A More Perfect Union

We Americans tend to have a very reverential esteem for our Constitution, although we most definitely disagree on how to interpret it. Yet, few Americans seem to recall that this is our second Constitution. For eight years, from 1781-1789, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation, which was a looser organization of states, with a weaker federal government. Amusingly enough, this “league of friendship” (Article III) repeatedly stressed that this union was to be perpetual. Well, it was “perpetual” for not even a decade. But “perpetual” in a legal sense is not always how it is usually understood. Legally, it can simply mean, “without a definite end.” There may be explicit or implicit ways of dissolving said contract, such as by the competent authority of the Congress of the United States, in the case of a Constitution.

So after this failed experiment, Congress launched a new Constitution, and the word “perpetual” goes from being used six times in the Articles of Confederation to zero. Perhaps it was not such a good idea to stress that term. However, we then run into a most curious phrase that every school child learns at one point or another in memorizing the Preamble to the Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…” More… perfect? How can you have something be more perfect? Perfect is perfect, right? Well, yes… and no. Merriam-Webster gives multiple definitions that allow for change – for example, “satisfying all requirements,” or even in obsolete senses, “contented, satisfied,” and even “sane.” What I am trying to get at is that not all language is meant to be absolutely and invariably precise. That is not how language works, even in science. Science will often use models, and these models aren’t meant to say that this is exactly how something works, but rather, that  this is a way of capturing the essence of something which we can’t grasp in an absolute way. Every schoolchild learns various atomic models, getting more and more complicated as they advance in understanding, and as their minds are able to capture more and more complex information. In Scripture, we don’t use models, but instead, we use parables and examples.

Now, our Lord commands us, “Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). Certainly, no one can be entirely perfect as God is; that makes no sense. When Our Lord challenges our thinking like this, it is often an invitation to think on what He has just said before. In this context, He is talking about loving, not just our neighbor, or those we might naturally love, but loving even our enemies. In other words, that our love be not lacking for anyone. It is perfect, then, insofar as there is no limit as to whom it is “acceptable” for us to love, within our capacity to love. No one can love as much as God, for He IS love. The more we participate  or share in His love, then, the more we can love. 

Of course, spiritual analogies all fail at some point when we refer to the natural world, but think of your spiritual "potential" as a kind of gas tank. The bigger the gas tank, the more you can fill ‘er up. As we mature, and as we grow as Christians, then, we should be able to fill ‘er up even more. If we are wounded by sin, our capacity to love, or our capacity for grace, is also likewise limited. Our Blessed Mother is not wounded by sin, thus, her “tank” is also bigger. She is not only “full of grace” because her grace is “topped off” in her tank, but that even her reservoir is far beyond what we poor banished children of Eve are capable of filling. “Full of grace” for silly old me is a gallon. “Full of grace” for her is a mega oil tanker. Only God is capable of a truly limitless grace. He is not “full of grace” – He IS grace. Instead of gas tanks, then, let's use that biblical reference of wineskins. Filling up new wine into old wineskins fails, because the old wineskin has no give; it cannot grow in size, and so as the new wine ferments, the old skin breaks and leaks. 

Now, the grace of God is not “quantifiable,” as such. It is a spiritual reality, not a material one. This is where our model fails. I was once at Mass distributing Communion, and our Hosts were running low, so I started dividing them as folks came up for Communion. One sweet lady asked that I give her an intact host instead of a divided one, saying, “More Jesus, more grace!” I was a little taken aback, and did not feel like arguing in a Communion line, but really, every particle of the Host that is still a visible sign of the Sacrament contains, not three grams of grace, but truly infinite and limitless grace – it contains the fullness of Divinity within that one tiny piece. The limit is not in the Eucharist – the limit is in us. We don’t have the spiritual “stomach” to take in all the grace that God could give us at once.

So we can be “more” perfect, then, as we have more and more "give" or “space” for the grace and love of God in our souls. This is what a lot of our spiritual life should be directed towards – never being fully satisfied, having a stomach, a hunger – a deep, abiding, spiritual hunger, always ready, and always eager to consume more and more  good spiritual food in a steady life of prayer and the Sacraments, all within our capacity and state of life.

Novena-Assumption of Mary-2024

Feature Article - Theology for the Laity

What is Man?

Note from the Director

Dear faithful supporters of the Rosary Center & Confraternity, THANK-YOU! to all who have already donated to help us. We cannot do this without you! We rely on your ongoing support. May God bless you for your generosity!
Fr. Dismas Sayre, O.P.