|
|
| |
|
 |
| |
Saturday, June 29, 2002
From the "Its not just us" file
Interestingly enough, in the same edition of The Shelbyville News in which the column mentioned below appeared, there was this article on a 72-year-old man who was sentenced to two years in prison for molesting a nine-year-old girl who was a student in his Sunday school class at an Assembly of God church in Shelbyville.
The then-9-year-old girl had done so well memorizing Bible verses that Foster told her he would take her out to a fast food restaurant and then for ice cream. They ate at the restaurant, but then Foster took the girl home where he attempted to molest her. When she resisted, he apologized and took her out for ice cream.
She didn’t tell anyone what happened until she turned 15. In the meantime, Foster taught Sunday School at a different local church, then attended yet another church in the Shelbyville area. He was still attending church at the time of his arrest.
“Now he’s going to church in prison,” Shelby County Chief Deputy Prosecutor Brad Landwerlen said.
Foster verbalized a claim of remorse, but admitted he felt that mainly when the police served his warrant.
“I didn’t think what I did was that bad,” he told investigators.
Sounds strangely familiar, no?
The Latest Installment of My Column "Spiritual Reflections": This Week, A Commentary on The Situation
Take the link to the online edition of The Shelbyville News for this week's installment of my weekly column "Spiritual Reflections."
It is my first original column for this newspaper. The previous were slight revisions of columns that I had written for The Criterion, the weekly newspaper of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis.
You might be interested to know that in this week's installment, I take what might be described as my first 'public stand' in print on The Situation.
Take a look at the column and let me know what you think.
Friday, June 28, 2002
A Continuation of A Spiritual Reflection on the Rule of St. Benedict
Prologue (continued)
Clothed then with faith and the performance of good works, let us set out on this way, with the Gospel for our guide, that we may deserve to see him who has called us to his kingdom (1Thess 2:12).
If we wish to dwell in the tent of this kingdom, we will never arrive unless we run there by doing good deeds. But let us ask the Lord with the Prophet: Who will dwell in your tent, O Lord; who will find rest upon your holy mountain? (Ps 14[15]:1). After this question, brothers, let us listen well to what the Lord says in reply, for he shows us the way to his tent. One who walks without blemish, he says, and is just in all his dealings; who speaks the truth from his heart and has not practiced deceit with his tongue; who has not wronged a fellow man in any way, nor listened to slanders against his neighbor (Ps 14[15]:2-3).
He has foiled the evil one, the devil, at every turn, flinging both him and his promptings far from the sight of his heart. While these temptations were still young, he caught hold of them and dashed them against Christ (Ps 14[15]: 4; 136[137]:9). These people fear the Lord, and do not become elated over their good deeds; they judge it is the Lord's power, not their own, that brings about the good in them. They praise (Ps 14[15]:4) the Lord working in them, and say with the Prophet: Not to us, Lord, not to us give the glory, but to your name alone (Ps 113[115:1]:9). In just this way Paul the Apostle refused to take credit for the power of his preaching. He declared: By God's grace I am what I am (1 Cor 15:10). And again he said: He who boasts should make his boast in the Lord (2 Cor 10:17).
Many of the great works of literature in every culture of the world tell the story of either a battle or a journey. In our western culture, two of our founding epics follow this pattern. Homer’s The Iliad tells us of the Trojan War, while The Odyssey recounts the long journey home of Odysseus from that war.
Why would battles and journeys be so important in literature through human history? Because they are emblematic of the human condition itself. They are metaphors for what we humans experience in life. It is almost a cliché to call life ‘a struggle’ or ‘a journey.’ Early on in the history of the Church, the life of faith in Christ was described as “The Way.” And the writings of St. Paul are replete with images of battle (see especially Eph 6:13-17). There would appear, then, to be some fundamental truths conveyed in these images.
Benedict recognized these truths early on in his Rule. Near the start of the prologue, the reader is exhorted to take up “strong and noble weapons of obedience to do battle for the true King, Christ the Lord.” And in the passage from the prologue that we have above the life of faith in Christ is described in terms used in connection with movement, with a journey: “ let us set out on this way”, “we will never arrive unless we run there by doing good deeds”, and “he shows us the way to his tent”.
When people reflect about traveling, they sometimes turn to a proverb that has largely become a cliché: “Getting there is half the fun.” I think that Benedict would have agree with this saying. For in this passage from the prologue of his Rule, he recognizes that the Kingdom of Heaven is the destination of our journey of faith. However, he spends no time describing what that Kingdom is like or what we will experience when we arrive. Instead, he focuses his entire attention on what we are to do on the road to it.
In his own day, Benedict could have been accused of semi-Pelagianism or Pelagianism outright, that is, the heresy that held that one achieved one’s salvation first and foremost through one’s works and only secondarily through the grace of God. But Benedict steers clear of such errors by noting that those who do these good works along the path to the Kingdom praise God for working in them. They give the glory to God and not to themselves.
Benedict not only realizes that Christ is the source of eternal life for which we seek in our pilgrimage. He is not just our destination. Indeed, he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. When he “ shows us the way to his tent”, he shows us himself. So let us open ourselves up to his grace more and more and allow him to live us more fully each day as we continue on our journey to his Kingdom.
Either I'm getting stale or people are on vacation...
In any case, the traffic on this blog has been going down, down, down...oh well.
Fr. Shawn O'Neal's Sunday Homily
Thirteenth Sunday of Ordinary Time, Cycle A
2 Kgs 4:8-11, 14-16a
Ps 89:2-3, 16-17, 18-19
Rom 6:3-4, 8-11
Mt 10:37-42
Do not believe that living for God in Christ Jesus is an easy task. If you believe that, then you are a better and holier person than even the apostle Paul -the same apostle who said that he often did not do the good things that he wanted to do. We all know that he always wanted to live for God in Christ Jesus. Do not believe that it is easy to lose your life for the sake of finding new life in Jesus. Jesus has given us new life through baptism, but he has not taken away from us the ability to look back upon our old lives. If he did that, then we would have no idea what type of life we have now. If Jesus did that then we would take for granted our place within the Body of Christ rather than be thankful for our place within it.
I am glad that our Church believes that God wanted children to be baptized and receive the Sacraments. I am glad that we bring children to the water so that we can have the assurance that even young children are both called and claimed by Jesus to be part of his body. But I am glad that we also have the Sacraments of Reconciliation and Confirmation. These sacraments help all of us to understand the effects of baptism with greater clarity.
If we celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation as it should be celebrated, we do not simply recite a list of sins; we seek to be washed clean in the blood of Jesus in a way similar to when we were baptized in water. The Sacrament of Reconciliation works best when we disciples understand that we always have the ability to die for the wrong things. Many disciples wish that wrong things could simply be taken away by God. That would make life easier, would it not? It would make our life in Jesus too easy to live. We need to know what is wrong in order to grow according to what is right. If we seek reconciliation as we should seek it, we gain not only new cleanliness, but also new understanding. We understand through God's grace that unless we think and act as God has given us the ability to think and act, we can live under the false impression that we always know in advance what it is good for us.
If we celebrate the Sacrament of Confirmation as it should be celebrated, we do not simply become recognized as adults within the Church. If this Sacrament is celebrated as it should be celebrated, then we understand that we must drink from the same cup of suffering that the earliest disciples were told that they must drink if they were to be united forever with Jesus. Present-day disciples need to know that they are not alone if they have a problem with all the words in Scripture about growth through suffering; in fact, they are in good company. The first apostles and martyrs did not want to suffer simply for the sake of suffering, but they grew in understanding that suffering does not last forever. They grew in understanding that God's love lasts forever. They ask for the Holy Spirit to come to each of us so that each of us can believe and understand in a new and profound way that God is always with us. Sacraments are ways that God shows how he is with us; the Sacrament of Confirmation is a profound way that each of us can tell God that we want to be with him.
Of course, the big difference between Reconciliation, Baptism, and Confirmation is that we receive the latter two sacraments only once in our lives. But it is a true gift that we are able to be reconciled both to God and to his Church as often as we need it. After all, living for God in Christ Jesus is not an easy task. We need all the ways that God offers himself to us so that we can be with him and we can help others to be with him, also. Paul talked much about baptism in his letter to the Romans, but he said what he said only in reference to the starting point. If all of us finish our earthly lives as God wants us to finish them, then we will be bathed in God's glory when we enter our true home. I hope that we all seek that glory so that we join him forever at the time of the Final Judgment, or better yet, the Great Reconciliation.
"The Old Prophet" in Columbus' Jail
In Columbus, IN where I live we have an interesting fellow named Fred Allman (and no, he wasn't not part of the Allman Brothers' Band) who calls himself "The Old Prophet." He has his own radio show. And he likes to walk the streets of Columbus, covered with sandwich boards that have various messages, and passing out his own literature.
Well after placing himself last Sundayin front of the First Baptist Church with a sign that read "You need Jesus, not religious propaganda", he was taken to jail. He wrote about the incident in a letter to the editor to Columbus' daily, The Republic (sorry, you have to be a print subscriber to have access to their content). And he promised the folks at First Baptist that, as a part of his "prophetic ministry" he would return to their church each Sunday until they could put him in jail permanently.
Having heard his show a few times, he's not your typical prophet. I'd describe as having a kind of Disciples of Christ perspective, advocating a 'No creed but Christ' faith. He's death on what he calls 'superstition' and is for all kinds of reasonable beliefs. Who would have thought that a prophet of the Enlightenment would be hanging out in Columbus, IN?
Andrew Sullivan's Catholicism
In his comments on the Supreme Court's upholding of the Cleveland school voucher program, Andrew Sullivan questioned the criticism of those who oppose vouchers that "kids are overwhelmed by the religious atmosphere of parochial schools is equally overblown."
He went on to say that he attended a state-funded Anglican high school in England and that "...I can honestly say that nothing helped firm up my Catholicism more." Huh...that may explain a few things about Andrew Sullivan's Catholicism.
Two Audio Interpretations of the Pledge
Here are two audio interpretations of the pledge of allegiance. One is satirical (and a rather good one...), and one is a little more sentimental, if still filled with meaning. Choose your poison...
Feeling Abandoned by God:
A Reflection on Today's Mass Readings
Memorial of St. Irenaeus, bishop and martyr
2 Kgs 25:1-12
Ps 137:1-2, 3, 4-5, 6
Mt 8:1-4
In today's readings we are presented with two seemingly contrasting events. On the one hand we read about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple--an event where God seems to be entirely absent. And on the other hand, we read about Jesus curing a man with leprosy--an event where God would seem to be particularly present.
And yet there is something that brings these two events together: the steadfast fidelity of God to his people. That may be clear in the story from today's Gospel. But how is it present in the first reading? After all, I'm sure that many of the Israelites who witnessed the destruction of th Temple would have been utterly astonished and concluded that the Lord had abandoned them forever. Indeed, maybe to them the Lord was no god after all. How else could his own house have been destroyed?
But some in Jerusalem thought otherwise. Remember the words of the prophet Jeremiah: "Put not your trust in the deceitful words: "This is the temple of the LORD! The temple of the LORD! The temple of the LORD!" (Jer 7:4). Some people had thought that Jerusalem would forever be protected because of the presence of the Temple. But the steadfast fidelity of the Lord was not built of bricks and mortar, or on the great cedars of Lebanon.
No, it was built on the Lord's undying love for his people and the faith that the people would put in him. The destruction of the Temple was, for the nation as a whole, an unimaginably difficult test of their faith. But while they were in exile God renewed their faith through the message of the prophets. They endured this great test and eventually returned to th land that the Lord had given them.
The man with leprosy whom Jesus cured in today's Gospel also experienced a great test of faith. Just as the entire nation may have felt cut off forever from the Lord when the Temple was destroyed, so this man may have felt the same when he was judged to be a leper. Like the inhabitants of Jerusalem who were carted off to Babylon, this man too would have felt accursed and an exile forever.
And yet through the grace of God that never abandoned him, his faith endured. He was able to end his exile by coming forward to Jesus and the crowd that followed him, instead of moving in the opposite direction as custom would have had him do. He expressed his faith in the Lord by publicly acknowledging that this man who stood before him could cure him, could take away his curse.
Jesus not only confirmed his faith by curing him, he went so far as to touch this man who would have been wholly unclean in the eyes of the crowd. After all, Jesus could have cured him by his word alone. But he reached out to this man who would have been no man at all according to the society that had rejected him.
The crowds that had just marvelled at his words on the mountaintop now would have marvelled at his actions as well. Just as no one would have ever thought that the Lord would have led his people out of their exile in Babylon back to Israel, so Jesus' touching of this man with leprosy would have been seen as an entirely new thing that the Lord had done.
God does indeed remain faithful to us, even in the worst of situations. During such dire times we might conclude that God had abandoned us. Then it would be easy for us to abandon our faith in him. But even when we give in to such despair, God is always faithful. It is we who end up abandoning him, not him abandoning us.
If we hope against hope and open ourselves to that grace that seems to be totally absent, then maybe the Lord will reach out and touch us and lift us up, just as he did to the exiles in Babylon or to the leprous man in today's Gospel. Taking this risk really isn't as hard as it might seem. For in such dire circumstances as we see today, what would have to lose by placing our trust in the Lord?
Thursday, June 27, 2002
More critiques of Goodbye, Good Men
Thanks to Amy Welborn for pointing out these recent critiques of Michael Rose's Goodbye, Good Men. One is by David Pearson of the National Catholic Register. The other is by Stephen Hand of TCRNews.
It seems interesting that, along with the critique of Fr. Rob Johansen which appeared in Culture Wars, criticism of this book is coming from some traditional Catholic sources, not just the more theologically progressives whom we would expect to hear from in this case. I am a bit concerned, however, that, at least in the cases of Pearson and Fr. Johansen, the criticism of Rose's work seemed to have been inspired by the book's condemnation of priests or seminary officials that both authors knew personally.
Now I do recognize that both of these authors also questioned Rose's methodology in and of itself. However, I believe that the bringing in of personal connections in such a critique can have a tendency to distract the reader from the problem at base that is trying to be illustrated.
Now we have yet another group telling us what to do...
Agape Press reports that the Ohio-based Citizens for Community Values has started a national ad campaign which aims at educating Catholics about what they feel is the "homosexual problem within the clergy."
According to this largely evangelical Christian association the ordination of homosexuals to the priesthood is "in conflict with church doctrine." To support this they support the document "Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders" published in 1961 by the Sacred Congregation for Religious.
Although some Catholics seem to also be pointing to the document in their desire to put the ordination of homosexuals in doubt, I certainly do not put much weight in the attempts of evangelicals to educate us Catholics about our own doctrines. At any rate, as I have pointed out in previous posts, although there are some important commonalities between Catholic teaching on homosexuality and homosexual acts and those traditionally held by evangelicals, there are also some important points of departure as well.
Maybe these evangelicals, like so many other groups in and outside the Church, are simply using The Situation to push their own agenda on us.
Never Presume the Favor of the Lord:
A Reflection on Today's Mass Readings
Thursday of the Twelfth Week of Ordinary Time, Year II
2 Kgs 24:8-17
Ps 79:1b-2, 3-5, 8, 9
Mt 7:21-29
Words are not enough. That much is clear. God places a high value on what we do. He speaks his word to us. If we hear it and listen to him attentively, then he waits to see what we will do in response. Knowledge begets responsibility.
On the other hand, everything is not up to our response. If it were, we would be doomed. We are able to respond well to God's word and able to do his will because of his grace. We must never presume the favor of God. We must always ask for it in prayer. But remember, then, that words are not enough.
Jehoiachin may have thought and said many things that were evil. But it would seem that what he did was important to the Lord: "He did evil in the sight of the Lord, just as his forebears had done." He and his forefathers had forsaken and ignored the Lord through their actions. And so the Lord, in a sense, ignored him and his people and allowed the Babylonians to take Jerusalem. Jehoiachin surrendered after what appeared to be hardly a fight.
Having departed from the Lord and gone far away from him in his actions, he now would be taken far away from the city of the Lord, he and all of his family, officials, nobles, army, and artisans. Having forsaken the rock of Mount Zion, Jehoiachin had in turn built his house on the shifting sands of idolotry. And so when the storm of the Babylonian army came up against it, it collapsed and was completely ruined.
Jehoiachin may have with little conviction but with much desparation cried out "Lord, Lord." But through his actions he showed that he was calling on one whom he did not know. Coming to know another person is not a one way activity. When I come to know another person, that other will also come to know me. And so as Jehoiachin knew nothing of the Lord, the Lord also knew nothing of him. When the weak king cried out to him, the Lord surely could have replied, "I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoer."
As he and all the many thousands of Jerusalem left the sight of the Lord and were taken as captives back to the Babylon, they may have started to come back to their senses. Having been deprived of the sight of the Temple, the scent of the burning incense, the sound of the prayers being sung, and the feel of its sacred walls, the king and his people may have come to realize what they had lost.
They may have said to themselves as they were being carted off: "How could this have happened again? How could the sons and daughters of Jacob go down into slavery again? Has the Lord abandoned us and forsaken his promises? What are we to do? Who are we now?"
Such questions would be a very natural reaction to the fall of Jerusalem. But although God may not have made his presence known and although in their wickedness the people had cut themselves off from him, God was still with them, following them into exile. And he would indeed lead them back to the promised land, even if it would be many decades later.
We, looking back through history, can take comfort in this knowledge. Those who were going into exile could not. Up the point of surrender they had presumed that the favor of the Lord would protect them and would always be with them. When they were led into exile they would end their presumption and recognize the need to call upon the Lord constantly in sincerity of heart.
This is an important lesson for us. We have so much going for us. We have the lessons of history at our fingertips, telling us that God is steadfast in his love for and fidelity to us. We live in a very prosperous and bountiful land. It is very easy for us to presume that the favor of the Lord will always be with us.
The attacks of 9/11 may have, for a period, wiped that presumption away and led many Americans to recognize anew how dependent we all are on the favor of God. But now, more than nine months out, maybe we're returning to our old presumptions. Maybe yesterday's decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is a small sign of that. But, then again, perhaps the strong reaction against it from so many quarters shows that it is not.
In any case, the message of today's is clear: words are not enough, taking action to do the will of the Lord is important. But such actions must be born out of prayer in which we constantly ask that the favor of the Lord be upon us.
Wednesday, June 26, 2002
Well you can tell things are back to normal following 9/11 because...
As was reported in an AP Story, the judges of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have declared the phrase "under God" in the Pledge to "an endorsement of monotheism", thus being inconsistent with the Establishment Clause.
Here's a link to the opinion handed down in the case (please note: this is a link to a PDF file).
I'm sure that I and a lot of other folks will have a lot to say about this ruling in the coming days (I can't wait to hear what the folks at the American Family Association have to say...). Its not easy getting access to the opinion right now. The court's servers must be getting swamped.
At any rate, I'll have more to say once I've look over the 32 page opinion. But, for my initial reaction, like I intimated in my headline, I think things are back to normal in this country. In the wake of 9/11, many people were wondering when or if things would get back to normal after the attacks. Who knew at the time that this question had as much to do with the rapid upsurge in patriotism and religious fervor and not just our own physical safety and peace of mind...
(Thanks to Fr. Shawn O'Neal for giving me the head's up on this story)
Addendum: Technically, what was struck down by today's decision was one, the 1954 act of Congress that added the phrase 'under God' to the Pledge, and two, the rule of the school system where the plaintiff's daughter attends that requires teachers to lead those stuents who choose to recite the pledge at the beginning of each day.
Justice Scalia, the Death Penalty, and Development of Doctrine, Part II
In my previous two posts (part I & I A), I argued, in opposition to the views of Justice Scalia which he explained in a speech at a symposium sponsored by the Pew Forum, that the judicial system in the United States has an indispensable role to play in the process whereby we Americans come to a greater understanding of the unchanging truths that arguably underlie our founding documents.
(I say “arguably” because a reader has claimed that much of the Constitution is not based on a concept of natural law. Instead, he holds that it is based on a “a non-absolute democratic process.” However, in the case of the eighth amendment, the particular part of the Constitution in question here, I believe that a good argument could be made that it is based upon natural law.)
