? Therefore each day, each sight of beauty in nature, each note of music or perfume of rose that wafts toward my senses, each warmth of love that caresses my heart must inspire a gratitude for gifts I could never imagine nor ever be valiant enough to deserve. Nextly, I have a responsibility to show goodness to the creation I share. First and foremost, this should be manifested in human generosity. Love and charity should be given without pause to all people, despite their shortcomings. Their faults are not my responsibility; nor are their sins. My task is to love them, and only the Supremity can be the judge of failure or transgressions.  My responsibility is also to preserve the beauty so generously given–not to abuse nature with human strength, or animals with human intellect. These virtues, not religious practice, are the best ways to show the supremity acknowledgement and love.   

THE PROBLEM OF PAIN
  The questions which begs now to be asked is why would such a loving Creator allow evil and pain into the world? The answer starts with free will, and culminates in human selfishness. We are the ones to blame for all the pain and suffering in the world. Humanity must have the capability for evil if we are ever to choose good. Without this working opposite, no good would really be good. We are the ones to blame for all the pain and suffering in our world. It is not the work of some abstract demon, nor an oversight by our Creator, but the work of our own selfishness. It is our greed for pleasure and our corruption of beauty that inflict suffering on the weak and powerless. We are guilty for all of it. If we all consumed a little less, the world would not be hungry. If we all gave up a little power there would be no need for war. If we all sacrificed a little excess comfort, the whole world could enjoy enough comfort. If we all responded to natural disasters with charity and sharing, the results would not be nearly so dire. I have often heard the question “Why does God allow the suffering of the world.” What God allows is the freedom of the world. Suffering comes not from the hand of God, but by humanity, which has been given the freedom to do what it wishes. Unfortunately, humanity more often responds to suffering with selfishness than charity.  For the answer to evil and suffering, therefore, we must look at ourselves. What would become of famine if those who had excess would share? What would become of slavery without a master? What would become of war without greed? To quote the words of Rousseau: “God makes all things good; humanity meddles with them and they become evil. (Jean Jacques Rousseau: “Emile,” chap 1. 1780) Our meddling is the source of evil. God chose goodness—love—over evil, yet gave us the free will to meddle with the good until it became evil. Blaming God for evil is a most unfair accusation. Why blame God for our own faults. And if God reached in to undo our meddling, that would be to take away our free will. We can’t have it both ways, yet we must take some responsibility for the wickedness we have brought into our world. Rather than blaming God for the pain in the world, we should see it as an opportunity for charity and love. God did not make anything evil, but even through that which has become evil, through our selfishness, God can turn it to good through our acts of love. (St. Augustine of Hippo: “De Continentia,” 15. C. 400) In each of our hearts we hold the answer to the world’s suffering, and the answer is love. So far from being God’s fault is the suffering of the world, that God actually took this suffering upon his/her own shoulders! By incarnating as Jesus, God shared with the worst of human suffering. By this remarkable act of love, Jesus showed his compassion for humanity, and gave us an example to follow when we and those we love are plunged into suffering. With love we can ease the suffering of those less fortunate than ourselves, and their love will help to liberate us from our own pain. This love is compassion and charity, freeing us from suffering when we receive it, and freeing us from guilt and loneliness when we give it. Love is the peace which comforts us even in the face of so much pain. Only by living with love will we ever know peace. 

WHY RELIGION? IS BELIEF SUFFICIENT? 

