Today being the Feast of St. Thomas the Apostle, once again I am slightly annoyed about the moniker “Doubting Thomas”.

Maybe it was because for most of my life I was more than a “Doubting Jeffrey”, but a totally “Denying Jeffrey”.

So Thomas missed the meeting where Jesus reveals himself to the Apostles. I really wonder how that happened? What did he have on his calendar that day instead of what should have been commiserating with his fellow apostles? We just don’t know. Plus we also don’t know how long he was out of the loop until he heard the news. Other than that it was a week or less.

Now certainly there is a extent to where St. Thomas deservers his moniker. Most of the other Apostles did not exactly set themselves in glory ahead of Jesus’s return. They had not yet gotten the Paul Harvey – “The Rest of the Story”. I picture them moping around. The disciples on the road to Emmaus were not exactly filled with expectation of what was to come. The hints Jesus dropped on the Apostles fell on rocky ground for the most part.

Still when Mary Magdalene initially delivered the news to them, Peter and John rushed to the tomb. There was obviously an expectation that something was going on beyond their kin. That just maybe what Jesus had told them was truer than they surmised. So while they were probably confused in the aftermath – they didn’t get the “doubting” label.

Still I wonder how Thomas first received the news about Jesus’s resurrection? How much was Thomas to blame for not initially accepting the reports? Perhaps St. Peter had told him the good news? If so maybe that is understandable. Exuberant Peter who jumped at everything and was willing to pursue a booth building construction project just two weeks before. I could easily imagine being credulous at what good ole Peter might report to me.

What I do know is if I had received the moniker “doubting”, I would probably blame my twin brother if I was a twin like Thomas.

Still getting back to Thomas’ culpability. He does remind me of atheists that are challenged asking what level of proof they require to believe that God exists. He certainly detailed his empiricism with a set of tests he demanded.

• See the nail prints in his hand.
• Put his finger into those prints.
• Thrust his hand into Jesus’ side.

Somehow those experiments crumbled as Jesus challenged him to go ahead an make those very tests. I feel sorry for St. Thomas that after making such a brash statement worthy of St. Peter’s exuberance, that he sees Jesus. Not only sees Jesus but has the criteria of his experimental science echoed back to him. I bet St. Peter smiled for once not having stepped in it and having another Apostle do it instead.

I still think it is a bit unfair that Thomas got that sobriquet of “doubting”. Peter isn’t known as “Three Times Denying” Peter. That short period of time where Thomas doubted got him tagged with this despite the rest of his life and the likelihood that he died a martyr.

I think of St. Thomas more as “My Lord and My God” Thomas. The very phrase that comes to me and so many others at the consecration. Still it is a testament about what God can do with us. To go from doubt to faith not on our own power.

Also to St. Thomas’ credit he did not remain in his doubt. Seeing is not always believing. There have been plenty of people who have seen miraculous events that persisted in their doubt. Or had initially believed and then let it fade. The Israelites wandering in the wilderness saw plenty of miracles and yet acted as if God’s power was not manifested. The atheist that demands God shows himself to make him believe, obviously has not done a close reading of Biblical history or subsequent history. There were conversions after the miracle of the Sun at Fatima, but certainly not close to everyone who witnessed it.

Plus even among those of us who truly believe in what Jesus taught – can say they always act with faith.

I am totally in rapport with this verse:

Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” – Mark 9:24

Whatever Rod Dreher has done, he has seemed to have spawned a cottage industry of articles and books by people suggesting a saint to emulate over St. Benedict of Nursia. So I have seen so many articles doing exactly this.

Part of this is a natural reaction to his book since whoever he had set to mention as a pattern would be critiqued by others. Plus of course I have read much criticism saying that Dreher is suggesting retreating from society. This happened despite all the caveats in his book that this is not his intention or that St. Benedict’s model was the only model to follow. It is just the nature of the format of the title that provides a theme to build one, while also limiting the points he makes.

Having read the book, like so many others have mentioned, there is much to like along with things to have differing opinions on. All of which is to be expected. The first part of the book deals with a very pessimistic view of the current state of society and the last part deals with how we live our lives in this situation.

There are lots of areas where I share his pessimism about the culture at large and to a large part the prescriptions he notes. I can very well believe things will be quite dire culturally in the near to long term. Although I have read enough of Church history to not accept an idea of of a progressive slope to the bad or to the good. The heartbeat of history is all over the place with revivals, declines, and everything in between..

This did get me thinking generally about his advice. Much of which I think is practicable irregardless of the times you live in. In America and elsewhere where faith can be highly individualistic the “Me and Jesus” quickly become “Me” when other structures aren’t in place. Personal holiness must be job one in loving God and neighbor. Family life has to build on this and beyond this in community life. We need to both strengthen others and to be strengthened by them. The interconnectedness of all of this is so important. When a culture is on the decline so much more work has to be put into this. Easy to complain about structures not being there to support your faith. Yet we see the trails blazed by saints who lived in difficult times when these structures were torn down. Right now it is all so so easy to be a cultural critic while skipping being an inner critic.

Regardless of the times we live in we can become saints.

Ultimately all the saints followed “The Jesus Option”, they modeled Jesus in ways that reflected their personality and experience. Reading the lives of the saints is not the experience of reading a cookie cutter factory of holiness. We are able to relate to saints who have some of the same dispositions or experience as us, or sometimes because their virtues shine a spotlight on our vices we want eliminated.

There is no carbon copy path of sanctity where one path applies to all, other than that we must all trod the narrow path.

Each individual must discern based on their own strengths and weaknesses how to achieve this. The Body of Christ is exactly as St. Paul taught where we don’t need a plethora of just one part.

• Good times or bad: We must become saints.
• Good times or bad: We must build family and community life.

This is the perfect short story for the Memorial of St. Nicholas, “Yes, Virginia, There Is A Santa Claus”

This short story by John C. Wright touches on St. Nicholas of Myra, the Communion of Saints, suffering, and wraps up wonderfully. The story has brought tears to my eyes even on a reread.

This was later published in his short story collection “The Book of Feast & Seasons”.