In my argument I state that our judicial system is our constituted arbiter that interprets how the Constitution manifests these truths and how particular statutes and other judicial decisions either correspond or fail to correspond to them. In this process, our courts help us (if in a non-infallible way) to come to a greater understanding of those truths, an understanding which the framers of the Constitution did not possess.
Since this process is so closely tied to natural law, the making of moral judgments is fundamental to it. If a statute is judged to be inconsistent with a part of the Constitution, it would also then, by extension, be said to be inconsistent with the natural law as well.
However, Justice Scalia seems to argue that, at least as regards capital punishment, moral judgments cannot play a part in the decisions handed down by a judge. They cannot play any role at all, let alone be fundamental to the interpretative process as a whole:
…in my view, the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation rather than simply ignoring duly enacted constitutional laws and sabotaging the death penalty. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply those laws, and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course, if he feels strongly enough, he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the death penalty, and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he cannot do.
According to Justice Scalia, for a judge to allow his or her moral beliefs to influence a decision on a capital case would be an instance where the judge’s own rule would “supplant…duly enacted constitutional laws.” However, according to the process that I have tried to describe, a judge who took the morality of a statute or judicial decision into account would not be using his or her own rule as the criterion of constitutionality but the natural law which underlies the Constitution and which the Constitution manifests the natural law.
In fact, a claim that is opposite to Justice Scalia’s could be made according to this logic. A judge should resign if he or she refused to take the morality of a statute or decision into account when its consistency with a part of the Constitution that is understood to be based upon natural law.
But even if Justice Scalia were to agree with this system of judicial interpretation, it would seem that he would still uphold capital punishment for in his speech he held that it is sanctioned by sacred scripture and the tradition of the Church. And if these sources of the revelation of God approve of capital punishment, then the natural law, according to Justice Scalia, would also uphold it.
In the final installment of this series, then, I will examine Justice Scalia’s views on the Church’s teaching on capital punishment.
A memorial fit for a king, or the King, that is...
A memorial will be dedicated today in Indianpolis on the site where Market Square Arena once stood, the place where Elvis Presley gave his last concert. A time capsule was included but, appropriately enough, it was originally too big to fit into the memorial, although it has now been modified enought to be sealed up for the next 100 years. I wonder if they included any peanut butter and 'nanner sandwiches in the capsule? Thank you very much!
A Continuation of A Spiritual Commentary upon the Rule of St. Benedict
Prologue (continued)
Seeking his workmen in a multitude of people, the Lord calls out to him and lifts his voice again: Is there anyone here who yearns for life and desires to see good days? (Ps 33[34]:13) If you hear this and answer is "I do", God then directs these words to you: If you desire true and eternal life, keep your tongue free from vicious talk and your lips away from all deceit; turn away from evil and do good; let peace be your quest and aim (Ps 33[34]:14-15. Once you have done this, my eyes will be upon you and my ears will listen for your prayers; and even before you ask me, I will say to you: Here I am (Is 58:9). What, dear brothers, is more delightful than this voice of the Lord calling to us? See how the Lord in his love shows us the way of life.
It would seem that St. Benedict here portrays our Lord coming into a marketplace like an employer looking for day laborers or like that vineyard owner from the parable who hired workers throughout the day and yet gave them all the same wage (Mt 20:1-16). What, according to Benedict, is the wage that is offered to us if we answer his call? Its not just the "life" and "good days" with which he initially enticed his workers, but the "true and eternal life" which he later proposes to give them once they have answered his call.
But in order for us to respond to this call, we first have to listen. We first have to follow that encouraging word that was given to us at the very start of the Rule. And yet listening is not just a one way activity. For in this passage, we read that if we listen to the Lord, respond to his call and do that work that he has hired us to do, then his “ears will listen for[our] prayers”
Benedict then presents us with a question that we can meditate upon again and again: “ What, dear brothers, is more delightful than this voice of the Lord calling to us?”
This is a question asked by a man whose heart is pure. It is a man who finds his heart’s delight in God alone. His desires are entirely focused on him. They are not divided among so many other passions. Ask yourself: “What is the most delightful thing that you could experience?” I know that it would difficult for me to answer “the voice of the Lord calling to me.”
But I think that Benedict does not expect his audience to have the same single-heartedness that he does. I think that he offers this question to us so that we might consider the possibility. He wants to ponder how wonderful it would be for us, here and now, to give ourselves wholly to the Lord, to sharpen our ears to hear his voice.
This need not be done solely by bishop, priests, or deacons, by monks, nuns, or sisters. In fact, any of us who have listened to the Lord’s call and followed can take great delight in hearing his voice. Any of us who have tried to open ourselves more and more to the life of grace that helps us live out that call more purely, can take joy and find peace in the fact that we have begun to follow the “way of life” that he has shown us.
Maybe they could pass out some 'Skateboarding Jesus' pictures
Here's an article on a skateboarding ministry of a church in Florida. Some of the members don't like it. But its like, dude, Jesus is SO radical...
"Oh Lord, smite my opponent, and, oh, let me get an interception too...
Here's an interesting take on prayer and football (the American kind, not the kind where you can't use your hands...). Its a little bit different than when I was up at Notre Dame and the student section would periodically chant, "God's on our side."
The Varied Fruits of Prophecy:
A Reflection on Today's Mass Readings
Wednesday of the Twelfth Week of Ordinary Time, Year II
2 Kgs 22:8-13; 23:1-3
Ps 119:33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40
Mt 7:15-20
During the past couple of weeks we have had several opportunities to reflect upon the true meaning of prophecy as we read the stories of Elijah and Elisha. Today we read about how Jesus warned his disciples against false prophets. And he tells them and us that we can distinguish the true from the false by their fruits.
I believe that a good fruit of a prophet is reconciliation. The prophet doesn't play his part merely to reveal the evils of the people of his age and to lay down God's condemnation upon them. He challenges and rebukes them in order to reconcile them with the Lord. This is what happened in the relationship between Elijah and King Ahab. As wicked as Ahab's deeds were, and as fierce as Elijah's words against him were, the prophet was still able to bring about reconciliation. This was the good fruit of his prophecy.
A prophet can only bring about this kind of reconciliation if he points out to his audience the ways of the Lord. If he pridefully focuses on his own limited wisdom and equates it with the Lord's, then he will lead his audience away from God. If he speaks what his audience wants to hear and gets rich as a result, then has become an idol for them, replacing the sacrifices that they would offer to the Lord with sacrifices that they pay to him. If he pronounces his own commandments but calls them the Law of the Lord, then takes them further away from him. The bad fruit of division and sin is the fruit of a false prophet.
Thankfully, we do not see an example of this in today's first reading. In it, three men who had many opportunities to bring about such bad fruit, instead bore the good and brought about a reconciliation between the people and the Lord. The priest Hilkiah, the scribe Shaphan, and King Josiah were all humbled upon the discovery in the Temple of the book of the Law.
They could have let it remain hidden and rule the people, as their predecessors had, by their own presumptuous commandments. Instead, the king ordered all of the inhabitants of Jerusalem to be gathered at the Temple. There he had the book of the Law read to them and he and they renewed their covenant with the Lord. Such is the good fruit of prophecy.
Our bishops and priests are called to take on the role of the prophet. By virtue of their ordination they have a share in Christ's threefold ministry of priest, prophet, and king. And so when many of you read his words proclaimed today, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves", you might easily and quickly think of those abusive priests and those mismanaging bishops. Indeed, there may be some real meaning in such a connection.
But pay close attention to Jesus' words. He does not say that the false prophets will come in shepherd's clothing, but in sheep's. Each of us believers, by virtue of our baptism, share in that same threefold ministry of Christ of priest, prophet, and king. We may not have been appointed and ordained to be shepherds of the faithful, but we share in this ministry nonetheless.
There is much responsibility in this ministry and we shold be careful in taking it up. As many of us justifiably and prophetically criticize and rebuke some of our priests and bishops, we should always consider whether or not our words are intended to bring about reconciliation. If that is not our express intent, then we may, without even knowing it, be one of those false prophets about which Jesus warned us today. However, we will come to know the nature of our prophecy by the fruits which they bear. So let us all take great care in the carrying out of our common ministry of prophecy.
Tuesday, June 25, 2002
Justice Scalia, the Death Penalty, and Development of Doctrine, Part “I A”
At the end of my first post on this topic, I wrote that I would comment next upon how Justice Scalia understands the relationship between faith and matters of secular justice.
However, before I begin this next discussion, I think it is important for me to return to one point on from the previous post. In that post I tried to establish a “middle way” between the two schools of thought on the interpretation of the Constitution that Justice Scalia had explained in his address.
In his speech at the symposium sponsored by the Pew Forum, he said that one school of thought argued that the Constitution should be interpreted according to “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" while another school of thought claimed that the Constitution was “is not living, but dead; or as I prefer to call it, enduring...It means today not what current society, much less the Court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted.”
My “middle way” would hold, along with those of the ‘strict constructionist’ school of thought, that there are eternal, unchanging truths (or, to describe them in Justice Scalia’s terms, “dead” and “enduring”) which underlie the Constitution. On the other hand, my middle way would nevertheless argue that the understanding of such truths were incomplete when the Constitution was initially adopted, that it has grown over the course of time since then, but that it is still incomplete and will remain so until the arrival of the fullness of time.
I likened this process of the growth in understanding of the founding truths of the Constitution to Cardinal Newman’s concept of the development of doctrine.
Now what I did not note in my first post was that Justice Scalia in his speech did, in fact, acknowledge a legitimate form of development of the Constitution. But, in his estimation, it would not be the courts that would do this but “the Congress of the United States and the legislatures of the fifty states who may, within their own jurisdictions, restrict or abolish the death penalty as they wish.”
However, for Justice Scalia the criteria by which the Congress or the state legislatures would do this would be the “evolving standards of society.” I still maintain that the criteria would be the truth itself and the process of development would reflect our searching after a greater understanding of it.
I also maintain that our courts have not a legitimate, but an indispensable role in this development. To explain this, let us continue the analogy that I began in my first post: comparing the development of the Constitution to the development of doctrine.
The United States Congress and the state legislatures pass new laws all of the time. A few are challenged and claimed to be unconstitutional. Such challenges are decided in our courts. This is, in a sense, not unlike what happens when there may be various schools of thought regarding a particular doctrine of the faith. At some point, one of the parties in the debate may bring the question to a bishop, a legitimate representative of the Church’s magisterium, its authoritative teaching.
Bishop A may make a decision. And in various ways and through various channels, that decision could be appealed, as it were, through various “courts of appeal”, all the way up to the Holy See—a process not unlike what happens in our court system.
Now, of course, the United States Congress and the state legislatures can together amend on their own the Constitution. Nevertheless, just as the Bible does not interpret itself, so no one constitutional amendment do the same. A court must interpret its meaning. And in through the act of interpretation, I hold that the court is seeking to come to a greater understanding of the eternal, unchanging truth which underlies the amendment.
So, even in Justice Scalia’s legitimate form of development of the Constitution, there is still an important, indispensable role for the courts to play.
A New Meaning to the acronym SNAP
Yes, those of us who have been following The Situation, know that the acronym SNAP stands for Support Network for those Abused by Priests.
Well, after hearing a story on NPR a few days back about a free spay and neutering program for pets in Los Angeles, I think that there might be another meaning to these letters. Apparently the program in LA was modelled after one in Houston which called itself the Spay and Neutering Assistance Program, or SNAP.
Somehow, I can see a connection between the two...
The Humility of a King:
A Reflection on Today's Mass Readings
Tuesday of the Twelfth Week of Ordinary Time, Year II
2 Kgs 19:9b-11, 14-21, 31-35a, 36
Ps 48:2-3ab, 3cd-4, 10-11
Mt 7:6, 12-14
In the history of Israel, it is unusual to have the word "humility" connected with its kings. Even the great king David was presumptuous enough to take a census of his subjects and desire to build the Temple before God had called him to do it. He was selfish enough to have one of his own soldiers killed so that he could have his wife to himself. And in the past couple of weeks we have been confronted again and again with stories of the pride of King Ahab and the destructive struggles for succession that followed his reign.
Today we read of another prideful king. But he is not ruler of Israel. He is Sennacherib, king of Assyria. He has presumed that his power cannot be matched--by anyone one on earth or in heaven. He has even told Hezekiah, king of Judah, that the Lord's promise to protect Jerusalem is vanity, that he and his armies will doom his kingdom just as he has all other kingdoms that he has faced in battle.
It is this Hezekiah who breaks the pattern of the kings that we have known thus far. Instead of reacting to Sennacherib's letter by mustering an army and leading them out in battle, he goes to the Temple and prays to the Lord. In his prayer he praises God's greatness. He says that other kingdoms were destryed by Sennacherib because they worshipped idols. And then he prays that the Lord will turn back the king of Assyria so that "all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you alone, O Lord, are God."
He wants this to happen to reveal God's glory, not his own. This is truly a humble king.
He is an example of what Jesus says in today's Gospel. He entered "through the narrow gate." Had he taken the wide road of presumption, he would have had countless opportunities to make his passing greatness known. It is easy for a king to live a life of pride. Living a life of humility as a king is difficult and so he entered through the narrow gate.
But one need not be a king to experience difficulty in trying to life a humble life. All of us face many temptations every day, temptations to puff up our pride, to presume our own greatness and wisdom, to forget the greatness of God, to create other gods for ourselves. This happens in the workplace, at our schools, in our community, and in our families. These temptations bombard us all of the time.
And so I suppose that the first step to avoid such pride and presumption is first to acknowledge the existence of the temptations and their evil nature. When we see them in this light, we will quickly see that they form a strong army arrayed against us, like that of Sennacherib, coming to destroy Jerusalem. And so let us take King Hezekiah as our model. When we can recognize the strong evil of the temptations that continually threaten us, let us take them to the Lord and plead for his help.
Such a recognition of the strength of the temptations but also of the unsurpassable power of God is our first step through that "narrow gate" and "constricted road" that leads to life.
Monday, June 24, 2002
Slow Blogging Today
I'll have very little time for blogging this morning. Our riding lawn mower is on the fritz and so I'll have to mow our almost one acre lawn with a push mower--in 90 degree heat no less. Look for posts this afternoon. In the meantime, look over my comments from yesterday on Justice Scalia, the death penalty, and development of doctrine. Let me know what you think...
Justice Scalia, the Death Penalty, and Development of Doctrine, Part I
Last week, the U. S. Supreme handed down a decision in which was struck down state laws that allowed the execution for capital crimes of people who are mentally retarded. Justice Antonin Scalia vigorously opposed the majority and its attempt to determine a "national consensus" on this issue and so make a judgement based upon "'evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society (Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86).'”
His comments in this opinion seem to echo some remarks that he made on January 25 of this year when he delivered a speech on the interrelationship of the morality of capital punishment and the United States' judicial system at "A Call for Reckoning: Religion & the Death Penalty", a symposium sponsored by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, held at the Divinity School of the University of Chicago.
Justice Scalia began his address by noting that the comments that he would make or that he would hear others make at the symposium "would have nothing to do with how [he would] vote in capital cases that come before the Supreme Court." Were his own or others' views to have an effect, then, as he argued, he would subscribe to the principle (which he described as a "conventional fallacy") that holds that "the Constitution is a living document; that is, a text that means from age to age whatever the society or perhaps the Court thinks it ought to mean...", that the Constitution should be interpreted according to "'the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society'".
Rejecting this interpretative framework, Justice Scalia instead holds that the Constitution "is not living, but dead; or as I prefer to call it, enduring...It means today not what current society, much less the Court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted."
I believe that Justice Scalia is here trying to establish a false dichotomy. It seems to me that he is trying to argue that there are two essential ways of interpreting the Constitution: a 'strict constructionist' way, where one should interpret it only according to "what it meant when it was adopted", or a way that it is relativistic where the Constitution "means from age to age whatever the society or perhaps the Court thinks it ought to mean..."
I believe that this is a false dichotomy because I believe that there is, to use Cardinal Newman's term, a via media between these two positions, a middle way that I believe reflects how the Catholic Church understands its doctrines.
When one views the founding documents of the United States (e.g., the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights) one will see that many of the founding principles upon which our country was established are a part of what we might call the 'natural law.'
If this indeed is the case (and I would tend to think that Justice Scalia would agree), then one could argue, from a faith perspective, that the natural law represents divine truths that order our universe. Divine truths, whether they are revealed in scripture and tradition or are a part of the natural law, are of such a deep and profound nature that we limited human beings can arrive at a complete understanding of them only in the fullness of time.
While such truths and, by extension, documents founded on them, are, to use Justice Scalia's description "not living, but dead; or as I prefer to call it, enduring...", our understanding and application of them are not. When I last checked we have not yet arrived at the fullness of time. And so our understanding of God's truths are incomplete, imperfect. However, these understandings and applications are living and growing. And we can be confident that we are being led by the Spirit (at least as regards Church doctrine) in this growth and development.
A secular jurist relativistically interpreting the Constitution according to "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" either ignores the existence of an eternal, unchanging truth underlying that document or directly denies it. On the other hand, a jurist who is a believer (as Justice Scalia) need not deny these eternal, unchanging truths in order to interpret the Constitution in a way that differs from the intent of the framers. A person such as this can justify such an interpretation by sincerely arguing that the new position reflects a greater understanding of that truth which the framers did not possess.
In essence, this is an application of the principles laid out by Cardinal Newman in his Essay on the Development Christian Doctrine to the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In his work, Newman argued that, while divine truths are unchanging, the expression of them in the doctrines of the Church may develop and change from age to age as the faithful, being led by the Spirit through their bishops, come to a greater understanding of those truths.
One might argue that this is a proverbial mixing of apples and oranges. What is a principle for the teachings of the Church is not effectively analogous to understanding the founding documents of a secular state. However, as will be discussed in later posts, the interrelationship of the morality of capital punishment and the U.S. Constitution bring matters of faith quite close to matters of justice as carried out by the state.
Upcoming Post on Justice Scalia, the Death Penalty, and Development of Doctrine
NPR's Morning Edition had a report this morning on Supreme Courth Justice Antonin Scalia's call for those judges who oppose the capital punishment on moral grounds to resign their office. I, along with many in our Church in America, have been following and thinking about this story since Scalia originally made this call during a speech at the University of Chicago School of Divinity several months back.
I have some thoughts to offer regarding this stance that Justice Scalia has made. They will appear in a post in the coming hours.
The Wonders of a Newborn Child:
A Reflection on Today's Mass Readings
Solemnity of the Nativity of John the Baptist--Mass during the Day
Is 49:1-6
Ps 139:1-3, 13-14, 14-15
Acts 13:22-26
Lk 1:57-66, 80
As the birth of our first child approached, my wife Cindy and I discussed various possibilities for names. Although we easily arrived at a name for a girl, coming to a boy's name was more difficult. We were agreed, however, that we would not name our child after a state, a state capital, a day of the week, or anything else that smacked of trendiness. The name of our child would have an enduring meaning.
And so we eventually named our son Michael Joseph. We chose the name of the great archangel because a cousin of our son, born less than two months before him, received the name Gabriel. And we chose Joseph because he was born on May 1, the feast of St. Joseph the Worker.
Our faith inspired the choice of our son's name. For us, his parents, that faith gives meaning to it. And we pray that this same faith which we have begun to share with him will be a source of meaning for his name for him as well.
It was their faith in the Lord that led Zechariah and Elizabeth to name their son John instead of following tradition and naming him after his father (maybe the neighbors thought they were being trendy...). The Lord himself had given the boy this name, passed on to his father through the archangel Gabriel. By setting his name apart from that of his father, the Lord was showing that he had chosen John to be that servant of which Isaiah sang in today's first reading.
He would be the herald to Israel of the coming of the Savior. And he would be a light to the nations. Zechariah and Elizabeth probably poured over passages like this one from Isaiah after Gabriel had proclaimed his wondrous name. They would have had nine long (or short?) months to find new meaning in many prophecies which they, being a priestly family, would have already know so well.