So what place does organized religious have in life? I have laid out the reasons why I believe we were created and what responsibility we have to that Creator? Is that enough? Must we also follow a religion?  Religion passes on many things, among them, tradition, liturgy, community and dogma. All these things point the practitioner toward the main purpose of religion—accountability. Without the structure of religion, it is easy to lose track of the thankfulness and generosity we owe our Creator. No religion is without flaw, for every religion relies on an infrastructure established and developed by humans. [Some might argue that religions were developed by humans but established by God or a representative thereof. But in every case, the infrastructure of a religion was actually established by those who followed in the footsteps of those they call the fathers of their religions; this is true from Moses, to  Krishna, to Buddha, to Jesus, to Mohammed.] But though flawed, every religion attempts to point its practitioners toward a moral existence. I believe this practice… call it dogma… is still a vibrant method of pointing humanity toward a worthy goal, that goal being accountability and thankfulness to a creator. I will be the first to say that this may not necessarily be the only way to reach this goal, but it is a good way, and for some, the only way they have the strength and fortitude to achieve it. Some choose a solitary journey, free from the constraints and dogma of organized churches. I admire such pilgrims, but few are strong enough to embark on that path and not be tempted away by the influences of the world. Many think religion stifles free thought, and often, this is true. But dogma is also necessary to protect religion against the whims of culture and politics. As I wrote in my article The Necessity of Dogma, “Bold thinkers help the Church adapt to the times, yet it is the glue of dogma that holds the Church together… In any given era [including ours], the Church seems to be about a hundred years behind what would have then been considered modern thought. This in fact, reflects its wisdom. A religious body cannot afford lightly to espouse a trend. But once certain that a social or philosophical trend is indeed reflective of truth, the Church usually, though perhaps reluctantly, follows.” (Gregory Phillips: “The Necessity of Dogma,” Leben #4, 2004) It is not only accountability, but also community, which are the reasons why organized religion is important. It is the community that holds one another accountable to the morality they strive to follow, and it is community that inspires acts of charity in those who follow a particular religion. The Dalai Lama calls religion the medicine which cures human suffering. ( H. H. The Dalai Lama: “Spiritual Advice for Buddhists & Christians,” chap 1. 1999) It is the accountability of religion that spurs the practitioner to bring this medicine, in the form of charity, to the poor and suffering of the world. But is one religion better than another? Mahatma Gandhi said, (when asked why, when he admired Christianity so much, he did not convert to it) “Hinduism is my path. If we are all climbing to the same mountaintop, does it matter by which path we climb?” Though I believe strongly in the basic tenets of my religion, I know that the true purpose of religion—accountability and thankfulness to the Creator—can be achieved through any religious infrastructure, or even without it. But though I was born Christian, I chose and switched to the subset Catholicism, so I cannot simply say, like Gandhi, “it is my path.” I am obliged to explain why. 

WHY CHRISTIANITY & WHY CATHOLICISM? 

At its most simplistic, I am Christian because of Jesus, not because of the church. Humanity has corrupted the church which follows him to a point which would disgust him! But humanity, as we have seen throughout history, is corrupt. We would not need someone like Jesus if we were not flawed. Jesus presented himself as a savior to the flawed, If you whittle away all the dogma and corruption down to the teachings of Jesus, there is a sublime portrait of love and compassion for all humanity. He also taught a profound responsibility, which if he is to be followed, can not be ignored. The teachings of Jesus can be summed up in two main points: “Love your neighbor as you love yourself,” the so-called Golden Rule, and the message that he came from God (his father) to show people how much God loved them. These two things must be paramount in our attitude toward the world. Our very existence, in my mind, shows the Creator’s love and the fact that we owe a responsibility back to him/her. And all the Creator asks of us is to love others as we would love ourselves.  