Their neighbors wondered at the name after it was announced for all to hear. They wondered what this boy would become and if the hand of the Lord was upon him.
Such daydreaming by loving parents and admiring friends and even strangers is not as wondrous as today's Gospel reading might have us believe. Look at the way that parents react to the birth of their child with awe-filled tears. Look at how friends, relatives, and strangers are drawn to these newborns like magnets.
Yes indeed, John the Baptist was chosen by God to point the way to the coming of the divine Savior. But in a very real way all babies reveal to all adults something of the transcendant. And I suppose that it is true that the wonder experienced before this transcendance increases along with the degree to which we believe.
But maybe the birth of a baby can also be a moment filled with grace, helping parents to believe more strongly than they have in the past. Experience, I believe, proves this true. How many people have walked away from their faith in high school or in college only to return to it upon the birth of their children? Those of us in a formal ministry and those of us who simply take our faith seriously may roll our eyes and look askance at such renewals of faith. But I would challenge all of you who do this to look at this phenomenon from a different perspective.
Maybe indeed these parents encountered God's grace at the birth and naming of their child (even if they name their children Cheyenne, or Montana, or Friday, or even Tequilla--yes, I've known child with that name). Certainly the birth and the naming of the son of Zechariah and Elizabeth was a wondrous event, filled with grace, one that filled the memories of people throughout the hill country of Judea. May all of us, when we meet a newborn, wonder, along with those people from 2000 years ago, what will become of the child before our eyes and if the hand of the Lord is upon him or her.
Sunday, June 23, 2002
Brother Stair in Jail
A while back both Fr. Shawn O'Neal at his now defunct blog Onealism and myself let all of you know about the fiery entime preacher Brother R. G. Stair. Well, there's some news out of good old Walterboro, S.C.
It would seem that the Overcomer, the Last Day Prophet of God, Brother R. G. Stair has been jailed and held without bail on two counts of second degree sexual misconduct and two counts of breach of trust. The charges are related to his relationships with various folks in The Overcomer Commuity, which he leads.
Take the link provided above to read news stories regarding Stair and two letters he's written to his followers from jail. While you're there, explore the Overcomer Ministry website. You might be confused at time, but you won't be bored.
And, oh, by the way, here's a link to a critique of Brother Stair from a certain Lori Eldridge, another person highly interested in endtime prophecies.
Take a look at these sites and just consider the fun we're missing here in the Catholic Church...
Do Not Be Afraid!:
A Reflection on Today's Mass Readings
Twelfth Sunday of Ordianary Time, Cycle A
Jer 20:10-13
Ps 69:8-10, 14, 17, 33-35
Rom 5:12-15
Mt 10:26-33
For almost 24 years, Pope John Paul II has repeated the same hope-filled message that Jesus proclaimed 2000 years ago and which we hear again today: "Do not be afraid." This message is as important for us today as it has ever been in the past 24 years.
In 1978 we in America heard these words while we were being threatened by the nuclear arsenal of the Soviet Union. Many thousands were out of work with our economy slumping. And the strength of our families were being sapped by quickly developing changes in our society seen in, among other things, a rapid rise in divorce and in abortions.
While today we face no looming superpower, our cities seem even more threatened than before in the wake of 9-11. Our ecomony remains shaky with the honesty of our biggest corporations seriously in doubt. And the same threats that faced our families in 1978 are still present today.
But added to this, we are now seeing painfully made known what had been concealed 24 years ago. The Church in America is now laboring under the burden of revelations of decades of crimes and sinfulness in some of its priests and bishops. With all the other problems facing us, combined with this great crisis, it might be easy for us to give in to fear. It might seem that the death that entered the world through the sin of Adam still abounds in our midst.
And so those small but powerful words, "Do not be afraid," can be especially meaninful for us today. They can help us experience how the grace of God, given to us through the gift of Jesus, abounds all the more. This is a message that all of us need to proclaim alongside our Holy Father. We need to proclaim it with full voice, from all of our housetops.
Who needs to hear this message? The victims of abuse who dwell in shadows and who yearn for the light. That great company of priests who have been faithful to the grace of their ordinations but who, like Jeremiah, have heard the denouncing whispers of many. And those of us who are simply fearful about the very future of the Church.
But in order for us to be the heralds of this Good News, we need the grace of God to renew and restore our hearts and minds. May our good and gracious Lord, then, fill our hearts this day with the knowledge and experience of his undying love for us and his steadfast determination to protect us. And may he give strength and courage to our voices to help us proclaim that message that every generation and our own always needs to hear: "Do not be afraid!"
Saturday, June 22, 2002
Worrying over Masters:
A Reflection on Today's Mass Readings
Memorial of Ss. John Fisher and Thomas More, martyrs
2 Chr 24:17-25
Ps 89:4-5, 29-30, 31-32, 33-34
Mt 6:24-34
When we hear Jesus' words, "No one can serve two masters", we look at ourselves and think that we're somehow split between two or more masters. But such a situation cannot be permanent. We're always moving in the direction of one master or another. And the closer we get to one master, the more loyal servant of him do we become.
This is clearly seen in the first reading. The king and his nobles on the one hand, and the priest Zechariah on the other have both committed themselves to one master. There are no divisions here. King Joash and his nobles chose to abandon the Lord and serve idols while Zechariah had nothing to do with those man-made gods and remained faithful to the Lord.
These opposing loyalties brought about great violence, but not a lot of worrying. Zechariah was stoned by his enemies. And yet he remained defiant to the end. Likewise, we see no sign of anxiety from King Joash and his nobles when they faced certain defeat at the hands of the Arameans. They remained true to their idols and did not call upon the Lord for deliverance. And so the Lord allowed them to be defeated.
We tend to think of the human condition as being one where we have split loyalties. But every age of history has shown many individuals to be quite loyal to one master or another. We saw it with Zechariah and King Joash. We also saw it with Thomas More and King Henry VIII. Once a close servant of the king (surely as Zechariah had been to Joash), Thomas still knew all along that his true master was the Lord. And he could remain a servant of the king so long as the king himself also kept the Lord as his master.
But when that changed, and Henry made himself his own master, Thomas refused to follow. And all the way up to his death he showed no signs of anxiety or worry. Neither, of course, did Henry, who had resolutely set his own course, making himself his own master.
It would seem, then, that the more we give ourselves to one master, the less anxious we will be. When we move closer and closer to one master, we will depend more and more on him for our needs. Surely this is what Jesus was talking about when he taught: "Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself. Sufficient for a day is its own evil."
Like King Henry, many of us fancy that we don't need a master outside of ourselves at all. We tell ourselves that we can take care of ourselves and our needs. We are individually our own masters. In the end, though, we still have a master, even if it is ourselves. And we are bound to depend on that master to provide for our needs.
And yet we who believe, who have been baptized, have given ourselves to the Lord. Through the grace of that sacrament we know in the depth of our being that he is trustworthy. Maybe, then, that is why we worry so much. We try to depend upon ourselves, all the while knowing in the back of our heads that we will fail in this while the Lord will always provide.
Look over the course of human history, over the course of salvation history, and see if this be true. Be scientific about it like humans like to be. And, in the end, if you conclude that the Lord can be trusted to provide for our needs and that we have very limited powers to do this, then take the risk and strive and desire to serve the Lord as your master. That is what I am trying to do. How else could I not be filled with anxiety at the prospect of supporting a family on the salary of a DRE?
This Week's Installment of My Column "Spiritual Reflections"
Take the link to the online edition of The Shelbyville News for this week's installment of my weekly column "Spiritual Reflections." Regular readers of this blog will notice that it is a slight revision of a column that I wrote a month or so ago for The Criterion, the weekly newspaper of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, which I posted here.
For those of you who read it, let me know what you think. Thanks!
Friday, June 21, 2002
An English perspective on the meeting in Dallas
A reader has passed on this link to an article in The Tablet, giving us an English Catholic perspective on the meeting in Dallas.
A Continuation of A Spiritual Commentary upon the Rule of St. Benedict
(Please note: The text quoted below is from the 'RB 80' translation, only a portion of which can be found online. I choose to use it because I believe that the translation is more accurate and better suited to our day than the 1949 Verheyen translation with which I began yesterday. In the future, I will only comment directly upon the RB80 text. I will, however, still provide a link to the Verheyen translation so that you will be able to see the commented text in context, even if it is a different translation.)
Prologue (continued)
Let us get up then, at long last, for the Scriptures rouse us when they say: "It is high time for us to arise from sleep (Rom 13:11). Let us open our eyes to the light that comes from God, and our ears to the voice from heaven that every day calls out this charge: If you hear his voice today, do not harden your hearts (Ps 94[95]:8). And again: You that have ears to hear, listen to what the Spirit says to the churches (Rev 2:7). And what does he say? Come and listen to me, sons; I will teach you the fear of the Lord (Ps 33[34]:12). Run while you have the light of life, that the darkness of death may not overtake you (John 12:35).
Benedict began his Rule by lovingly encouraging all of us to listen. And quickly following upon that initial exhoration we have a paragraph that has one quote from scripture after another, all woven together to help convince us to give ourselves over to the grace of conversion.
The Rule has been described as one long scriptural commentary. The paragraph quoted above is not unusual. We will see many more like it. Others have described the Rule as a text that helps the reader live out the scriptures amid the practicalities of daily life.
However, this particular paragraph does not address practicalities. It employs the rich language of metaphor. Our life before conversion is likened to sleep. The grace of conversion is described as "the light that comes from God" and "the voice from heaven." And the life of grace is portrayed as running ("Run while you have the light of life").
Nevertheless, we are brought back to practicalities because the metaphors that are used are human and the stuff of everyday life. They speak of the senses, of sleeping, of running, of being taught ("Come and listen to me, sons; I will teach you the fear of the Lord").
We do lots of the same ordinary things from day to day. And often it might seem to us that we are just sleepwalking through our lives. Benedict believes this is true but he wants us to know that the extraordinary is, at every moment of the day, invading the ordinary. He wants us to see the supernatural breaking through the natural. He wants to hear the voice of God speaking to us in very mundane tones.
And for us to be open to all of these wonders, we need to wake up, to open our eyes, to listen attentively, to live deliberately. When we do that we will learn so much from our loving God that we cannot but come to a fearful awe of his utter graciousness to us. When we wake up and learn from God, we will be charged with his grace and so given the power to run the race, to keep the faith.
The Sunday Homily of Fr. Shawn O'Neal
The Twelfth Sunday of Ordinary Time, Cycle A
I will not preach long today. The Great Preacher has taught us a very clear lesson that I need not expand upon with my own words.
Jesus said to the Twelve: "Fear no one. Nothing is concealed that will not be revealed, nor secret that will not be known."
Due to sad recent cases within our Church, either we have all learned or we must learn immediately what happens when any of us attempts to conceal anything: God does not allow for this. In turn, we should never allow for any secrets to remain as secrets. We must be honest about our faults, humble about our talents, and charitable with our gifts.
There must be no place for concealing anything within this Church founded by our Savior.
Where Is Your Treasure? Where Is Your Heart?:
A Reflection on Today's Mass Readings
Memorial of St. Aloysius Gonzaga, religious
2 Kgs 11:1-4, 9-18, 20
Ps 132:11, 12, 13-14, 17-18
Mt 6:19-23
"...Where your treasure is, there also will your heart be." Where was the treasure of Athaliah? Where was her heart? Today's first reading reveals the depths of evil to which members of the ruling family of Israel eventually fell in their struggles for succession. Athaliah ruthlessly started killing off the rest of the royal family after her son, Ahaziah, king of Judah, had been slain through the order of Jehu, king of Israel. Jehu had been appointed king at the order of the prophet Elisha.
If all of this sounds confusing and complex, it is. In the midst of the jumble of dynastic struggles, shifts in loyalty, and disputes over succession, the people and their rulers seemed to have forgotten their covenant with the Lord. The actions of Athaliah were evidence of this.
But this was as the Lord himself had foretold. Generations earlier (as told in 1 Sm 8), the people of Israel had approached the priest Samuel and asked him to anoint over them a king, just as other nations had. The Lord told Samuel that in making this request the people were not rejecting Samuel, but himself. Still, the Lord complied with the people's wishes and had Samuel anoint Saul as the first king of Israel. However, he had Samuel solemnly warn the people beforehand of all that the kings would demand from the people.
The treasure of the people was in earthly power and so their hearts were far from the Lord. Their "eyes were bad." They could see no farther than the power they could wield with their hands. They refused to look to the heavens to seek out the power and the glory of the Lord. Their eyes were bad and so their bodies were in the darkness of sin and wickedness.
When reading about the horrific events in the dynastic struggles in Israel, the term 'cut throat politics' takes on a much more vivid meaning than what we have today. Thankfully, the various people in the Church who group together under various banners and identify themselves in large part simply in relation to those that they oppose do not resort to the means to power and influence used by Athaliah.
However, I believe that it is important for those who place labels on themselves (labels in addition simply to 'Catholic' or 'Christian') to continually re-examine where their treasure is, where their heart is. In the midst of the struggles in our Church, lots of people with good intentions can lose sight of the source and the object of the faith that all of them hold in common: the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the eternal Word incarnate.
Am I saying that these struggles should be given up and that we should all just smile and get along? By no means. What I am saying is that the story we read in today's first reading and the lessons that Jesus offers us in today's Gospel should give pause to all of us who take seriously the life of the Church. May God's grace help all of us to keep eyes "sound", filling our bodies with the light of the Gospel, focusing our hearts on our true treasure, Christ the Lord.
Thursday, June 20, 2002
A Spiritual Commentary upon the Rule of St. Benedict
(Please Note: Today marks the beginning of a series of commentaries on the Rule of St. Benedict. My commentaries will follow the Rule as it progresses, from the start of the prologue, to the end of chapter 73. I will provide the text upon which I will be commenting. But I will also provide a link to the entire text of the Rule so that you may see the day's text in its context.)
Prologue
Listen, O my son, to the precepts of thy master, and incline the ear of thy heart, and cheerfully receive and faithfully execute the admonitions of thy loving Father, that by the toil of obedience thou mayest return to Him from whom by the sloth of disobedience thou hast gone away.
To thee, therefore, my speech is now directed, who, giving up thine own will, takest up the strong and most excellent arms of obedience, to do battle for Christ the Lord, the true King.
In the first place, beg of Him by most earnest prayer, that He perfect whatever good thou dost begin, in order that He who hath been pleased to count us in the number of His children, need never be grieved at our evil deeds. For we ought at all times so to serve Him with the good things which He hath given us, that He may not, like an angry father, disinherit his children, nor, like a dread lord, enraged at our evil deeds, hand us over to everlasting punishment as most wicked servants, who would not follow Him to glory.
It is very appropriate that the first word that appears in Benedict's Rule is "listen", for it bespeaks of much of the essence of monastic life and the way in which Benedict's spirituality can be applied to all people.
If I were to name one word that describes the essence of this monastic life and spirituality, it would be "humility." And to truly "listen" to another person is an exercise in humility. It is a recognition that you yourself do not have all knowledge and wisdom, that another person has something good to offer you that you do not already possess.
This kind of humble listening is reflected in the original Latin word used in this opening line of the Rule. The ordinary Latin for listening, audio, does not appear here. Audio does not necessarily imply any kind of comprehension nor a desire on the receiver to truly listen to the one speaking. Instead, the word that appears here is obsculta. The ever handy "Little Lewis" Latin Dictionary defines a parallel version of this word (ausculta) as to "hear with attention, listen to, give ear to."
I delve into the obscurities of Latin definitions only to emphasize the importance of listening to the monastic life as envisioned by St. Benedict. He was very careful in the words that he used in his Rule. He wanted his monks and those of us who read his words some 1500 years later to seek God and seek to serve and praise him in humility.
And to do this means that we must, first of all, listen for his voice. God speaks to us in so many ways: in his holy Word, in his Church, through the sacraments, in the quiet of our hearts, and in the chatter of everyday life. If we open our ears to God's voice, we will hear him speaking to us: expressing his undying love for us, giving an encouraging and comforting word, but also challenging us to do better. Such words can be spoken through such great personages as our Holy Father, but also through the poor homeless on our streets.
Doing this kind of listening is difficult for us today. As we can see in the proliferation of blogs, everyone can and often does have their say. Speaking seems to be valued far more highly than listening. But in our life of faith, the life of faith to which Benedict exhorts us, we are called first to listen, not to speak.
Maybe we don't want to listen because it leaves us vulnerable. When we chatter on and on, blog on and on, we are in control of the conversation. We control what is said. We try to control our world. But aspirations to such control is always untrue to our true situation and therefore is prideful. What Benedict calls us to, what Jesus in his own passion and death calls us to (see Phil 2:6-11), is not a life of speaking and pride, but a life of listening and humility.
Working against the prideful tendencies of our own lives and of our society in general is a struggle. That is why Benedict describes the life of listening and humility as a battle where we take up the arms of obedience and fight under the direction of Christ our King.
Again, to be humble and to listen is to recognize the possibility that another is greater. And when that other is God, then it is never a possibility but a stark reality from the very start. To be humble before God and to listen to him in prayer is to recognize the small limits within which I can have any kind of effect. It is, then, as Benedict next encourages us, to call upon him in prayer to bring to perfection that which we feebly begin.
At the very start Benedict lays before us a great ideal of listening and humility. But we who value so highly our own pridefilled words can take comfort in the fact that all of us, saint and sinner alike, must call upon God in prayer to draw us ever closer, step by step, into the perfection of his love. So as we begin this journey through the spirituality of this sixth century monk, a man who has so much wisdom for us to listen to even 1500 years later, let us trust in God and call upon him in prayer, asking him that we might listen attentively and in humility to him, to the precepts and admonitions of a loving Father.
Tim Bedore on PR, Celibacy and The Situation
(thanks to Fr. Shawn O'Neal for pointing out this story to me>
Tim Bedore, comedian and author of the book and website, Vague but True, did a commentary piece entitled "Bishop's PR" last night on the PRI show Marketplace. The commentary can now be found in text form on his website.
He presents a somewhat humorous, if not very accurate, argument for the ending of mandatory celibacy. He says that allowing "married people" (presumably including women) to be ordained would change the "culture of the priesthood." This, he assumes, would make the number of sexual abuse cases decline and, with them, the number of costly settlements that dioceses have to make.
Bedore even encourages the Church to do this soon, before "they have to sell off church property to pay for more of these molestation law suits." He then points out the irony that such a change in policy would bring about:
The irony is losing church property is one of the reasons the Church instituted celibacy in the first place. A thousand years ago, as any parent with land would want to do, many priests were deeding parish property to their sons and daughters. The Vatican saw their empire shrinking and said "No more kids. Celibacy." But today, if the Church doesn't drop their celibacy requirement they may lose what property they've got left.
Like I said, this isn't an accurate argument. I don't even think it was intended to be one. But its at least a little bit humorous. Leave it to a show called 'Marketplace', though, to pull out an economic argument for ending celibacy...
How the Archdiocese of Chicago is starting to implement the new norms
James Kovacs has some interesting things to say at his blog Integrity about how Cardinal George in the Archdiocese of Chicago is starting to implement the new norms regarding clerical sexual abuse voted upon in Dallas.
The Prayer of a Prophet:
A Reflection on Today's Mass Readings
Thursday of the Eleventh Week of Ordinary Time, Year II
Sir 48:1-14
Ps 97:1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7
Mt 6:7-15
I have done a good bit of reflecting over the past few days on the role of the prophet as we have recounted the story of the great Old Testament prophet Elijah. Today we read his praises being sung in the Book of Sirach. And in the Gospel reading we have set before us the Lord's prayer, the prayer of a prophet.
In this Gospel reading we see Jesus teaching his disciples about prayer. His disciples then and those of us who are his disciples now are all prophets. We have been given the Good News of the Lord and been sent out to proclaiim it to the world in which each of us lives.
Every word spoken by a prophet is powerful. In the first reading we see how Elijah's words were like a "flaming furnace", purifying into fine gold all those who heard his voice. His word "shut up the heavens", cutting off rain from the earth for three years. And his word brought down fire upon the earth three times.