In light of Jesus’ two points, I am embarrassed by the many scars which color the church’s history. How for example, can so many wars be waged “in Jesus’ name,” when Jesus lived out his peaceful words by submitting to the authority of an occupying power even to the death, when he had supporters willing to gather an army for him? All these atrocities, however, just show me how desperately we still need Jesus’ message of peace, love and compassion.  After all, Jesus did not pick in his group of closest friends examples of piety, unity and love. There was Matthew the financial cheat… James and John the self-righteous, power-hungry brothers… Judas, the betrayer… Mary Magdalene, whom tradition sometimes says was a prostitute [this is historically inaccurate, but the fact that many Christians do not deny it shows their willingness to accept very flawed friends of Jesus], and finally Peter, a war-monger who denied his faith at all the crucial moments. Jesus’ flawed friends give us all hope, even while the church follows their example of corruption and greed. Some will ask how I can continue to adhere to Catholicism when I am embarrassed by much of the image which  Rome has displayed to the world through the ages. I could have easily stayed Protestant and avoided the scrutiny which the Papacy draws upon itself. But I believe that the entire community of Christians (and people of all religions for that matter) are one body. If something is wrong with one part of the body, something is wrong with the whole. The idea of unity was paramount in the Christianity my parents taught me, but it differs vastly from all my experiences in the Protestant churches I attended as a boy. In Catholicism I find a home for this belief. The Second Vatican Council proclaimed that people could find God through various paths, not only through Catholicism. (“Lumen Gentium,” Vatican II 16) I heard a prayer to this end during the first Catholic mass I ever attended, and I knew I had found my path. This ecumenical acceptance is the primary point which led me to Catholicism. It differs vastly from all my experiences with Protestant churches. Many will argue that the Catholic Church is not ecumenical whatsoever, and they will, in one way, be right. With this in mind, it is necessary to look back at the events of 1962, when Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council, for without this event I probably would not be Catholic. The papacy throughout the ages has displayed a stubborn attitude both toward change and the possibility that it could be wrong. Even now, the Vatican will squirm at the mention of blatant evil done by such Popes as Urban II and Boniface VIII. I don’t understand the Popes’ refusal to admit any wrongs when the man they revere as the first Pope (Peter) cut off an enemy’s ear and denied knowing Jesus on the same night! At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, the Popes were more stubborn than ever in their quest to crush free thought. Pope Pius X implemented an oath which all new priests were obligated to take. The oath essentially renounced modernism. (Pius X, “Pascendi,” 1907) It effectively silenced freedom of speech and press among clerical orders for half a century.  John XXIII changed everything. When he called the bishops and cardinals of the world together for the Second Vatican Council, his twofold purpose was to make the church more accessible to its followers, and to abolish some of the deeply entrenched dogma that had far outlived its use, practicality, and even sense. The council was only partially successful on both fronts. Perhaps if John had lived through the council it would have been different. The primary changes that came out of Vatican II were the acceptance of a separation between church and state, freedom of conscience, changing the mass from Latin to the vernacular and acceptance that other religions may be able to lead people to salvation. Other points which the majority of bishops wanted to bring up for vote: the right of priests to marry, female priests, and the church’s position on contraception, were swept under the carpet by the new Pope, Paul VI. One can only speculate on how things would have turned out had John lived, but to Paul’s credit, he respected his predecessor’s legacy and did what he could to preserve it. As I stated earlier, I have always maintained that the church lags about 100 years behind the current perception of modern thought and I consider it healthy behavior to keep the church from conforming to the whims of culture, but when the church must change, it is always a struggle. John XXIII brought the church almost to present day. One Cardinal said of the council “It will take a century for the church to recover from John’s pontificate.” (Peter Hebblethwaite, “Paul VI,” 1993)  Though Paul VI’s election, and the conclusion of the council were seen as triumphs for liberal Catholicism, the remainder of Paul’s papacy shows that he did not quite have the confidence to back up what John started and he finished. No wonder that the college of Cardinals chose Karol Wojtyla of