Every word that he or any other prophet speaks is powerful. And so the prayer of a prophet need not be filled with many words. The Lord's prayer is a mere 56 words. And yet when we, as the Lord's disciples, as prophets of his Gospel, pray this in the Spirit which he has poured down upon us, we intercede with our heavenly Father to do many great things.
We ask that his name may be known by all as holy, that his kingdom may come and his will be done here on earth just as it is in heaven. We ask him to porvide our most basic daily needs. We pray that he might forgive us of our sins and help us to forgive those who sin against us. Finally, we ask him to protect us from temptation and from the Tempter. All in just 56 words.
The prophet who prays this must be humble. It is filled with the recognition of both the great things that we believe that our Father in heaven can do and our own clear limitations. But are prophets really seen as being humble? The first reading tells of Elijah's powerful a words and wondrous deeds. However, the word of Elijah and those of all other prophets, including ourselves, are not ours, but are the word of the Lord. Look through the books of the prophets and you will see countless times, "Thus says the Lord..."
The great deeds of prophets are done according to God's will. In the first reading, Elijah is praised for bringing a dead man back to life, "by the will of the Lord." We who are disciples of Jesus, who are his prophets, can do many great deeds when we are acting according to his Father's will. When we pray that this will be done, we can be confident that he will give us the grace to do those things that we believe are beyond us.
When we forgive those who have trespassed wickedly against us, we are prophets of the Lord who are doing his will, who are making his kingdom come into our midst. Fr. Martin Jenco and journalist Terry Anderson, both of whom were brutally held captive in Lebanon in the 1980s, did this by publicly forgiving their captors. Fr. Jenco, who has since prophetically remained loyal to the Lord unto his death in his battle with cancer, encouraged the rest of us to be prophets of forgiveness in his book (sadly out of print) Bound to Forgive.
After Jesus concluded his prayer, he told his disciples that when they forgive or refuse to forgive they are reflecting what will happen in heaven. A few days ago I argued that the purpose of a prophet is to bring about reconciliation between the Lord and those who have walked away from him. With this purpose, and the concluding words of today's Gospel in mind, we who are Jesus' prophets must always remember to ask for that divine grace that will help us to forgive those that have hurt us.
Forgiveness is not a defeat. It is a revelation here on earth of the coming of God's kingdom.
(For a different perspective on today's Gospel, go read what Peter Nixon has to say at his blog, Sursum Corda.)
Imagine the shock...
Try to imagine the shock when a simple blogger like me, who averages about 125 hits a day, comes into his office at 9:00am and finds that he's already had 150, 62 in the last hour alone!
Welcome to all visitors coming here from AndrewSullivan.com. Come back anytime, of course. Scroll down a bit to find the post on the Washington Post story on the Iowa State study on viewer recall of commercials during sexually explicit TV shows.
Wednesday, June 19, 2002
A New Feature Starting Tomorrow: Daily Reflections on the Rule of St. Benedict
As some of you may already know, I was a Benedictine monk at St. Meinrad Archabbey for two and a half years. I professed temporary vows (for a period of three years) and took the name 'Br. Paul.' A year and a half into the three year period, I asked that my vows be dispensed and my superiors granted me this favor. In other words, I left the monastery in their good graces.
That was a difficult decision for me to make and one that I only made after a long period of prayer and after much consultation with my spiritual director and my superiors. Before I left the abbot complimented me by saying that he was glad that I had not come to him with a laundry list of complaints about the monastery. I told him that I instead had a dry cleaning list of compliments for all that the community had done for me and the good that I had found there.
Before I left, one of my friends in the community told me that, in many ways, I would still be a 'son of St. Benedict.' And indeed that is true. The Gospel values that were instilled within me at St. Meinrad remain in me to this day. And I simply pray that I can mold them to apply to the life of my family.
(By the way, there is a good book written addressing this desire entitled, The Family Cloister. It was written by David Robinson, a Presbyterian pastor from Oregon.)
And so as I strive to see how the wisdom of St. Benedict can help Cindy and I mold the character of our home, I have decided to reflect upon a small portion of the Rule each day. Hopefully these reflections can be useful for many of you readers as well. I will start this series of reflections tomorrow.
Although I prefer to read the 'RB 80' translation of the Rule, there is not a complete version of it online (the prologue and chapters 1-7 can be found at the website of Christ in the Desert Monastery). Therefore, when I write my reflections, I will provide in each day's reflection a link a version of the 1949 translation of the Rule by Fr. Boniface Verheyen, OSB of St. Benedict's Abbey, Atchison, KS, found on that abbey's website.
For those of you interested in Benedictine spirituality, you might visit Michael Dubruiel's blog, Annunciations, on a regular basis. There he has been writing a series of posts entitled "73 Steps to Spiritual Communion with God" in which he reflects upon various Benedictine values, if not on the Rule itself.
A Lesson from the life of St. Romuald
Today, we have the option of celebrating the Memorial of St. Romuald (ca. 950-1024), the founder of the Camaldolese Benedictine order, a monastic tradition that has elements of both eremetic and community life. Incarnation Monastery in Big Sur, CA is a Camaldolese house in the United States.
In the brief account of his life in the 'Saint of the Day' page at AmericanCatholic.org (the website of St. Anthony Messenger), we read that at one point in his life, St. Romuald was accused of
"he was accused of a scandalous crime by a young nobleman he had rebuked for a dissolute life. Amazingly, his fellow monks believed the accusation. He was given a severe penance, forbidden to offer Mass and excommunicated, an unjust sentence he endured in silence for six months."
This should give us pause to consider the dangers of accepting every revelation of 'scandalous crimes' of priests or bishops that we read about in newspapers or online, hear about on radio, or see reports of on TV. Many of them may, indeed, sadly be true. But there can be and have been others that are false, as we saw in the case of the late Cardinal Bernadine.
This story from the life of St. Romuald should also remind us once again that our current scandals are not knew, that they have plagued the Church throughout its history and that even holy men and women can be get caught up in them, even if unjustly.
Fr. Shawn clarifies his comments
Yesterday, I posted some comments made by Fr. Shawn regarding the dueling responses of Michael Rose and Fr. Rob Johansen. At the time Fr. Shawn had this to say:
So what's the big difference between the so-called liberals and conservatives? 1) Liberals kill their own with guillotines. 2) Conservatives kill their own with firing squads.
Fr. Shawn wrote me today to clarify his statement:
My comments had more to do with the dynamics of the argument's decline rather than about Johansen's comments.
Johansen might have been mad, but he had a right to be. He was getting undercut. Rose shot down his own credibility by his actions.
Does Sex Really Sell?
It would seem the Washington Post has picked up on the story that I heard reported on Monday on the Marketplace Morning Report. According to the Post article, a study done in the psychology department of Iowa State University showed a low memory recall of commercials by viewers of sexually and violently explicit television programs.
When asked to cite a cause for the low recall, professor Brad Bushman said: "The simplest explanation is that people who watch a sexual program are thinking about sex instead of about the ads..."
Well yeah...
However, Bushman also noted that the results of his study would seem to support the "...emerging argument that sexually explicit media promote sexual callousness, cynical attitudes about love and marriage, an idea that promiscuity is the norm..."
Emerging argument? I though that it had been out there for quite a while now.
Earthquake hits Indiana: What are they going to blame this one on?
Back in 1993 when flood waters covered much of the state of Iowa, there were some in the pro-life movement who blamed that natural disaster on the millions of abortions that occur in the United States each year.
Well now Indiana has had an earthquake that measured 5.0 on the Richter Scale. What can we blame this one on? Should we take a look at what is going on in the Diocese of Evansville, where the quake was centered? Check out a story on the quake in the Evansville Courier and Press.
Please note: The tongue of this blogger was placed firmly in his cheek while writing this post.
To Be Seen Or Not To Be Seen, That Is the Question:
A Reflection on Today's Mass Readings
Wednesday of the Eleventh Week of Ordinary Time, Year II
2 Kgs 2:1, 6-14
Ps 31:20, 21, 24
Mt 6:1-6, 16-18
The two readings for today's Mass seem to be at odds with each other. On the one hand, in the first reading, the prophet Elijah tells his protege Elisha that if he sees him being taken up to heaven, then his wish of receiving a double portion of his spirit will be granted. On the other hand, Jesus in today's Gospel teaches us to do good deeds, to give alms, to pray and fast in secret and not for others to see, for if we do these things in secret, then our reward will come from God.
So, are we to be seen or are we not to be seen?
Before we answer this question, lets explore an important distinction between these two readings. Elijah knew that he was going to be taken up into heaven in a whirlwind, in chariots and horses of fire. But he also knew that this was going to happen through the power and glory of the Lord and not through any virtue of his own. This is why he told Elisha that if he saw him being taken up in this way that he would receive his wish, a double portion of his spirit.
If Elisha could see the power and the glory of the Lord being revealed before his eyes, then he would indeed have the spirit of a prophet. A man with this kind of spirit is to speak for God among the people who cannot see such things. A prophet is tell others of the power and the glory of the Lord, present in the world, that he is able to see. Elisha did indeed see his master being taken up into heaven. That he was able to see such divine wonders was a sign that he had in fact received that double portion of Elijah's spirit.
But unlike Elijah being taken up to heaven, which was a wondrous work of God, the good deeds, almsgivings, prayers, and fasts which Jesus warns us against in today's Gospel are the mundane works of man. Such acts begin and end with us when our main motivation for doing these things is to grow in prestige in the eyes of others. They do not reveal God's power and glory, they only demonstrate our own pride and selfishness.
When we are motivated by the love of God given to us and flowing out from us, we don't care if others see the good that we do, the alms that we give, the prayers that we make, and the fasts that we observe. But the ironic thing about this and about Jesus' words to us today, is that the power and the glory of the Lord will be revealed to others as soon as we don't care if they see the good that we do.
When this happens, then all around us will be able to respond to Elisha's question, "Where is the Lord, the God of Elijah?", by crying out "He is here in our midst!"
(For a different perspective on today's Gospel, go read what Peter Nixon has to say at his blog, Sursum Corda.)
Tuesday, June 18, 2002
Honesty, Good Thoughts at Veni Sancte Spiritus
Anthony Marquis has re-started his blog, Veni Sancte Spiritus, after giving it up a few days ago. And in his return he tells us honestly about some of his own experiences of the past regarding clerical sexual abuse.
He then gives what I believe is a good analysis of the relationship of clerical sexual abuse and the sexual orientation of the abuser:
I think men who sexually abuse children and mature teenagers have issues that are not attributable to sexual orientation. There is a sickness that is much deeper and rooted than plain old sexual desire. I think that sexual abusers have issues that stem from the desire to overpower and control.
I think that this is a good explanation of the sexual abuse committed by many clerics. But it is not the only explanation. I think that it is important for us to see that there is no one explanation for clerical sexual abuse. Let us all be careful not to, consciously or unconsciously, use The Situation to grind our own particular axes. I think that the Agape Press story that I commented on below does this. But I think that some Catholics have done this as well.
The scandals plaguing the Church are complex. So are the motivations in the clerical sexual abusers that have brought them about.
Fr. Shawn O'Neal weighs in
Fr. Shawn O'Neal, formerly of the beloved but now defunct blog, Onealism, has been reading the verbal volleys being thrown by Michael Rose and Fr. Rob Johansen at each other. Here's his overall perspective:
So what's the big difference between the so-called liberals and conservatives?
1) Liberals kill their own with guillotines.
2) Conservatives kill their own with firing squads.
As for me, I am going to see some people in the hospital.
I think Fr. Shawn has priorities lined up rather well...
Imagine that! Agape Press blames the current clerical abuse scandals in the Church on mandatory celibacy and homosexual priests
Agape Press, an evangelical news service, has weighed in on The Situation and the recent bishops' meeting in Dallas. And, imagine that, they point to mandatory celibacy and homosexual priests as the cause for the current scandals in the Church.
While the Catholic and evangelicals share many things in common with evangelicals regarding teachings on homosexual behavior, there are some differences when it comes to the two groups' understanding of the orientation itself. Most evangelicals would say that homosexuality, merely as an orientation, is sinful because it is, in all cases, a choice that a person makes.
The Catholic Church, on the other hand, while holding that the orientation is disordered, teaches that, for true homosexuals, the orientation is not something that they have chosen and is therefore not sinful in and of itself. It is the choice to sexually act upon that inclination that is sinful according to the teachings of the Church. (see paragraphs 2357-59 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church for a more complete presentation on the Church's teaching on homosexuality)
Of course, it is a sin for a priest to act upon his sexual orientation, whatever it may be. So it would seem the folks that Agape Press quote in their story are sadly using The Situation to attack the practice of mandatory celibacy, which the churches of the Reformation rejected from the start, and the distinctions between the Catholic Church's and the traditional evangelical teaching on homosexuality, which, otherwise, share many things in common.
Michael Dubruiel speaks to the consciences of bloggers
In today's installment of "73 Steps to Spiritual Communion with God", Michael Dubruiel has a message that Catholic bloggers, myself included, should heed. Writing about a recent conversation he had had with a Benedictine monk, he writes:
...we were both doing the very thing that Benedict counsels the monk not to do "to love much speaking." Why? Too often when we speak much we say things that might better be left unsaid. If Benedict were writing today, he might also add not "to love too much blogging" which could easily be a modern equivalent to "too much speaking." Bloggers know that writing what you are thinking can come back to bite you sometimes.
How true. And after reading the various reviews and responses of Michael Rose and Fr. Rob Johansen, this message would also seem to apply to Catholic writers in general...
Dueling Responses: Michael Rose & Fr. Rob Johansen
As many of you know, Michael Rose is the author of Goodbye, Good Men, a critique of the screening process of many seminaries that attempts to offer a different perspective on the crisis in priestly vocations than what is usually given.
Fr. Rob Johansen wrote a review of this book in the April/May edition of Culture Wars in which, while agreeing with Rose's overall thesis, nonetheless expressed concerns about his methodology in gathering criticisms of various seminaries.
Well, Mr. Rose has responded to Fr. Rob's review in a letter that was posted on the website Crux News, a letter which is to be published in the June/July edition of Culture Wars. And now Fr. Rob has responded in turn at his blog, Thrown Back.
Much of the recrimination being levelled by Fr. Rob and Mr. Rose at each other reminds me of my reflection on today's Mass reading (see below) where I write about the 'purpose of prophecy.' I think this message is important for all of us, including Fr. Rob and Mr. Rose, who take the life of faith seriously.
The Purpose of Prophecy:
A Reflection on Today's Mass Readings
Tuesday of the Eleventh Week of Ordinary Time, Year II
1 Kgs 21:17-29
Ps 51:3-4, 5-6ab, 11 and 16
Mt 5:43-48
Sometimes I get the impression that those who fancy themselves as prophets find satisfaction in the downfall of those that they had been criticizing. Such a fall from power and prestige would be a kind of vindication of the truth of their message.
But in feeling satisfied in this way, a prophet is forgetting the purpose of his ministry. Yes, prophets can be fierce in their criticism and brutal in their revelation of the word of the Lord. But all of this is to be directed toward the conversion of the one being attacked.
In fact, I believe the greatness of a prophet is in part measured by his ability to bring the subject of his criticism to a change of heart. There are many prophets who appear in the Old Testament. Everyone knows of the greatness of Elijah. But who remembers as clearly Ahijah and Jehu?
These two men declared the same curse against the kingd Jeroboam and Baasha that Elijah spoke against Ahab. Jeroboam and Baasha died after having been cursed. Ahab, on the other hand, was touched by Elijah's words, tore his garments, and put on sackcloth as a sign of his repentance. The Lord saw this and had mercy on him.
We don't read of Elijah's reaction to the Lord's mercy. Maybe it was that of Jonah who was angered when the people of Nineveh were saved following their repentance. Maybe he found satisfaction in Ahab's change of heart. In any case, he would surely remain watchful, for he knew that his heart could just as easily turn back away from the Lord.
This purpose of prophecy is what Jesus speaks about in today's Gospel. He speaks directly to his disciples, not to the crowds, not to a group of scribes and Pharisees. His disciples are to be prophets in the world just as Elijah was. But Jesus commanded them to love and to pray for their enemies and persecutors and not to hate them.
In explaining this commandment, Jesus seems to expand the purpose of prophecy. Not only is it to be directed at the conversion of those being criticized, it is also to be an aid in the salvation of the prophet himself.
If a prophet sees himself as an instrument of hatred, then he betrays the Lord for whom he claims to speak. But if he sincerely loves and prays for those whom he criticizes and those who attack him, then he shows himself to others as a true son of his Father in heaven. In fact, it may indeed be that love and those prayers that turn his enemies and persecutors back to the Lord and not any of his prophetic pronouncements. The latter have little effect without the former.
Elijah must have had this love for Ahab. He must have prayed for him. For after the prophet proclaimed his curse, the king said in reply, "Have you found me out, my enemy?" Elijah surely in return could have called Ahab his enemy. He had known the persecution of the king. This had come about because of Elijah's refusal to stop attacking him, to stop proclaiming the word of the Lord. But his motivation in speaking harsh words against the king was his love for him and his desire to bring him back to the Lord.
Let us, when we speak prophetic words against those outside the Church and even against our fellow believers, follow Jesus' commands and Elijah's example and so let God show before the whole world how we are his children.
(For a different perspective on today's Gospel, go read what Peter Nixon has to say at his blog, Sursum Corda.)
Monday, June 17, 2002
Parents' Night Out!
Tonight Cindy and I are getting our first "parents' nght out"! One of her sisters is staying with us and will be taking care of Michael. We're doing the 'dinner and a movie' thing and will be seeing the latest Star Wars offering.
Any suggestions from you readers on how parents like us who are caring for a newborn can find little bits of time here and there where they can spend time alone together?
Asking for your help
I'm doing some research on devotions to the various saints and blesseds of the Americas. I've found various societies or, at the least, contact people regarding holy men and women such as Bl. Mother Theodore Guerin, Bl. Kateri Tekakwitha, and Bl. Francis Xavier Seelos.
Do any of you know of organizations, shrines, etc. dedicated to the cause of and devotion to Bl. Damien of Molokai? I've searched in Google, but to no avail. If you can help me in this area, I would appreciate it. Email me if you can. Thanks!
"But I Was only Following Orders":
A Reflection on Today's Mass Readings
Monday of the Eleventh Week of Ordinary Time
1 Kgs 21:1-16
Ps 5:2-3ab, 4b-6a, 6b-7
Mt 5:38-42
"But I was only following orders." This was often the explanation of men who were accused of aiding in the extermination of millions of Jews during World War II. It has been the explanation of others who participated in the "ethnic cleansing" of Bosnia, Kosovo, or Rwanda. It could have been the excuse used by the hijackers of the planes used on September 11, had they survived. But in all of these cases, the international community has come to the consensus that such an excuse does not take away one's guilt.
Taking part in a govenmental action to eliminate an entire ethnic or religious group was not justifiable at any level. Such examples show how we, as a society, still at times (if not consistently...) believe that there is a natural law and that it supercedes any laws created by a state government.
The same explanation offered by the people who took part in these 'crimes against humanity' could have been the same one offered by the elders and nobles of the town of Jezreel that we read about in the first reading if they were asked why they participated in the unjust death of Naboth. But they were not the only ones who responsibility for this crime: Jezebel and her husband, King Ahab did as well.
None of these characters seemed to have listened to their consciences. Ahab was too focused on his selfish desires to listen to his conscience telling him to accept Naboth's decision. Jezebel may have been too focused on her own will to power to accept her position as simply being the wife of the king, and not the head of state herself. And the elders and nobles of Jezreel may have been too focused on their own protection or winning the favor of the king and queen to recognize that what they were directly taking part in was entirely unjust.
What would have happened to them had they refused to collaborate with Jezebel's schemes? They likely would have been destroyed by the king's armies under orders given by the queen. Their refusal would indeed have been a true act of rebellion, unlike the false accusation of the same charge levelled against Naboth.