Poland, an outsider and an engaging personality, yet a staunch and determined conservative to be Pope John Paul II in 1978. The agreed doctrines of Vatican II were set in stone, but John Paul II put an end to all the bickering about it being unfinished. There would be no discussion of female priests, married priests, and certainly not contraception, even in AIDS-ravaged parts of the world. But the spirit of Vatican II is something that John Paul II could not change. There seem to be two views on what the council meant: that of Popes John Paul and now Benedict XVI, and that of the people. Before he became Pope, Benedict said that the masses adopted a “spirit of the council” which he considers a misinterpretation. (Vittorio Messori, “The Ratzinger Report,” 1983) But it was the legacy of John XXIII (particularly his spirit of unity) that birthed the church which drew me in. Interestingly, despite his reputation as a ruthless enforcer of dogma, it is Pope Benedict’s teachings on love and the incarnation, mostly penned before his election, that have to a large degree inspired me to stay. Some have chosen to leave the church and have found satisfaction in other religions, or sects of Christianity. I do not begrudge them this choice, but neither do I think it is the way to enact change. I will grant that Martin Luther’s protest birthed a church that for awhile seemed much more in step with Christ’s teaching, but it also gave rise to centuries of malice, rivalry and war between those who believed in the same Christianity. It should be noted that Luther did not intend to start a new church, but to reform the existing Catholic Church. Who knows what would have happened had his followers not been so eager to break away from Catholicism, but my opinion is that reform will always be greater when worked from within than by those who break away. By staying, the protester acknowledges that the common belief is greater than the differences. If everyone who opposed the system broke away the church would fragment into thousands of tiny sects while the central church grew smaller and smaller until neither had any network of support. Certainly not the way to create the unity among Christians that I dream of. This is a difficult time to be a Catholic, but also an exciting time. I see change just around the corner. It may be hard to see another progressive Pope like John being elected soon (all but three of the Cardinals who vote for Pope were installed by either John Paul II or Benedict XVI and reflect their views). But keep in mind that every bishop who participated in the Second Vatican Council was required to take Pius X’s anti-modernist oath. It did not stop them. 

CHARITY
  Now that we have looked at some of the flaws of the Catholic Church, what are the things that draw me there? The main one, together with the ecumenism we have already discussed, is charity. While selfishness is the cause of human suffering, charity is its cure. Charity is, simply put, an act of sharing the beauty of the world with those who have less. And charity has been defined, over and over again throughout history, as the primary purpose and goal of the Catholic Church. Through the example of Jesus’ life, he told us to give to anyone who asked of us, and to treat others as we would wish for them to treat us. If we look at the reality of our lives, what we have been given, and what we deserve, how can we not exercise charity? Can we presume to think we deserve our gifts? Do we deserve our prosperity more than the beggar we crossed the street to avoid? Do I, born in the excessively affluent  United States, deserve the right to work for wealth and comfort more than one born in a country  which grants not this freedom and opportunity? Do we even deserve our sobriety more than the man addicted to drugs or alcohol? How close could I be, with his opportunities, to where he is, or he me? How many degrees of separation really exist between us? And what if I should fall into a state of poverty, ill-health, drunkenness or insanity? Would I not long for compassion? Or if not something so extreme, perhaps we simply need to feel the kindness of another human heart. Where will others be, unless we showed compassion to them? Who will come to us in our need if we never came to the aid of others? Charity should not have to be a loan, but we will certainly find more willing donors of it if we gave it freely when we had the chance. The call to love and compassion comes from the assumption that we are created beings, and thus, this is our duty out of respect and thanks. But what if we were not created? What if none of it’s true? If this one short life is our only chance for happiness, shouldn’t we dispense with charity, living for self alone? Well, ask anyone who has tried this course and they will assure you that it will not! The most hardened atheist, if honest of heart, will confess that selfishness gives no joy. How