The question might then arise: "Would the elders and nobles be justified in taking their rebellion beyond mere civil disobedience and to the point where they might take up arms against the wicked Ahab and his wife Jezebel?" This is a difficult question, one to which different thinkers and leaders in the Church have given different answers over the past 2000 years. Sometimes the answer could be 'yes', and sometimes 'no.'
The particular answer in a particular situation might be dependent upon other factors. One might need to answer other questions. Would the rebellion likely to be as hurtful to many people as it would be likely to succeed in ridding the nation of an unjust ruler? What are the motivations of the people leading the rebellion? And what would be the nature of the government that would be installed if the rebellion succeeded?
In the end, one would also have to take into account the teachings of Jesus in today's Gospel: "You have heard that it was said,
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well.
Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles."
I believe that the essence of what Jesus is teaching here is that we are to be very careful in the actions that we take against human beings because of the actions that these people did. Today we, justifiably, like to distinguish between the sin and sinner. "Love the sinner," we say, "but hate the sin." In the end, I have to agree with this statement.
But when Jesus says, "...offer no resistance to one who is evil...", he seems to be saying that the sinner himself can be evil in his very nature. And it is surely hard to argue against this when considering the total depravity of the masterminds behind some of the horrible crimes that I listed at the start of this reflection.
What, then, are we to do? As I tried to explain above, I believe that there are no easy answers. Sometimes it may not only be justified to take up arms against evil, it may actually be morally required of us. At other times we need to follow the words of Jesus that we hear today to the letter.
For us to be able to make this distinction, we need to live our life of faith deliberately and with much reflection. We need to form well our consciences. For although the situations that I listed at the start are extreme, I believe that each of us, if we have not already been faced with such a challenge, will indeed be faced with difficult moral dilemmas in the public or business sphere sometime during our life.
It will be important for us at these times to have our ears sharpened so that we can hear clearly what the Spirit is speaking to us in our hearts. And it will be important that we respond with courage to the grace that God offers us to follow through on the difficult decisions with which we will be faced.
For a different, I suppose more challenging, perspective on today's Gospel, go to Peter Nixon's blog, Sursum Corda.
The Bottom Line Making TV More Family Friendly?
Various churches and Christian organizations have for years been making all sorts of moral arguments against much of the programming found on TV today and for better, more 'family-friendly' alternatives. And it would seem that these arguments haven't been that persuasive in Hollywood (imagine that..).
Well, maybe they will listen to their accounts and advertisers a little more closely than they have to us. There was a story on the Marketplace Morning Report (a radio program syndicated through Public Radio International) that showed that some advertisers might be moving away from shows that feature sex and violence. Apparently, studies have shown that viewers have less recall of the advertisers of shows such as 'NYPD Blue' than they would say, of 'Touched by an Angel.'
Advertisers, it is then argued, would be more likely to have their commercials shown during these less offensive shows, thus pushing up their revenue for the networks on these shows, and seemingly dropping them on more violent shows. As always in America, the bottom line is the bottom line.
By the way, if you take the link to Marketplace, and you just want to hear the story that I just described, fast forward to about 2:15.
Sunday, June 16, 2002
Father's Day in Indiana
One beautiful day has followed another in Indiana. And with such pleasant weather on Father's day, my family has decide to celebrate it with a picnic. So my parents, Cindy, Michael, I will be meeting my sister, her husband, and my nephew up in Indianapolis for a nice day in a park. Then Cindy, Michael, and I will travel down to her parents' home to visit them as well.
Hopefully, I'll be able to catch a bit of the U.S. Open golf tournament in there. Go Tiger!
A Rainbow,--A Sign of God's Covenant with His People
Yesterday's beautiful weather ended with some thunderstorms in the late afternoon. But the quick moving storms were rapidly replaced with sunshine along the horizon. And this, then, ushered in the beautiful sight of a double rainbow. What a beautiful reminder at this time of the year of God's covenant with his people, as seen in his steadfast love for his Church, no matter what, and for the grace that he has bestowed on the marriage of Cindy and I (we just celebrated our first wedding anniversary last Sunday).
The Kingdom of Heaven Is At Hand?:
A Reflection on Today's Mass Readings
The Eleventh Sunday of Ordinary Time, Cycle A
Ex 19:2-6
Ps 100:1-2, 3, 5
Rom 5:6-11
Mt 9:36-10:8
For many months and years now, we have been surrounded by many threats to the health of our Church and our families. These threats come at us, not only from those who misunderstand us or even have malice against us. But they also come from within, from our own sinfulness. The latter is often hard to accept. We who are believers sometimes find it hard to understand why there is so much brokenness in our Church and in our families, especially when we have been given the grace of God to live according to his will.
Instead of stepping forward in confidence to proclaim with a full voice, we might take Jesus' message and turn it into a question: "The kingdom of heaven is at hand?"
But our Church and our families are surely a great mystery. The Church is, at one and the same time, both pure and in need of purification. The first reading foreshadows how we are to be a kingdom of priests. Yet Paul remarks how all of us were so lost in our sins that we could be reconciled with God only through the death of his Son.
It can be especially difficult for us in the West to accept such a paradox like this. We like things to be clear cut, to be either black or white. But the entire history of the Church has shown us that this body of believers is a mysterious paradox, made up of both great saints and notorious sinners.
Such a mixture of high ideals and everyday sinfulness is not just restricted to the Church. It is clearly present in our families as well. On Father's Day it might be good for us to see he how embodies these contradictions. A father is supposed to be a leader in his family: being responsible for the security of his wife and children, being a model of good conduct for them, and being a guide in the life of faith. Yet all fathers, as we know, are quite fallible and fail to varying degrees in these duties. They sometimes struggle to provide for their families. They give in to temptations to sin. And they can be unfaithful to God.
How are we to reconcile all of these contradictions, in our Church in our families? Every generation has tried to forsake the faults of the one before but to little avail. Bishops may gather and draft strong new policies, but the sins that they are trying to combat have been present, not just in the past few decades, but through the past several centuries. As I have lived as a husband and now as a father, I can see how I am becoming more and more like my own father, for good or ill.
We can never overcome these faults and failings by our own power. And perhaps we are wasting our energy trying to do so outside the grace of God. For it is only through this grace, given to us first and foremost through the death of Jesus, that we are able, in our Church and in our families, to be that kingdom of priests, despite the contradictions that surround us. Christ is able to raise us up out of our sinfulness and send us out to proclaim that the reign of God is truly at hand.
At times like these, when so many leaders in our Church and in our families have been revealed to be quite broken, it is easy for all of us to turn inward, to retreat back within ourselves in anxiety and despair. We might ask ourselves: "What is the use of building up the Church and families when so many within them are tearing them down?"
But I believe that the message of today's readings can give us all great hope. Not a hope that we will be made perfect and all contradictions will be reconciled. But that the love of God for us, revealed in the death of his Son, will help us be that kingdom of priests, despite our brokenness.
Yes, Christ has called us all to be priests, to intercede for the whole world through our life of faith. All of us who believe have been sent out to proclaim the Good News of God's reign. We have been given power to bring healing to those who have been burdened with the disease of despair.
In times such as these, we are being given the opportunity to recognize anew that, in the end, it is only Christ upon whom we can depend. Let us trust in his perfect and undying love for us and answer his his call in gratitude. Let us all be confident in our belief in the truth of his words: "The kingdom of heaven is at hand!"
Saturday, June 15, 2002
Honesty Is the Best Policy:
A Reflection on Today's Mass Readings
Saturday of the Tenth Week of Ordinary Time, Year II
1 Kgs 19:19-21
Ps16:1b-2a and 5, 7-8, 9-10
Mt 5:33-37
When we were little children growing up, many of us were probably taught often by our parents, elders, and teachers that "honesty is the best policy." It was a little rhyme to help us kids remember the importance of telling the truth, even if we didn't know what a "policy" was. We would only later learn that policies were positions on issues and standards of conduct drawn up by businesses, governments, and churches.
But the truth of that little rhyme is as applicable to these organizations run by grown ups as it is to children in the relationships with the parents, siblings, and friends. It is a universal truth, even if it is expressed in words that have largely, and sadly, become a cliche. And, as we see in today's Gospel, it is something that Jesus taught as well when he said, "Let your ‘Yes' mean ‘Yes,' and your ‘No' mean ‘No.' Anything more is from the Evil One."
Maybe if all of us in the Church take Jesus' words to heart, then that proverb that we learned as children would remain powerful for us throughout our lives. "Honesty is the best policy" would then be the foundation of all those long, drawn out charters and norms that the bishops worked so hard to hammer out in Dallas. Honest would be best policy that they could enact regarding the clerical sexual abuse of minors.
But such a policy is, as I made note of above, a universal truth. It applies to more situations than just to clerical sexual abuse. It would also be helpful in the period of priestly formation. It is important for all men who feel that God and the Church are calling them to the priesthood to be radically honest with themselves. This kind of honesty, which is Christian humility at its best, will help a man come to an awareness of his true calling, priestly or not.
Along with 'honesty is the best policy', he may also have been taught as a child that being a priest is the best thing you can be. Such a teaching is not true and it has surely has led some men to the priesthood who were truly not called to that vocation. The best vocation for any one person is the vocation to which God has called him or her, whether it be as a married person, a religious, or as a priest.
When the awareness of that vocation dawns upon a person it can be both shocking and liberating. Take the case of Elisha. When, as we see in today's first reading, the prophet Elijah lay his cloak over Elisha, marking him off as his successor in the prophetic ministry, the young man was truly shocked. He clearly knew that he was being called to a life radically different to the one that he had been living up to that time and so he asked to say goodbye to his parents, to say goodbye, as it were, to the life that he was leaving behind.
But, in the eyes of Elijah, once the call has become clear, one should follow it immediately. And so Elisha went and slaughtered without delay the oxen that he had been leading and using the plowing equipment as fuel to boil their flesh, yet another sign of his leaving his previous way of life behind.
Now although Elisha through this action showed his total commitment to his new way of life, he could not have known solely through his reason that this was what God was truly calling him to. And he could not know what he would experience in this prophetic ministry. But he trusted in the Lord, and in the call made to him through his servant Elijah. And so he left and followed him immediately.
Although being honest with oneself is the best policy in vocational discernment, it does not necessarily lead to total certainty at the time that the vocation is publicly taken up. A man and a woman cannot know in total certainty that God has truly called them together as one or, at any rate, what the future will hold for them. A man who has the hands of a bishop laying on his head cannot know with his reason alone if God is calling him to be a priest. Neither can a man or a woman who professes their religious vow know if God is calling them to the consecrated life.
But, in the end, honesty is the best policy when considering the truth that God remains faithful to us throughout our lives. When we make a commitment to a vocation, we can trust that he will give us the grace to live it out. And, sadly, if we feel that, somehow we have made the wrong choice, we can experience the mercy of God through the ministry of the Church, be it through the annulment or laicization process, or in a dispensation of vows. Theses processes are not ordinary actions taken by the Church. They are extraordinary gifts of God's mercy given to us humans who are so prone to mistakes and failures.
In any circumstance of life and in the life of the Church, honesty will always be the best policy, be in the policies that bishops draw up when they meet, in the vocational commitments that we make, or in the trust that we place in the steadfast fidelity and love of God.
This Week's Installment of My Column "Spiritual Reflections"
Take the link to the online edition of The Shelbyville News for this week's installment of my weekly column "Spiritual Reflections." Regular readers of this blog will notice that it is a slight revision of a column that I wrote a couple of months ago for The Criterion, the weekly newspaper of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis and which I also posted here.
For those of you who read it, let me know what you think.
Friday, June 14, 2002
Church History and The Situation, Part IV
If scandals have always plagued the Church, why am I still a member of it?
When I was in high school, my interests were a bit different from the other students. I really liked history. I had loved it ever since I used to sit on my grandmother's sofa as a little boy, pouring over her big atlas, and imagining what went on in all of those countries, both in their past and now.
I loved history so much that I had determined (silly boy...) even before I had received my high school diploma that I wanted to teach history at the college level. Thanks to the faith and the love of my parents, my love of history became blended with my life of faith so that in college, I focused on the history of the Church.
My goal of teaching history at the college level remained unchanged throughout college and I followed up my studies at Marian College with graduate work in medieval Church history at the University of Notre Dame. In particular, I was interested in the effects (many of which were bad) of the Black Death and the subsequent outbreaks of the bubonic plague upon the Church in the 14th and 15th centuries.
It was during my time at Notre Dame that I concluded that I was not, in fact, called to teach history at the college level. But I still continued to study other periods of Church history as a seminarian and as a novice and junior monk at St. Meinrad Archabbey.
With all of this in depth study of so many ages filled with so many scandal, I sometimes wonder at the fact that I did not stomp away from the Church in a fit of righteous anger. I had seen other men and women do it in grad school and in the seminary. On the surface it seemed that the more they learned about the Church and its history, the less they wanted to be a part of it.
But as the former vice rector and later novice master at St. Meinrad used to tell me, when these folks would come to him for an 'exit interview' on their way out of the seminary, he would usually ask them, 'What are you really angry about?' And usually there would be some sort of person experience, often in the family, that had planted seeds of resentment and anger toward the Church years earlier.
I will always be thankful for the seeds of love for my faith that my parents planted in me. Now, my experience of faith in the home was by no means stereotypically Catholic (whatever that really means). We did not pray the rosary together. The sum total of our prayer together in the home was grace before supper. The faith was not even discussed to any great extent. But it was always assumed. And our going to Mass was always assumed. (That, I think in the end, was the most important factor that has led me to have a healthy life of faith that I have now)
Many people in Catholic religious education circles today are focusing on the essential and fundamental role of the family in shaping the life of faith of children as they grow into adulthood. Explicitly or implicityly, parents are the first religious educators of their childrenI was blessed with parents that nurtured my faith but also allowed me to explore it along the lines of my own interests, namely history. Thankfully no family-fed sentimentality, or anger, or resentment produced in me a warped vision of the Church
Does this mean that the many people out there who have struggled with their family life, and by extension, the life of faith in the home, will necessarily have a distorted understanding of the Church. By no means. It does mean, however, that there may be difficult hurdles for them to overcome as they grow into an adult believer. I believe that the Church has the potential to offer such individuals many resources to rise above these barriers and so come to a mature love for their faith and the faithful.
One of the most important resources is prayer. It is, I believe, vitally important for all of us to pray for those baptized individuals who struggle with the Church because they have been surrounded with a distorted image of it. It is important that we pray that God may heal their hurts and restore their vision and so come to see the loving face of Jesus in the faces of their fellow believers.
In the end, I have remained in the Church, despite my long study of its checkered history, because of the grace showered on me by God in the history of my own family, my own 'ecclesiola' (little Church). But please remember, everyone, that the grace of God can come to us in countless ways. One does not have to have the same family context with which I was blessed to stay in the Church. Our Church is catholic. And the reasons for remaining in the Church can be universal.
The Sunday Homily of Fr. Shawn O'Neal
The Eleventh Sunday of Ordinary Time, Cycle A
If there is ever a time that many of you expect to hear me preach about the lack of various vocations, then know that your presumption is accurate. We need more priests. We need more people in religious communities. None of us need to hear a massive amount of statistics to know that; it is easy to see. But above and beyond these vocations that I have just mentioned, we all need an increase in the sense of vocation. My vocation and our pastor’s vocation are not the only two vocations here in this parish. We love our vocations. In turn, I want to help you love yours.
We all need to be workers on behalf of the Gospel. Jesus directed his message at his twelve disciples on that day, but if it were not meant to be heard by all the people of the world who have been called to follow him, then we would not have it in the Bible, we would not have it in the Lectionary, and we certainly would not have read it at Mass today. Jesus called all of us to be priests. He joined all of us into his priesthood through the Sacrament of Baptism. He calls all of us to be agents of healing, lifters of dead spirits, cleansers of lepers, and
exorcists. He helps all of us do these things by the power of the Holy Spirit that he has given us.
This is my own amateur interpretation of the Gospel today, but as Saint Paul said a few times, I believe that I concluded this only through the power of the Holy Spirit: When Jesus told the disciples to avoid the pagans and Samaritans, but instead to search for the lost sheep of Israel, Jesus wanted us to do his work in our own homes and in our own hometowns. It is still a very novel idea to be a missionary in a foreign land, but for some people there is very little novelty in being a witness in their own hometown and being a witness to their own family and community. It is much more romantic to plan a European pilgrimage than it is to make the pilgrimage to your neighbor’s house to see how he or she has been doing for the past few days.
Here is the ugly truth about discipleship, y’all: It can involve very dirty work. It can involve dealing with people whose company we would prefer not to keep. This type of calling can seem painfully boring at times. But here’s the good news about these types of calling, too: It can help all of us grow in greater love and appreciation for both the creatures and creations of God that have been around us for years, but we have not taken the time either to see their beauty or make them more beautiful. It can help us build up the Body of Christ right here and right now. It is through this type of growth that we can build up the Body of Christ in other places. We do that simply by living according to good examples of holiness, justice, and forgiveness. If we act lovingly toward our brothers and sisters among us, then these acts will be both appreciated by our loved ones here and imitated by other people. It can be that simple. We never know how we can either inspire or kill the inspiration in other people.
If we have not been inspired by the Scripture that we have heard today, then we need to think about how we have false expectations about how God calls each of us to do his work. Do not take the Little Way a la St. Therese of Lisieux under the guise of seeking the easy
way. Do not take grand tasks upon your shoulders simply because you want the big chair next to Jesus. Simply ask God how he wants you to lift up the lost sheep of Israel. Simply ask God how you can show his love to someone near you. If you give, then the same gift will be given many times – the cost will not be counted and the reward will be greater
than we could ever imagine.
Holiness--The One Criterion for Success in the Eyes of God:
A Reflection on Today's Mass Readings
Friday of the Tenth Week of Ordinary Time, Year II
1 Kgs 19:9, 11-16
Ps 27:7-8a, 8b-9abc, 13-14
Mt 5:27-32
"Oh boy, I've done it now." I can imagine Elijah saying something like this after he had slain all of the prophets of Baal and then considered how Queen Jezebel would react. So, having seen that all of Israel and their rulers had forsaken the Lord, he went to the only person he could think of who would protect him: the Lord himself.
And what wast the first thing the Lord said when he appeared before Elijah: "Elijah, why are you here?" (probably not the reaction that Elijah was hoping for...) He told the Lord how he was the only one left who was faithful to him and how the others were seeking to kill him. The Lord's reaction to his fears were the equivalent of, "Your point?"
The Lord didn't seem to be worried about the fact that Israel had forsaken him, He simply told Elijah to go and appoint a new king. And he didn't seem to care if Elijah were to be killed in the process. He told him to appoint Elisha as his successor in the prophetic ministry.
Elijah had gone to the Lord for comfort and protection and all he got was "Buck up soldier. Get back out there." Believe it or not, however, we can find consolation in this story. If we truly place our trust in the Lord, then we can see his words to Elijah as a clear revelation of his will. And to follow God's will is to be on the path to glory.
I've written before about the proverb that learned from Archabbot Lambert Reilly: "The only criterion for success in the eyes of God is holiness." The Lord, in his words to Elijah, was showing him how to be holy. It did not matter if he would die at the hands of those who hated him. If he followed God's will and lived in holiness, then he would be a success. Nothing else mattered.
This is the message that Jesus tells his disciples in today's Gospel when he uses such extreme language as: "If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away." In using words such as these, Jesus told his disciples and is telling us that if the pleasures of the senses that can have with our eyes and our hands keep us from that one criterion of success, if they keep us from doing God's will and living in holiness, then, by all means, forsake those pleasures entirely. A recovering alcoholic would surely understand Jesus' message.
But myself and every other person surely endulges in some bodily pleasures that, at times, take us away from the Lord. Yesterday, I had my blood drawn for some tests. Today I'll learn, among other things, what my cholesterol level is. Then I'll be made aware, quite clearly, how I endulge too much and what I will have to forsake in order to open myself to God all the more fully.
Perhaps we can see a regular examination of conscience as like that blood test that I had. When we examine our consciences, we are trying to look at ourselves in total honesty. That includes giving thanks to God for the good that he helped us do during the day. But it also means being very clear with ourselves about those things that we choose to do and not do, to say or not say, that took us away from God.
After a day when we will have been bombarded with a flood of different worldly definitions of success, a regular examination of conscience will help bring us back to that one criterion of success in the eyes of God: holiness.
Thursday, June 13, 2002
A Good Delay in Blogging
While I was writing the last post, I was interupted by an unexpected visitor to my office. He was a man who was raised in the Church but who had made a conscious choice to leave it. Now he feels that he made a bad choice and wants to be reconciled. I tried to listen to him attentively, tried to offer encouragement and guidance where I felt it was appropriate, and assured him of my prayers for him as he makes his way back into the heart of the family that is the Church.
This was a good interuption. It was a good delay. It was what being in a formal ministry in the Church is all about: reconciliation.
Church History and The Situation, Part III
If scandals have always plagued the Church, why does it still exist?
The first thing that one would learn about the Church by reading the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium is that it is a great mystery. The council fathers could not describe the Church simply through one image and so several were employed. The Church is the people of God. The Church is hierarchical. The Church is a pilgrim on the earth.
Other images have been imagined over the centuries to help the faithful come to grasp the mysterious nature of the Church. The Church is the bride of Christ. The Church is the bark of Peter. The Church is the household of God. All of these images can be inspiring to the faithful. They can raise our spirits and help us boldly take part in the mission of the Church: proclaiming the Gospel.
But I like to speak about the mystery of the Church in less poetic, if not less true terms. The Church is, at one and the same time, both pure and in need of purification. It is a divine institution founded by God and it is a human society, filled with fallible members. In its humanity it fails and falls, in every age. In its divinity it is raised up and renewed, in every age.
As I noted in my earlier writings on this topic, the Church has endured scandals within its members and violent threats from its enemies without in every age of its history. Sometimes it seems like the scandals and the threats increase in intensity with each successive period. Yet it continues on. And we hope and believe that God is drawing it ever more closer to him through all its ages, through every land and nation where it has been born.
So why and how does it continue? As with what I had to say in yesterday's installment, there is a short answer to this question. We can point to and trust in Jesus' promise that "the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." (Mt 16:18b). But just as with yesterday's short answer, today's also deserves some elaboration.
For while Jesus promised that the gates of the netherworld would not prevail against it, he did not promise that those gates would not try to prevail. Surely the netherworld has sought to prevail over the Church through the ages through the sinfulness on the part of the members of the faithful and on the malice held against the Church by some on the outside. And yet Jesus would seemed to have been true to his word.
Now some might honestly point out, as one reader of this blog has, that other institutions have claimed divinity and existed for as long if not for longer than the Church has: the Pharaohs of Egypty, and the various Chinese Imperial dynasties. Now the short reply that I would make to such an observation would be that yes, these self-described divine institutions did exist for a long time. Notice that I did not say that they do exist, for, as we know, they do not.
Of course, I do not know what the future will hold for the Church. Some who might approach such a question solely through reason might persuasively argue that the changes in society and in culture will certainly spell doom for the Church. Humans will no longer need the assurance that it has provided in the past. Men and women in the past have used their minds to make such plausible arguments in the past. But as the future came to be, their arguments went by the wayside while the Church continued on.
I, and other believers, on the other hand, approach the question of the future of the Church with both our reason and our faith. With our reason we can study the trend of how the Church has endured and thrived through crises and scandals, threats and attacks throughout the past. With our faith, we can step forward into the future in the assurance that our Lord will help us when we stumble and fall.
While others are watching the bishops...
I've been watching the first round of the U.S. Open golf tournament over my lunch hour. Gotta have priorities you know...(well, actually, the cable system here doesn't have EWTN).
The Relevance of St. Anthony of Padua for Our Day
Today we celebrate the Memorial of St. Anthony of Padua. Although there are many aspects of his short life that can be good examples for us of living the life of grace, in this short reflection, I would like to focus in on a couple of details that are rather telling.
St. Francis of Assisi received permission to found his original order in 1209 from Pope Innocent III. St. Anthony, who was born in Lisbon, Portugal, not in Padua, Italy, entered the order a short 11 years later in 1220. He was a part of that first enormous wave of thousands of men and women across Europe drawn to the way of life taught by Francis within the first few years of the order's existence. And his varied activities (take the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on him provided above), across Europe, in his relatively short life (he died in 1236) after entering the order is further evidence of the great vigor that the Spirit had poured into the Franciscans in the years following their founding.
St. Anthony's life as a Franciscan, in a time when communication was primitive by today's standards, demonstrates to us in the 21st century that the best form of communication within the faithful is the living of sincerely holy and humble life. Inspired by the Spirit, Francis of Assisi did this in a fairly obscure corner of Italy. And that holy inspiration quickly spread out from him to men and women across Europe, drawing to him in short order other holy men and women, including St. Anthony, coming all the way from Lisbon.
Who knows where our current Francises or Anthonys are. But, be assured, they are out there. The Spirit inspires holy men and women in every age of the Church and inspires others to follow them. It happened in the 13th century. It will happen in the 21st.
Anger Seeking Reconciliation:
A Reflection on Today's Mass Readings
Memorial of St. Anthony of Padua, priest and doctor of the Church
1 Kgs 18:41-46
Ps 65:10, 11, 12-13
Mt 5:20-26
When Elijah had seen how far King Ahab and his people had strayed from the Lord, he could have simply abandoned them. He could have left them in contempt and disgust and gone elsewhere and there remained true to the Lord. But he remained true to Israel, continuing to speak harsh words against Ahab and his wife Jezebel, shutting off the rain for three years, and finally revealing the ineptitude of the prophets of Baal. All of these words and actions were directed at bringing Ahab and the people back to the Lord.
Right now there are many in the Church who, like Elijah, speak harsh words against some of our own bishops and priests. Many are very angry with these leaders and hold them in contempt. But such people will only truly imitate Elijah if such words and feelings are directed toward reconciliation.
I think that I am being generous when I say that Jesus warns each of us in today's Gospel to be careful when being angry with a brother, when using abusive language against him, when holding him in contempt. He even says that those who do these things risk the fires of Gehenna.
Does this mean that we are never to be angry or express our anger in our words and, in the process, show contempt for a brother? Not entirely, although I believe that we are to be careful to direct our harsh words and feelings at a brother's conduct and not at the brother himself. And, at any rate, our feelings and harsh words are to be directed toward reconciliation. Elijah showed this in his words and actions. And Jesus implies as much by following up his warning against anger, abusive language, and contempt by exhorting his disciples to be reconciled with a brother when he has something againt them.
Now you might say, "It is the bishops who need to seek reconciliation, not us. We have something against them, not the other way around." This is true. However, we also, in the midst of our righteous anger, justified complaints, and understandable contempt, never forget that each and every one of us are sinners. Each of us have others who hold something against us. Each of us need to seek to be reconciled with these others.
Nevertheless, in considering the relationship between those of us who have spoken and written angry words against some of our bishops and priests, I would have us once again consider the example of Elijah. He, a prophet of the Lord, had been continually offended by the infidelity of Ahab and the people. But it was not Ahab and the people who sought reconciliation. It was Elijah who brought them to their senses and reconciled them with the Lord.
He did this through anger, abusive words, and contempt--all directed toward reconciliation. May our own anger, abusive words, and contempt seek the same reconciliation.
Wednesday, June 12, 2002
Church History & The Situation, Part II
Would a better a knowledge of Church history help the faithful come to terms with the current crisis in the Church in America?
Allow me to preface my answer to this question by stating my recognition that some people who believe, to varying degrees, that The Situation is largely media driven and is an attack upon the Church sometimes appeal to the history of the Church in an attempt to show that the current crisis is, by comparison, not as sensational or as threatening as previous scandals which the Church successfully endured.
While the nature of the media has changed dramatically over the past 50 or more years, allowing us if we so choose to be bombarded by 'all news all the time', I still maintain that the media would not be reporting these sins and crimes if they had not occurred. I also hold that the more the faithful react as if it is the Church that is being attacked, the longer it will take for the entire truth to be revealed. And I believe that healing will come to Church only when the truth about the sinfulness of some of its leaders are revealed in such a way that the revelation brings no more harm to the victims of the sins.
That having been said, I do believe that a basic knowledge of the history of the Church would help the faithful in coming to terms with The Situation and help restore their trust in the future of the Church.
As I have noted earlier, the Church has been plagued by scandals in every age, from the time of the apostles to the present. Now the quick (but no less true) response to this truth is that only a divine institution could endure through the scandals that it inflicted upon itself and still survive. Or to put it a little more colorfully, as a seminary professor (himself a convert) for my pastor explained it: "The Catholic Church is the only institution that has continually taken a meat clever to itself and still survived. It has to be a divine institution."
This, as I said, is the quick answer. I believe, however, that it can and should be elaborated upon. For a recognition that the Church, as a divine institution, will endure through any crisis, could serve as a significant disincentive for change and reform. We could all shrug our shoulders and say, "Whats the use of change? Believers are always going to sin and God is always going to bail us out."
Such a reaction reminds of Paul's words to the faithful in Rome: "...[W]here sin increased, grace overflowed all the more...What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not!...Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? Of course not!...But now that you have been freed from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit that you have leads to sanctification, and its end is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 5:20b, 6:1, 15, 22-23)
It also reminds me of a message that he wrote in his second letter to the faithful in Corinth: "If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness...I will rather boast most gladly of my weaknesses, in order that the power of Christ may dwell with me. Therefore, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and constraints, for the sake of Christ; for when I am weak, then I am strong." (2 Cor 11:30, 12:9c-10)
Countless men and women, in every age and in every place where the Church has been planted, have reacted to the scandals that plagued the faithful in their time by giving themselves over all the more to the life of grace. And through many of the great reformers, founders of religious orders, and other nameless believers, God's grace has indeed overflowed all the more where sin had previously abounded.
This has often happened in circumstances where the future of the Church looked particularly bleak, where the leaders of the Church and the faithful as a whole showed themselves to be particularly weak. But it was at these times that these blessed believers boasted in their own weakness so that the power of Christ would dwell in them.
A good example of this is the reaction of the faithful in France to the ravages brought upon the Church, both from within and from its enemies without during the time of the French Revolution and the reign of Napoleon. Several vibrant religious orders were founded in the decades that followed the Napoleon's final defeat. The first person to be beatified who was connected by and large with the state of Indiana, Bl. Mother Theodore Guerin, was a product of this great renewal. And could there be no greater example during this time of the power of Christ shining through human weakness than that of St. Jean Vianney, the Cure of Ars?
The great renewal in the life of the Church in France following the revolution of 1789 is just one example of how simple faithful Catholics, giving themselves to the life of grace, can be instruments through which the glorious power of Christ can be revealed anew.
The more that the faithful of our time know about this continuing theme in the history of the Church, the more, I believe that their faith in the future of the Church can be strengthened.
The question that I addressed today is suited to the particularities of our own day. But The Situation has, I believe, raised much more fundamental questions about the nature of the Church, questions which can be answered in part by an examination of its history. Therefore, the next question that I will address will be the following: If scandals have always plagued the Church, why does it still exist?
Clarification on the missionary work of Martin Burnham
As reported by Baptist Press News, Martin and Gracia Burnham were affiliated with New Tribes Mission, an organization dedicated to "evangelize unreached people groups."
After perusing NTM's 'purpose and vision' statment and their statements on doctrine and core values, I could not determine how they defined 'unreached people.'
What would Martin Burnham have said about this?
Apparently the Southern Baptist Convention are going to play hardball when it comes to their missionaries signing their "Statement of Faith" (rev. 2000). If they do not sign it, then they cannot represent the SBC and they will lose any funding from the denomination.
A member of the SBC International Missionary Board said that "the best way to repel accusations of "heresy" was to sign" the document. Considering the fact that Protestant missionary Martin Burnham had died the day after this story was written, I think that a lot of missionaries are more concerned about repelling bullets than accusations of heresy.
Addendum: As a Catholic, I can understand the need and desire for a well ordered community of faith. However, in my opinion, it seems that an organizaton such as decentralized as the SBC, which describes the Church founded by Christ as "an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers", will have a difficult time justifying missionaries in the far flung corners of the world having to agree with the last dot and tittle of this statement.
What are your views on this?
Bring Us Back to Our Senses:
A Reflection on Today's Mass Readings
Wednesday of the 10th Week of Ordinary Time, Year II
1 Kgs 18:20-39
Ps 16:1b-2ab, 4, 5ab and 8, 11
Mt 5:17-19
In the midst of the contest between Elijah and the prophets of Baal, with the people of Israel looking on, I can imagine the lone prophet of the Lord shaking his head and mumbling to himself, "I don't know whether to laugh or to cry." The wishy-washy Israelites are rather laughable. The outrageous prophets of Baal (all 450 of them) seem to have the prat fall comedy schtick down with all of their hopping, screaming, and sword play. And Elijah's running commentary sounds like something out of Jay Leno.
Yes, all of this just goes to show that the scriptures do have a good amount of humor in them (just read through the Book of Tobit or the Book of Jonah sometime without any pre-conceptions--you'll see). But, as the saying goes, the subject here is no laughing matter. Indeed, instead of laughing, Elijah could have been crying. For the people before whom he stood had not strayed away from just some minor religious teachings or practices, they had denied the Lord himself and gone over to worship an idol.
Elijah brought these people back, not through an appeal to their heart or mind in a persuasive speech, but in wondrous signs worked before their eyes by the Lord through the prophet's intercession. He did indeed desire to bring them "back to their senses." And in order that no one could be skeptical and claim that Elijah had pulled a great trick in bringing down the fire upon the sacrifice, he had twelve jars of water poured upon it all. It was clear to all, then, that no one under these conditions could set the young bull and the wood ablaze.
And so when, after the prophet called upon the Lord to help the people know that he was God, to bring them back to their senses, not only was the bull and wood consumed by the heavenly fire, but the entire altar of stone, the dust all around, and even the water that had been poured into a trench around the sacrifice. The Lord, having appealed to a people that would only be convinced by signs that they could know through their senses, received once again their homage.
Recognizing the Lord as God and doing this by following his commandments is a great sign of humility. It is an acknowledgment on our part that there is someone greater than ourselves, someone who knows what is for our good better than ourselves. Pride, on the other hand, would have us create idols for ourselves and have us whisper to ourselves whatever command that we want to hear and then calling it divine.
The Israelites and the prophets of Baal had gone so far in their own pride that they had become quite absurd. They had deceived themselves to such an extent that anyone with any common sense that Baal was just a powerless idol while the Lord was God indeed. Through this story, then, we can see that the Lord can even use the sin of human pride to reveal his glory. But isn't shown forth all the more clearly in humble obedience?
This is what Jesus exhorted his listeners to when, in today's Gospel, he said that he had "come not to abolish but to fulfill" the Law and the prophets, that they were to follow them "until all things have taken place." Now, of course, we believe that, in a sense, the these 'things' to which he was referring was his passion, death, and resurrection. But even then, the wisdom of the Law still reflects the wisdom of God.
So many of the basic teachings of the Old Testament still have a binding relevance in our lives. Let us not, in our pride, make arguments that say that teachings like the Ten Commandments, are merely reflective of a particular culture in a particular time and place. In some ways they very much are. But that does not mean that they have no relevance now.
Sometimes the contortions that both academicians and the average parishioner make in trying to slip away from God's commands can be as comical as the show that the prophets of Baal put on. Take us, Lord, out of the whirlwind of our own prideful thoughts, desire, and passions, and bring us back to our senses. Reveal in our midst once again your glory.
Novena of the Litany of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Priest and Victim
In prospect of the American bishops' meeting, Dallas, May 13-15, 2002
Day Nine
Prayer for today, from the Sacramentary of the Roman Missal, the opening prayer of the Mass for Promoting Harmony:
God our Father, source of unity and love, make your faithful people one in heart and mind that your Church may live in harmony, be steadfast in its profession of faith, and secure in unity. We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
(This is also number 33 in Appendix III of current volume of the Liturgy of the Hours.)
Litany of Our Lord Jesus Christ Priest and Victim
Intentions for Prayer Vigil for Holiness During Bishop’s Meeting, Dallas, May 13-15, 2002
Tuesday, June 11, 2002
Something Significant Accomplished
I've cleaned off my desk for the first time since the baby was born! Ahh...that feels much better now. Well, I'm going home to try to get the lawn mowed before the storms move in. And while I ride around on our Craftsman, I'll be giving some thought to the next question in my series of posts on Church History and The Situation: Would a better knowledge of Church history by today's faithful help them in coming to grips with our current crisis?
Not what the average Joe thinks about when mowing the lawn, huh?
Tim Drake on Blogging
Go to Tim Drake's blog for an article he wrote on Catholic bloggers that was published in the National Catholic Register.
Church History & The Situation, Part I
Yesterday, Amy Welborn posted a long and thoughtful reflection on The Situation entitled 'No Simple Solution.' It would seem that her primary message in this post is that when the bishops meet in Dallas, they need to:
reassure the Catholic faithful that their primary concern is Christ and that it is His voice which they are discerning and are committed to follow.
She then goes on to explain the reason why such a basic message needs to be sent out from Dallas:
For you see, over the past decades, for scores of reasons, the Catholic faithful have come to doubt very much that their leaders, from bishops on down, can be depended on to be led by Christ alone.
Now, for my own part, I agree in large part with what Amy has to say regarding what the bishops should do and say in Dallas. And, I suppose that I even agree with her reason, strictly stated, for why this task is to be done. She says that it is the 'Catholic faithful' who, 'over the past decades', 'come to doubt very much that their leaders, from bishops on down, can be depended on to be led by Christ alone.'
Now, in the light of her analysis of what should be done in Dallas and why, I have asked myself questions such as these:
'Has it been only in the past few decades that the Catholic faithful have come to doubt their leaders in this way?',
'If such doubts have existed throughout the history of the Church (and I believe they have), would a better knowledge of them by today's faithful help them in our current crisis?'.
I have even re-examined some more fundamental questions such as,
'If such doubts about the leadership of the Church have always been present, why does the Church still exist?',
and
'Why am I myself still in the Church, given its history?'
Answers to the questions will inevitably be complex. And so I will address them one by one, in different posts.
Has it only been in the "past decades" that the "Catholic faithful have come doubt very much that their leaders, from bishops on down, can be depended on to be led by Christ alone."
In short: no. Various parts of the Catholic faithful have, to varying degrees, doubted in every age of the Church's history the sincere leadership of their priests and bishops. In the apostolic age of the Church, there were deep divisions over the issue of whether or not observance of the Law was required of the followers of Christ. Many felt that it was required. Many others felt that it was not. And I believe that scripture itself (Gal 2:1-14 is a clear example, although others also exist) attests to the fact that some of the leaders of the early Church (Peter included) were questioned as to whether they were truly following the message of the Gospel.
Such questioning, it would seem, occurred not only among the general body of the faithful, but among the leaders themselves. When Peter, who had eaten with Gentiles, later chose only to eat with Jews, Paul 'opposed him to his face, because he was wrong.' But I tend to think that such opposition was not based solely on principle, but also on Paul's fear that Peter's behavior would be a stumbling block, a 'scandalon', a scandal to the Gentile believers.
Such scandals in the behavior of bishops and priests have existed in all ages of the Church. In the patristic era it happened when some bishops and priests concerned themselves first with the favor of the emperor than with the favor of Christ. In the middle ages and during the era of the Reformation, various bishops and priests often listened to the voice of greed and political power than to the voice of Christ. It was also during this time (and surely before as well) that some of the same sins were committed that have been revealed to have been committed by many of our own leaders. Similar scandals have emerged in the time since the Reformation, all the way up to and following the Second Vatican Council.
And all of these scandals have been the motivation for various members of the faithful to, in Amy's words, 'doubt very much that their leaders, from bishops on down, can be depended on to be led by Christ alone.'