can I hope for love if I do not love? When I need compassion, where will it come from if I show none for my fellows? Even if none of it’s true, love and compassion, indeed the morality which is intrinsically unselfish, still point the quickest path to fulfillment. Morality may have originated in religion, but even those who reject religion, seldom reject morality. Morality can be summarized simply as the giving up of some selfish individual behaviors for the good of the community as a whole, or the future good of the individual. While theistic religions point to God as the reason for love and morality, religions that do not have a god, or have many gods, still recognize the same necessity. Take Buddhism, for example. The fundamental goals of Buddhism are happiness and enlightenment. Selfish goals, you could argue. There is no God in Buddhism. Yet without professing the existence of a God, the Buddhist understands that the path toward personal joy, those goals which might be considered selfish, is through service to others. The practices of Buddhism and Christianity, when followed as they are truly taught, are very similar, though the creeds differ. Or, if we expect love to be fulfilled through the people we leave behind when we die, wouldn’t we rather be remembered for our goodness than our selfishness, our wealth, or even our fame? Even if all religion is false, we should not live our lives any differently, because we know that the best contentment comes from love. Think of the joy of friendship. How is it achieved? By being the best friend we can. No one wishes to be friends with the selfish man or woman, or the one who is only looking out for themselves? Rather, the one who experiences friendship is the one who is willing to give it. Or if we desire respect from others, it is foolish to try to achieve it by gaining power over them. The one who respects others is the one who is respected, and whose authority will be honored. If we seek sexual fulfillment with another person, the only joy comes when the lover is honored and respected. The beauty of sexual unity comes from the love that is achieved only when both partners really give themselves to one other. Only this way can two really unite as one. A union built on selfishness will be short-lived and sadly unfulfilling. The knowledge of this truth is why promiscuity is discouraged, even by non-religious societies. The law which Jesus commanded is just that which we require for our own happiness. Whether or not he was God does not change the truth that his teachings, if followed, will give us joy and contentment. By giving love and compassion, we receive the same in return. By withholding it, it is withheld from us. So what is the risk of following Jesus’ teachings of love? Are we afraid of losing the years of our lives which we would rather spend on ourselves? Are we afraid if we point our lives toward a non-existent heaven, we will lay in our grave with nothing to show for our lives, and find that the reward we believed in was nothing but a phantom? Well, what would we have to show for living otherwise? What profit of wealth, fame or pleasure will content us in the grave? Even if there is no eternal reward for living a good life, we will have the reward of our memory.  There is no risk in living with love and compassion. The only risk is in living selfishly. Even if there is no heaven, no reincarnation, no continuing life of the soul, and death is the final extinguishment of both body and spirit, our lives are better spent for others than for ourselves. For if there is no afterlife then our only hope for immortality is in the memory of those we touched during our lives. Wouldn’t we rather be remembered for our generosity than our greed, our love rather than our wealth? Even absent from religion, the preservation of our memories through those who outlive us is one of our most treasured pursuits. Since the beginning of humanity people have longed to be immortal, and without an afterlife, the closest we can come to immortality is through the memory of others. (Plato: “Symposium,” c. 389 BC) Though this can be achieved to some extent through fame, honor and virtue, it is much better achieved through love. Even if there is no God, and death is truly the end, then to be loved by another is the greatest happiness we can hope for. It is also our chance for immortality, the only answer to the despair of the grave. Love is stronger than death. We see the proof all around. Let us cease to believe in a world of death and take pride to live in a world of love. Whether or not it’s true, your life will be happier lived in love than in selfishness. Therefore, worry not to follow the words of Jesus. You can’t lose! If it is true, you will reap the rewards of heaven. If not, you will still reap the rewards of human love and the immortality of your memory. Because of charity, it no longer matters if any of it’s true! 