After becoming aware of this, one might think that the more one knows about Church history, the harder it is to remain a believer. So each of the following questions to be addressed in later posts will, in part, address this issue. And the next question that I will address will be, "Would a better knowledge of Church history be helpful for the Catholic faithful in the face of The Situation?"
A Ministry of Encouragement:
A Reflection on Today's Mass Readings
Memorial of St. Barnabas, apostle
Please note: The readings for the day on the USCCB's website were not the proper readings for the day that I had found in my own lectionary. Therefore on the list of readings below, I have links to the readings that are particularly called for on the Memorial of St. Barnabas
Acts 11:21-26, 13:1-3
Ps 98:1-6
Mt 10:7-13
What was going on in Antioch worried many of the believers in Jerusalem. They were concerned that the acceptance of the Gospel by so many Gentiles would mean that the observance of the Law and other Jewish practices would become less important among the followers of Jesus. So they sent a good man in their Church, Barnabas, to go and see first hand what was happening.
But what others had felt was a cause for anxiety, Barnabas saw as a reason for rejoicing. He took joy in the changes brought about in the Gentile believers in Antioch, a town known far and wide for its wickedness and licentiousness. And so he encouraged them to remain firm in the faith that they had already received.
It would seem that Barnabas put more priority on praising the progress the believers there had already made than on immediately laying upon them any requirement regarding the Law. And it would seem that through this approach and through his teaching that many more became believers. In fact, the Church in Antioch became strong enough in the year that Barnabas was there that the believers there felt confident enough in their faith to send him and Paul off as apostles, to do in other cities what they had together there.
In the midst of the uncertainty of a young Church and the anxiety of an established one, Barnabas truly lived out the meaning of his name. He was a 'son of encouragement.' He followed Jesus' commands heard in today's Gospel and showed the believers in Antioch how close they were to the reign of God. What an encouraging message! And such encouragement came, not through any gold, silver, or copper that Barnabas could have brought with him, or the prestige shown by fine clothes, but alone through his joy-filled words, inspired by the Spirit and strengthened by his faith.
Indeed, when Barnabas arrived in Antioch, he blessed the house that he entered, the house of God t hat was the body of believers there. And over the course of the year that he was there that blessing descended upon them. He took a potentially tense and worrisome situation and, under the guidance of the Spirit, made it an occasion of encouragement and rejoicing.
The story of Barnabas can surely be good news for us today. We can learn from him how to see how close to us is God's reign, even in the midst of the anxiety of our own lives, the life of our families, and the life of our Church. And so may God, through the intercession of St. Barnabas, fill us all with the encouragement of the Spirit and help us proclaim with great joy that his reign is truly at hand!
(For a different perspective on today's Gospel, go read what Peter Nixon has to say at his blog, Sursum Corda)
Novena of the Litany of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Priest and Victim
In prospect of the American bishops' meeting, Dallas, May 13-15, 2002
Day Eight
Prayer for today, from the Sacramentary of the Roman Missal, the opening prayer of one of the Masses for Pastoral or Spiritual Meetings:
Lord, pour out on us the spirit of understanding, truth, and peace. Help us to strive with all our hearts to know what is pleasing to you, and when we know your will make us determined to do it. We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
(This is also number 16 in Appendix III of current volume of the Liturgy of the Hours.)
Litany of Our Lord Jesus Christ Priest and Victim
Intentions for Prayer Vigil for Holiness During Bishop’s Meeting, Dallas, May 13-15, 2002
Monday, June 10, 2002
Upcoming Post on Church History & The Situation
For those two or three of you who actually came to this blog before making the obligatory visit to Amy Welborn's In Between Naps, I would recommend that you go there and read her thoughtful post on The Situation entitled 'No Simple Solution.' I submitted my own comment there where I suggest that we look at the current crisis from a wider historical viewpoint. I hope either sometime this evening or tomorrow morning to write an extended reflection upon the relationship of Church history and The Situation.
Sadly, the past and the present meet again
I learned of this sad news item from Amy Welborn's blog. Two monks were killed today in a shooting at Conception Abbey in Conception, MO.
I must say that I was shocked when I read it. But my astonishment was increased when I realized that I was writing my reflection on today's Mass readings (see below) at about the same of the shooting itself. In my reflection, I spoke about how the monk, St. Meinrad, welcomed all guests as Christ, even those that he knew were going to murder him.
I suspect that the monks who died today had no foreknowledge of their death. On the other hand, I imagine that the open, welcoming nature of most monasteries would make it very easy for such an event, like today's tragedy, to occur. It is sad to see the events of the past and present meet as they have done today.
I pray that God may strengthen all Benedictines in their service of hospitality in the face of such horror.
Hoping against Hope:
A Reflection upon My Child's Baptism & Sunday's Mass Readings
Tenth Sunday of Ordinary Time, Cycle A
Hos 6:3-6
Ps 50:1, 8, 12-13, 14-15
Rom 4:18-25
Mt 9:9-13
Last Saturday evening during 5:00pm Mass at the parish where I serve as DRE, my wife Cindy and I brought our son, Michael Joseph, before God and the Church and asked that he be baptized. As I reflect upon this blessed event, one section at the start of the Rite of Baptism continues to strike me, to strike fear in me:
The Celebrant: You have asked to have your child baptized. In doing so you are accepting the responsibility of training him in the practice of the faith. It will be your duty to bring him up to keep God's commandments as Christ taught us, by loving God and our neighbor. Do you clearly understand what you are undertaking?
Obviously, this is a very serious question. It should not be seen as merely formulaic. Are Cindy and I truly able to fulfill this solemn duty, this sacred responsibility? Are we even able to understand them, let alone fulfill them?
Such honest questions, motivated by a humble and healthy self doubt, did not, however, prevent us from responding, 'We do.' We were able to respond in this way because of our knowledge and experience of the mercy of God. He knows that we will, at times, fail in our duties and reponsibilities to our child. We who are unable to fully practice the faith according to God's commandments will surely fall short of the ideal held up to us by the celebrant in his question to us.
We were able to respond in this way because of our knowledge and experience of the grace of God. Yes, we recognize that we will not be able to follow through in our duties. Through our sinfulness we will fail our child at times. But where sin has prevailed, grace will prevail all the more. God will aid us with his grace in our brokenness as we strive to raise Michael to be a follower of his Son.
And we were able to respond "We do" because of the consolation given to us in the readings that had just been proclaimed. In the first reading, the prophet Hosea, speaking in the name of the Lord, tells them (and us) that "it is love that I desire, not sacrifice,
and knowledge of God rather than holocausts." Surely when Cindy and I continually place high expectations upon ourselves as parents, desiring to do all of the best things for Michael, we are trying to place before the Lord the most precious sacrifice and holocaust that we could offer.
Of course, we never meet up to our these expectations. But God didn't place them upon our shoulders. We ourselves did. God does not desire us to follow all of the high ideals of parenthood which, at any rate, seem to change from generation to generation. What God does desire is simply that, in both our successes and our failures as parents, we simply love Michael and help him to come to his own knowledge of the presence of God in his life.
Paul's reflections on Abraham in the second reading also gave us hope in the face of such serious duties and responsibilities. For he wrote of how this old man and his barren old wife were both 'hoping against hope' in their trust that God would make them the parents of a great nation. In fact, the more he knew of his own shortcomings, the more he was able to trust in God and give him glory.
That, indeed, is how it will be with Cindy and I in our sacred duties to Michael. We are well aware of our own faults and failings. And the more we enter into this humble knowledge, the more we can only depend upon God to aid us in training Michael in the practice of the faith, in bringing him up to follow God's commandments. In this knowledge and in this trust, our eyes will be open to see the wonders that God works in our lives, our tongues will be loosed to sing his praise. This in itself will be a great aid in our fulfilling our duties and responsibilities.
The Gospel reading, of course, gives us parents the most comfort of all. Jesus' words, 'Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. ... I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.' of course were spoken to all of us. But, in many ways, I think that they especially apply to us Catholic parents. Being a good parent is hard enough. Simply caring for the physical and psychological needs of a child is a terrific challenge. But when the spiritual needs are added in, the challenge can be overwhelming.
Standing before all of these needs can, again, make Cindy and I quite aware of our own shortcomings. But this knowledge does not fill us with despair but hope. For we have chosen to trust in Jesus' words. The healing grace of this divine physician will bind the wounds of our sinfulness and raise us up to be loving and providing parents for all of Michael's needs: physical, psychological, and spiritual.
When the holy water was poured over his tiny head, the floodgates of God's grace were opened. His grace will flow upon him every day of his life. But this holy event also saw grace being poured upon us, his parents, as well. For God will surely aid us in our need, as we strive to help Michael come to cooperate with that grace that he has given him in this sacrament.
Catholic Lay Missionaries
Last week I wrote that the example of Protestant missionary Martin Burnham was a challenge to lay Catholics to get more involved in the missionary work of proclaiming the Gospel. Well, I've been searching internet for websites dedicated to organizations that have sponsor or support Catholic lay mission workers both here in America and around the world. The searching hasn't been easy, but here are some results:
Catholic Extension: Supporting Missionary Work in America
Glenmary Home Mission Sisters
Maryknoll Mission Family
Sending Out Servants
Comboni Lay Mission Program
Society of African Missions--Lay Program
Claretian Volunteers
Catholic World Mission
Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate--Lay Oblate Missionaries
Missionary Society of St. Columban--Lay Missionaries
This is just a small list of links to organizatons that sponsor or support lay Catholic missionaries. I am also aware that many dioceses and parishes support groups of the faithful in their area in mission work. If you have websites of other organizations, dioceses, or parishes that support these folks, let me know, and I'll put together another list later. Lets get the good news out about Catholic lay missionaries!
Blessed Are the Pure of Heart: Seeking God in All Places, at All Times, in All People
A Reflection on Today's Mass Readings
Monday of the Tenth Week of Ordinary Time, Year II
1 Kgs 17:1-6
Ps 121:1bc-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8
Mt 5:1-12
If you ever have the opportunity to visit the Archabbey Church of Our Lady of Einseideln in St. Meinrad, IN, you will see a series of windows depicting the beatitudes as St. Matthew recounted them in today's Gospel reading. From window to window, various saints are portrayed living out the particular virtue which Jesus praised on the mountaintop.
But as might be expected in this church of the Benedictine monks of St. Meinrad Archabbey, the window that stands out among all the others is the one which illustrates 'Blessed are the pure of heart.' In it is seen St. Benedict gazing at Christ enthroned in glory with a pathway made of a tapestry, lined with lamps, leading straight from the 6th century monk to the heavenly court. It shows Benedict at his death as described by St. Gregory the Great in Book II of his Dialogues.
In his living and in his dying, Benedict was a powerful example of this beatitude. To be 'pure of heart', or 'singlehearted', or 'clean of heart' (as various translations have it), is to live for the single desire of serving God. This does not mean that one's life is focused on just one task. A quick reading of St. Benedict's Rule. will show how mult-faceted the life of a monastery is. The monks do lots of different tasks. And their work is balanced with prayer (public and private) at various times of the day.
All of this, however, is directed at serving God. The presence of Christ is to be sought and honored is so many different people: in the abbot, in the sick, in guests, simply in one another. The ordinary work tools of the monastery were to be cared for as if they were the sacred vessels of the altar, showing how the divine was discerned in the mundane. No matter what a monk does, where he is at, or with whom he finds himself, he is to seek God. He is to be pure of heart.
A few centuries after Benedict's death, one of his followers, a monk named Meinrad, showed in his living how this spiritual virtue was also enfleshed in the ancient prophets. For God allowed him to imitate the prophet Elijah. While living in his hermitage in the wilderness, Meinrad had food brought to him by ravens, just as we see being done for Elijah in today's first reading. Meinrad, in his daily tasks and prayers, in his hospitality and humility, sought the presence of God all around him, he sought the face of God in all of his visitors. This was true even when he knew that two of his visitors had come to murder him.
Elijah, Benedict, and Meinrad were all singlehearted in uncertain times when it would have been natural to focus first on protecting oneself. Elijah remained true to the word that the Lord spoke to him and to his covenant with the people of Israel even when the rest of the nation and the king himself abandoned it and violently opposed the prophet.
Benedict lived in a time when Italy was filled with the violence of war. Many living there wondered if God had abandoned his people. But Pope St. Gregory wrote his Dialogues, a collection of stories of saints (including Benedict) from his own time, in Italy, to show them that God indeed was still working through his faithful. They could work through them, too, if they would be pure of heart, like St. Benedict.
St. Meinrad, too, lived during a time when there was little power wielded by a central government. No one, not even a holy man of God, could expect to be protected from either robbers living nearby or invaders coming from afar. And yet his purity of heart, his focus on God, allowed him to live in serenity in the midst of great uncertainty.
All of these men might seem to be quite different from you and I. They were prophets, monks, and hermits. Their world was so entirely different from our own. But I believe that we can all be prophets like Elijah by being true to God's word in our daily life, even if that can make our relationships uncomfortable at times. We can follow the example of St. Benedict by deliberately seeking the presence of God in all that we do, in all whom we meet. And we can be challenged by St. Meinrad to welcome as Christ all who come to us, be they threatening beggars, selfish relatives, or betraying friends.
We, like those men, live in uncertain times. Some priests and bishops who may have appeared to have been holy now have been revealed to be great sinners and habitual criminals. And yet I, like Gregory writing about the saints of his own tumultuous days, believe that there are holy men and women living among us this very day, even if they may be living very ordinary lives. Let us seek them out and thank God for them. And let us, with the aid of God's grace, strive to be pure of heart and so be small examples of holiness for others.
(For a different perspective on today's Gospel, go read what Peter Nixon has to say at his blog, Sursum Corda)
Novena of the Litany of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Priest and Victim
Novena of the Litany of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Priest and Victim
In prospect of the American bishops' meeting, Dallas, May 13-15, 2002
Day Seven
Prayer for today, from the Sacramentary of the Roman Missal, the opening prayer of the Mass for the Local Church:
God our Father, in all the churches scattered throughout the world you show forth the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Through the gospel and the eucharist bring your people together in the Holy Spirit and guide us in your love. Make us a sign of your love for all people, and help us to show forth the living presence of Christ in the world, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
(This is also number 5 in Appendix III of current volume of the Liturgy of the Hours.)
Litany of Our Lord Jesus Christ Priest and Victim
Intentions for Prayer Vigil for Holiness During Bishop’s Meeting, Dallas, May 13-15, 2002
Saturday, June 08, 2002
No homily from Fr. Shawn O'Neal this week
Many of you may remember that Fr. Shawn O'Neal, formerly of the blog Onealism, was going to have me post his Sunday homily on this blog, usually on Friday afternoons. Well, Fr. Shawn is on vacation at the moment, far away from his home in North Carolina. He's bopping around the Pacific northwest, madly searching for homes that have cable and who don't mind a soccer-hungry priest hanging around at 3:00am.
So, needless to say, there will be no Sunday homily from Fr. Shawn. But, if you listen closely, you might be able to hear him scream "Goooooooooaaaaaaaaalllllllll!" when the US (or any of his other half dozen favorite teams) score one.
Busy Day, Little Blogging
Today, I'll be singing at a wedding and having my son, Michael Joseph, baptized at 5:00 Mass at St. Joseph Parish, where I serve as DRE. I have to do a number of domestic things in the morning, so there will little time for blogging.
As of this moment, I have not received the latest installment of the Novena of the Litany of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Priest and Victim. Go 'The Blog from the Core' for Day Five of the novena.
First Installment of my Weekly Column
Take the link to The Shelbyville News if you want to read the first installment of new weekly column for the newspaper. The running title of the column is 'Spiritual Reflections.'
Friday, June 07, 2002
A New Column for Me
In tomorrow's edition of The Shelbyville News, my first installment of a weekly column that I will do the paper will appear. The Shelbyville News is the weekly newspaper of Shelbyville, IN, the town where I was born and raised and where I now serve as DRE in the local Catholic parish, St. Joseph. The running title of the column will be 'Spiritual Reflections.'
Tomorrow I'll provide a link to the page on the website where my column will appear.
The Burnhams and My Views on Evangelical Missionizing
Some of you who read my blog on a regular basis may have found it a bit odd that, in honoring Martin Burnham in my previous post, I did not mention my difficulties with evangelical Christians missionizing in traditionally Catholic lands that I discussed a few back in a post on St. Charles Lwanga.
First, I simply did not think it appropriate to expound upon own views on a controverted topic while trying to honor an honest Christian who gave his life while proclaiming the Gospel. Second, while the Philippines has a large Catholic population, the current struggles going on there with the Islamic rebel group known as Abu Sayaff is evidence of the religious pluralism existing in that country. And the fact that the Burnhams were captured in an area where Abu Sayaff were active might be evidence that they were working among Moslems and not Catholics.
But even if they were working among Catholics, I still have to say (as I did the other day) that my feelings about such proselytizing are not one-sided but rather mixed. I am a bit frustrated that evangelical Christians see a need to 'build on another's foundation' (Rom 15:20) but I also saddened that we Catholics have, in many places, only laid a foundation and have built precious little on top of it.
In the end I am see the story of Martin and Gracia Burnham as a challenge to lay Catholics. I know that there are many lay Catholics working as missionaries around the world. Maybe the rest of us need to learn more about them, publicize their stories more, and encourage more to follow them.
On the surface, the Burnhams seem like an average husband and wife, father and mother, living in the midwest, practicing their faith. Were they Catholics, they could have easily been an average set of parishioners in an average parish. But their faith was so strong that it impelled them to leave their children in the care of other relatives and travel to a place the Philippines, a place very different from their home in Witchita, KS. Would that the faith of us average Catholics be as powerful as that of the Burnhams.
In Memoriam: Martin Burnham (1960-2002)
I learned this morning of the death of the Protestant missionary Martin Burnham while listening to the radio this morning as I was getting ready to go to my office. When I arrived, I sat down to read, pray with, and write about today's Mass readings. But, at the time, I had forgotten that today was the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart and so I read what would have been simply the readings for the Friday of the ninth week in Ordinary Time, Year II. I think that they speak well of Martin Burnham's life and death.
Here is a list of those readings with links to them:
2 Tm 3:10-17
Ps 119:157, 160, 161, 156-166, 168
Mk 12:35-37
Paul certainly is very clear about the cost of being a disciple of Jesus. He tells Timothy directly that "all who want to live religiously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted." When I read his words, written almost 2000 years ago, my mind immediately turns to Martin Burnham, a Protestant missionary, held prisoner in the Philippines for over a year, and killed today in an attempt to rescue them. I think also of his wife, wounded in the attempt, and surely a witness to his death.
This husband and wife trusted Jesus so much that they gave up their comfortable life in Witchita, KS to proclaim his Gospel in a land far away, one filled with violence. They were imitators of Paul who also left his comfortable life in Antioch to proclaim the Gospel and experience persecution in the cities of Asia Minor (today, modern Turkey).
When he reminded Timothy of his sufferings in those places, there is no tinge of regret in his words. Rather, he only focuses on the "teaching, way of life, purpose, faith, patience, love, [and] endurance" which allowed him to carry on in the face of so much violent opposition. Surely all of these grace-inspired traits filled Martin and Gracia in their time as missionaries and at the time of Martin's final trial.
People like Martin Burnham, Paul, and Timothy were citizens of the Kingdom who walked on the earth. Martin was able to use his citizenship in this prosperous country to make possible his trip half way around the world to proclaim the Gospel. Paul used his Roman citizenship to be able to go that city, if only as a prisoner, to do the same. Both of these men put their earthly citizenship to the service of the heavenly one.
The scribes to which Jesus referred in the Gospel looked to the ruling families of the day for the coming of the Messiah. Jesus, on the other hand, said that the Messiah would be someone who would transcend any secular ruler. Many in the crowd who listened to Jesus delighted in his words, for their rulers were far from Messiah material and often only brought them misery and pain.
In a world that gravitates around economic, political, and military power, a person who will instead place his or her trust in the power of grace will indeed expect to be persecuted. Paul and Timothy knew this. So did Martin Burnham, who fell through a clashing of opposing military forces. And yet it would appear that none of these men counted the cost of such trust. They had no doubt that the Lord in whom they placed their trust had already conquered all of these earthly powers that so many others turn to in their need.