JESUS: GOD’S GIFT OF LOVE
 Finally, I wish to spend a few moments on the idea of Jesus, who is both the unifying and most difficult part of the Christian religion. He is an uncomfortable part of his own message. One God is easier to believe in than a God who is both father and son, yet still one. Jesus is the subject of attack from those outside Christianity who find it ridiculous to imagine that this one man who died twenty centuries ago could be God. Christians are the laughable followers of a myth that isn’t even a very good myth! Jesus is a problem to emancipated Christians who dislike the patriarchy of Christianity. While one can avoid speaking of God as a strictly male figure, Jesus lived on earth as a man. His masculinity is clear and unavoidable. Jesus is difficult because he appears at a particular juncture of history, at a particular place in the world, with particular characteristics. How does the Christian logically justify believing that all existence is explained in this one time, at this one place, in this one man? The thing about this one time, this one place and this man, though, is that it is a point when the Christian believes God interacted with creation in a new way. God became one of us, taking on the physical limits of his/her own creation. The belief is not in the time, place and man, but that God could be this time, place and man, and thus, God could be any time, place and man or woman. ( Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: “Introduction to Christianity,” Intro, chap 3. 1968) Christianity is not contained in a limited historical point, but entering the world thus, God showed his/her love better than would have been possible in any other way. When one claims that Jesus was merely a wise teacher who showed people a new way to look at God, or that he was a man who “experienced” God to an extent that nobody else has managed, then he is being put in a limited historical context and his message is only as valid as the time and place in which he lived. Yet Jesus intended to show us that God was not a distant ruler of humanity, but the Lover of humanity, with us every moment of every day. In Jesus, God became a helpless baby. We are so used to the Christmas story that we do not consider its marvelous implications. God worked for a poor family, learning a trade. God studied the history, religion and culture of the time. God journeyed by foot from town to town in an occupied nation. God had friends. The Christian’s proclamation that Jesus is one and the same with God is truly startling. It is a belief in a God who would willingly become one with his/her creation, embracing all the weaknesses, flaws, sufferings and embarrassments of human life. If you believe in the incarnation and it does not startle you, then you have not really thought about it. The message Jesus preached is one that few would reject. It is a message of love and compassion which not only spawned Christianity, but greatly affected Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and even Judaism. Even the non-religious usually have respect for Jesus’ social and moral message. It is the second part of his teaching—his claim to divinity, that is so hard for people to accept. Yet it is his divinity which causes it all to make sense. His words are only as good as his example. His example shows us what kind of Creator we have. Christians often say that Jesus died for us without further thought. But we must give this further thought. It is quite a difficult statement which centuries of saying has made easier. Jesus, God, chose a painful and humiliating death to show his solidarity with the suffering of the world. What a profound love! Jesus is difficult to believe in because what he did is so far removed from common human nature—to put others first, even unto death. In Christianity, we place our faith in a man who endured humiliation and suffering beyond anything most of us will ever face. As Jesus, God not only experienced the day-to-day life of humanity, but its lowest moments. God was betrayed by a friend and denied by another. God was ridiculed and spit upon. God suffered. God was executed. God died a painful death, utterly alone. This is a God who out of unbounded compassion for creation, chose to become one with humanity, showing love by example, and as Jesus subjecting himself to our own worst hours—betrayal, ridicule, torture, and death.(Ratzinger: ITC Part II, II, chap 2.) We have trouble with Jesus because it seems ridiculous to believe that God could be so close. Thus we set God in a cloud, not believing s/he could touch us, and thus we do not need to touch God. Jesus shatters that possibility. Jesus says, yes, it is ridiculous. But love is ridiculous. Love knows no bounds and will defy logic for its beloved. Jesus says I am Love. You are my beloved. This is what I am willing to endure for you!  Dwell on this for a moment. Think about this love that Jesus gave. Contemplate the terror of his death on the cross—the utter hell he endured! Could you willingly endure such horror, even for the sake of your beloved? Yea, not only to endure it for the beloved, but to endure it at the hands of the beloved! What terrible pain of body, and what worse pain of heart Jesus suffered! Next time you feel tempted to blame God for your suffering, realize that God has faced suffering much worse than your own! Jesus may seem to pose the biggest problem to the Christian belief, but he is also the key to understanding the entire thing. Jesus was God’s gift of love to us. In Jesus, God, the Omnipotent Creator stands in solidarity with creation. When Jesus faces the terror of the cross he gives us the courage to stand firm in our darkest hours. This is the love God has for us, that s/he became one of us. Jesus truly took the sins of the world on his shoulders that day at Golgotha. How he must have suffered, not just in the pain, but to bear the creation he had so lovingly made spitting on him and scourging him. In Jesus, God shows him/herself to so love the world and pity its suffering to come into it and share its suffering, that by example, the world could have hope.