On this day, Martin Burnham, in his death, has served as a prophet for us, speaking to us in his being faithful to the end, of the steadfast love of God for us. May God on this day that has seen Martin being taken to heaven like Elijah, give us a double portion of his spirit and so have our trust in the Lord Jesus increased.
A Reflection on Today's Mass Readings
The Solemnity of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus
Dt 7:6-11
Ps 103:1-2, 3-4, 6-7, 8, 10
1 Jn 4:7-16
Mt 11:25-30
In two days, my wife Cindy and I will celebrate the first anniversary of our wedding. We will observe that day with joy and happiness, calling to mind that day when God joined us together as one in his Spirit and marvelling at the wonders he has wrought in our lives in just twelve short months. But in a real sense, we will also be observing this anniversary today, for we believe that the Sacred Heart of Jesus, whose solemnity we celebrate this day, has a special meaning for us and for all husbands and wives.
The Sacred Heart is a special sign to all believers of the unfathomable love that God has for us, of that love which we can experience through our baptism, and of that love that we are invited to show one another. For us who find much of our meaning through those material things which come to us through our senses, the Sacred Heart is a tangible symbol of that spiritual love that knows no end. That love is also revealed in our midst through the sacrament of holy matrimony.
In today's second reading, John beautifully writes of the mystery of this love. He tells us that, although "no one has ever seen God", his presence is in us, and his love is perfected in us "if we love one another." Cindy and I choose this same reading as the second reading for our wedding. For us it spoke of the love which God was giving to us, which we were to show one another, and which we together were to share with the Church and the world.
Not long after we exchanged our vows, after we had become that sacrament of God's unending love for all to see through faith, the priest presiding at the Mass exhorted all present to 'lift up their hearts.' At that moment, Cindy and I lifted up our hearts in rejoicing to Jesus who joined them together with that powerful love that flows from his Sacred Heart. And ever since that moment, we have been growing more and more into that unity where his love becomes all the more real for us and for others who see us as a sacrament.
Yes, our wedding was a day of rejoicing. But holy matrimony is not all rainbows and roses. Neither is the Sacred Heart. It and marriage are as much about mercy and forgiveness as they are about love and comfort. Yes, at our wedding we knew the love of God poured upon us through Jesus' Sacred Heart. But the mercy of God poured upon all of humanity through that same Sacred Heart has been revealed in our marriage through the forgiveness that we have shown each other in times of trial. Indeed, it is actually through this mercy and forgiveness that we are brought back to that love and our knowledge and experience of it is being ever expanded.
We are now coming into a season where there will be many weddings in our churches. Many of us may roll our eyes at the commercialism that has taken them over, at how this celebration which is for the whole Church is now a privatized event with only a select few (well, select hundreds in many cases...) friends and family witnessing them, at the lack of understanding on the part of many brides and grooms of the powerful sacrament into which they are entering.
But lets not let cynicism rule the day. May all of us call upon Jesus to pour out his love through his Sacred Heart upon all couples who are preparing to be married. May that same Sacred Heart fill them with mercy and forgiveness for each other in the challenging times that surely lie ahead. And may Jesus help all of us see in all husbands and wives a real and tangible sign of the love and mercy that he has for all of humanity, a love and mercy which continually flows out to us from his Sacred Heart.
(For a different perspective on today's Gospel, go read what Peter Nixon has to say at his blog, Sursum Corda)
Novena of the Litany of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Priest and Victim
In prospect of the American bishops' meeting, Dallas, May 13-15, 2002
Day Four
Prayer for today, from the Sacramentary of the Roman Missal, the opening prayer of the Mass for the Local Church:
God our Father, in all the churches scattered throughout the world you show forth the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Through the gospel and the eucharist bring your people together in the Holy Spirit and guide us in your love. Make us a sign of your love for all people, and help us to show forth the living presence of Christ in the world, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
(This is also number 5 in Appendix III of current volume of the Liturgy of the Hours.)
Litany of Our Lord Jesus Christ Priest and Victim
Intentions for Prayer Vigil for Holiness During Bishop’s Meeting, Dallas, May 13-15, 2002
Thursday, June 06, 2002
Connecting Faith and Morals
Maureen McHugh over at her blog, Religion of Sanity, has quoted from a recent edition of Catholic Dossier in order to support her belief that the crisis in the Church in America is due to a discontinuity between faith and morals.
I heard this topic discussed on several occasions when I was at St. Meinrad School of Theology. Its president rector, Fr. Mark O'Keefe, OSB, is a moral theologian, and has written a book on this topic, entitled Becoming Good, Becoming Holy: On the Relationship of Christian Ethics and Spirituality, published by Paulist Press.
I'd highly recommend it to anyone who agrees with Maureen. While it does not address the crisis in the Church in America, if each of us take the book's message to heart, then we will all be contributing, in some small way, to a renewal of our Church.
Shopping & Not Feeling Well (Are the Two Connected?)
Haven't done much blogging today because I had to go shopping for a new suit. Then I got back to my office with a horrible headache. Hmmm...I wonder if the two are connected?
By the way, I got the suit because on this coming Saturday, our son, Michael Joseph, will be baptized at 5:00 Mass at the parish where I serve as DRE and where I was born and raised. He'll be baptized in a font that was purchased with donations made to the parish in the name of my grandmother who passed away two years ago.
More reflections on this event in the next day or so...
Novena of the Litany of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Priest and Victim
In prospect of the American bishops' meeting, Dallas, May 13-15, 2002
Day Three
Prayer for today, from the Sacramentary of the Roman Missal, the opening prayer of the Mass for Promoting Harmony:
God our Father, source of unity and love, make your faithful people one in heart and mind that your Church may live in harmony, be steadfast in its profession of faith, and secure in unity. We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
(This is also number 33 in Appendix III of current volume of the Liturgy of the Hours.)
Litany of Our Lord Jesus Christ Priest and Victim
Intentions for Prayer Vigil for Holiness During Bishop’s Meeting, Dallas, May 13-15, 2002
Getting Back to the Basics:
A Reflection on Today's Mass Readings
Thursday of the Ninth Week of Ordinary Time, Year II
2 Tm 2:8-15
Ps 25:4-5ab, 8-9, 10 and 14
Mk 12:28-34
These readings encourage me to get back to the basics. When Paul was writing to Timothy, he had already preached the Gospel in many places. He had probably given much time to reflection on all the various aspects of the Gospel and the life of faith. He had probably had to confront and refute several challenges to the Gospel. And yet he still tells Timothy to focus on the basic message that he had received at the start. It was upon this truth that all believers could place their trust.
Likewise, the scribe who came up to Jesus was surely well versed in the Law. He had probably debated countless times with countless men the relative importance of this commandment over that one. And yet somehow through all of that he maintained his enthusiasm for the Law and his focus on what was most important. It would seem that he knew well the warning that Paul had passed on to Timothy: "...stop disputing about words. This serves no useful purpose since it harms those who listen." Jesus, then, saw all of this in the scribe and told him that he was "not far from the Kingdom of God."
I think that it is important for me and for all of us to imitate Paul and this scribe in continually getting back to the basics. We may continue to learn more about the life of faith with all of its ins and outs and its ideosyncracies. But the ultimate object of our faith are not these details but He who suffered, died, was buried, and was raised on the third day. We should somehow be able to see how this paschal mystery that is our Gospel is revealed in all of those details that we learn about and discuss.
If I focus on the details alone and get caught up in disputes about words (as I have done recently), then I am expending my energy in something that is fruitless. Indeed, in doing these things, I could be harming those who listen to what I have to say and read what I write. I could be taking their attention away from the basics.
So if in the coming days my writing tends to get back to the basics again and again, it is not that I'm uninterested in anything else or that I have a lack of vision. My motivation in doing this will be to constantly bring myself and hopefully others back to the basic message of Jesus' Gospel. If Paul, in all of his wisdom and understanding, could remain focused on that simple message, then we would be good to strive to imitate him. Then, being drawn by the love of God upon which we trust, we will be drawn closer and closer into his reign.
(For a different perspective on today's Gospel, go read what Peter Nixon has to say at his blog, Sursum Corda)
Wednesday, June 05, 2002
Reader Response to Donatism & the RCF
Although relatively few readers have given me their comments on what I have had to write about Donatism and the RCF, their opinions on the matter are quite varied. But what seems to be in common among those who either condemn the organization and its president, Stephen Brady, or defend them is that both groups use what I would describe as an 'extreme mode of discourse.' I will not repeat them here myself, although you can read them by clicking on the various comment lines.
Why will I not repeat them? Because it is one of the aims of this weblog to try to foster a more charitable tone of discourse (while not compromising the truths of our faith) among those of us in the Church who take our faith seriously and desire to discuss it with others. I brought up the topic of Donatism and the RCF originally because I felt that it was an example of how an extreme form of discourse has effects beyond the message they were intended to convey.
It is my belief that the truths that the Church teaches and which the RCF feels a need to defend are in no way served well when such extreme language as is often employed by the RCF and Mr. Brady is used to defend them.
I will, however, attempt to address one charge laid against me personally. One reader has claimed that my "crying 'Donatist'" regarding the RCF and Mr. Brady is "absolutely without merit". He or she then challenged me to retract my "charge." Finally, I was accused of attempting to "smear" Mr. Brady by making such false charges.
While it is true that the RCF and Mr. Brady do not make any positive statement in which they clearly espouse the Donatist heresy or a schism similar to the one created by the fourth century Donatists, it is my opinion that the organization and its president have made statements (which I have quoted elsewhere) which imply that they may hold or at least be sympathetic to both.
But please note the way in which I discussed this topic. If you read my posts on this topic, you will notice that I use words like 'seem', 'appear', or 'allusion' when I feel that the RCF and Mr. Brady may be promoting Donatist ideas or schism. I ask questions and lay out possible answers. And I have written elsewhere in this blog that it is important that when those of us who are not bishops speak about another person's orthodoxy, we should do so in the form of an opinion, since only the episcopacy has been given the ministry of making definitive judgments in these matters.
Were I to have made a direct charge of heresy or schism against them (which I have been accused of doing), then I would have argued that the evidence I laid out had 'absolute merit' (to paraphrase my reader) in demonstrating their heresy and schism. But, of course, this I did not do and so I believe that there are no charges to retract. At the end of one of my posts I stated that the RCF choose their words carefully. Well, it would seem that I, for good or ill, can do this as well.
My intention in bringing all of this up was, as I stated above, to try to foster a more charitable tone of discourse among the faithful while not compromising the truths which we profess and to show. By showing how the RCF's writings seemed to imply heretical teachings or schismatic leanings, I was trying to discourage their form of extreme discourse. I did not intend, in any way, to "smear" Mr. Brady or the organization which he leads.
And as my own writing here reveals, along with the comments written by various readers, both for and against the RCF, my intention in bringing up this matter was not fulfilled. It has not fostered a more charitable tone of discourse but has seemed to have only made it more strident. Therefore, I do not intend to bring up this matter again. And it is my hope that this intention will be fulfilled.
Maybe RCF is just being overdramatic
Some of you have sent me your comments either by the comment box or by e-mail regarding RCF, Donatism, and The Situation. I think that fellow blogger Emily Stimpson assessed the RCF well by saying in her comment that Stephen Brady isn't "advocating schism or necessarily donatism. At least I hope he's not. I just think he's being typically overdramatic."
Thankfully, the last time I checked, being overdramatic is not a sin that brings about an ipso facto excommunication. If it were, then a lot of us Catholic bloggers (myself included at times) would be on the outside looking in.
However, that doesn't mean that being overdramatic doesn't have the potential to bring about bad consequences according to Ms. Stimpson: "Given the current state of things in the Church, however, I think it's a dangerous game to overdramatize anything."
Mark Shea at his blog also rightly distinguished between how the RCF used "rhetoric does appear to use Donatist ideas" and other rhetoric that simply "seem to be threatening schism." (It should be noted, however, that Donatists were known as much for their being schismatic as being heretical.)
I suppose it is the frequent employing of such extreme rhetoric that Ms. Stimpson would describe as "overdramatic."
Church Architecture & Memories of St. Boniface
Now with a title like that you might start thinking that I'm as old as Noah or I'm into channelling, neither of which are true, thank you. But I did travel to St. Boniface's tomb in Fulda, Germany in early summer, 1994. In fact, I was there for the feast of Pentecost, celebrated in their large, baroque cathedral, next to which stands a rather primitive (I believe) 8th century Church of St. Michael which dates from around the period of the saint in question. At the time I was a grad student studying medieval Church history at Notre Dame and was visiting a German friend of mine who happened to live close to Fulda.
While his tomb is in the more recent church (I like being able to call a church which itself is several centuries old 'more recent'), the older one was rather unusual. It was octagonal and had one large column in the middle with a plastered ceiling which flared out all around, not so much like the ribbed vaulting of a gothic church. Overall, it was rather small, with a seating capacity that could not have exceeded a few hundred.
With its overall round shape and few colorful windows and other stone or painted adornments, it reminded me somewhat of the churches that have been built, say, over the past thirty years in America. Much of the rationale behind our more recent building styles have centered around liturgical theology and ecclesiology. Much of the rationale behind the building of the St. Michael's Church of Boniface's day was the lack of technological and architectural knowledge that would eventually allow more grand romanesque and gothic churches to be built.
It seems ironic, then, that, while we have the technological and architectural knowledge to build more stately and grand churches, we choose to avoid this because it does not agree with our theology. Some try to claim that our more simplistic designs are a hearkening back to the more simple days of the pre-Constantinian Church or the early Middle Ages. However, I feel that the liturgical theology and implicity ecclesiology present and developing during these times would have supported a more 'decorated' church had they had the technology or finances available to build them.
However, it is in this last point that we find something in common among our own day, that of the early Middle Ages, and of the pre-Constantinian Church: lack of finances. Its all well and good to want to build beautiful churches with lots of stained glass windows, statues, carved marble, ornate high altars and the rest. But the overall cost of building one of those churches is very high, especially when compared with the cost of building one that is more simple.
Now I do not believe in principle that finances should drive the type of architecture we use in building our churches. I think it is ironic, though, that our immigrant ancestors of a century or so ago, with a much lower income than we have now, were able to come together and build many beautiful churches in our country while now we surburanites, with our SUVs, PCs, and DVDs, who often clamor for a church that is more 'transcendent', aren't willing to shell out the big bucks for them. I guess the bottom line is the bottom line in America.
Anyway, I was kind of sad that I couldn't spend more time in Fulda. Pentecost fell late that year, just a few days before St. Boniface's memorial. And if I could have been there for it, I would have seen his skull paraded around town. There's another thing you just don't see enough of in America...
Donatism and RCF's Latest Smoking Gun
When one goes to the website of the organization entitled Roman Catholic Faithful (RCF), that person will be immediately confronted with an open letter from RCF's president, Stephen Brady. In this letter, Mr. Brady connects Pope John Paul II with the current clerical sexual abuse scandal in the United States. In a way that many Catholic bloggers have criticized various American bishops for ignoring sexually abusive priests, he criticizes the Holy Father for ignoring the bishops:
"While we love the Holy Father, if we were to ignore the fact that the Pope has not taken direct public action against any American Bishop, we would give the impression that we, too, have somehow failed in our duty as Catholics. We routinely expose the bishops for not dealing with their abusive priests, but our failure to follow through to the ultimate source of authority would be giving a free ride to the only person who can take decisive action against the errant bishop.
Our present Holy Father may be orthodox in his beliefs, but please take a moment to consider the current scandal. Who appointed these bishops? Who left them in power? If this is an example of a great [italics original] Pope, in what condition would we be if he were a bad one?"
Although I, in no way, agree with Mr. Brady's criticism of the Holy Father, I can see how his criticism could be seen as a logical conclusion to other criticisms of local bishops which are justifiable.
In his conclusion to his letter, there seems to allusions made to the kind of Donatist schism which I have been writing about in connection with RCF for a few days now:
"I attend a diocesan parish and have never attended a parish affiliated with the Society of St. Pius X, so I cannot be rightly accused of pushing some “hidden agenda”... The Holy Father knows of these and many more abuses that have occurred with the apparent or outright approval of bishops in “good standing” with Rome. If the Pope does not take some action, and if he allows the continual deterioration of the Church in dissident dioceses, it may yet come to pass that the only Catholic Mass or faithful teachings to be found in these areas will be at a Pius X chapel.
If that is not a threat of a Donatistic schism, heaved at the Pope himself, then I do not know what one is. More from me on this note later. What are your thoughts?
Continuing the Discussion on Roman Catholic Faithful (RCF) and Donatism
A couple of days ago, I posted a piece called ''Roman Catholic Faithful' and creeping Donatism" after a reader had suspected that this organization was promoting donatist views among the faithful. I had perused RCF's website and found that, while they did not hesitate to question the teachings of various bishops, they seemed very careful in their phraseology so as to avoid promoting any view that could be specifically identified as donatist.
Well, the same reader that pointed out RCF to me in the first place took up the challenge and viewed various online editions of RCF's newsletter AMDG. He provided me with a link to the June 1997 edition of that newsletter in which was published an article entitled, "Is the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois Catholic?", by Stephen Brady.
In this article, Mr. Brady writes of his opposition to various teachings and practices in his parish, and justifies his active opposition with the following words:
"When one looks back at the early Church and all those who gave their lives rather than deny their Faith, we must ask —how can we allow the leadership in this diocese to mock the authentic Catholic Faith and tradition?"
The same question could have been asked by a 4th century Donatist of bishops who had been installed who had denied the faith during earlier persecutions. It seems either ironic or strangely appropriate that a person writing for RCF's newsletter would justify his protest against various priests and bishops in a fashion that harkens back to the Donatists themselves.
Mr. Brady then attempted to connect the poor Mass attendance in his parish to his belief that a priest serving there (whether or not he was the pastor or a parochial vicar is not stated) denied the Church's teaching on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist:
"Fr. Costa, in his April 13, 1997 church bulletin states, "Only 32 percent of the registered parishioners of Holy Family parish attend Mass each weekend, and only 36 percent of the registered parishioners of St. John Vianney parish attend Mass each weekend." Can you assure us you believe in the Real Presence Father? If Jesus was there, the people would also be there. Can good fruit come from a rotten tree[?]"
By stating that 'If Jesus were there, the people would also be there. Can good fruit come from a rotten tree?", Mr. Brady seems to imply that the Eucharist celebrated at that parish was invalid due to the priests' questionable beliefs and/or some sort of generalized 'rottenness' in his person (he is compared to a 'rotten tree'). Is the validity of the sacraments contingent on a priest's beliefs or his overall moral character? If it is not, and this RCF newsletter would seem to argue that point, then it would appear that RCF may have, at times, promoted views that are Donatist.
Now since the language used in the above quote is conjectural and metaphorical, RCF could just as easily argue that they were not promoting this ancient heresy. As I said, they choose their words carefully.
From the 'Better Late Than Never' File...
Yesterday, E. L. Core, of The View from the Core and The Blog from the Core started encouraging Catholic bloggers to post a Novena of the Litany of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Priest and Victim. He did this in the hopes that the readers of the various Catholic blogs might pray this novena in the days leading up to the bishops' meeting in Dallas.
Well, yesterday for me was a busy one for taking care of family matters and so I got done very little blogging. Still, I'll post the second day of the novena, working on the principle that its 'better late than never.'
Novena of the Litany of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Priest and Victim
In prospect of the American bishops' meeting, Dallas, May 13-15, 2002
Day Two
Prayer for today, from the Sacramentary of the Roman Missal, the opening prayer of one of the Masses for Pastoral or Spiritual Meetings:
Lord, pour out on us the spirit of understanding, truth, and peace. Help us to strive with all our hearts to know what is pleasing to you, and when we know your will make us determined to do it. We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
(This is also number 16 in Appendix III of current volume of the Liturgy of the Hours.)
Litany of Our Lord Jesus Christ Priest and Victim
Intentions for Prayer Vigil for Holiness During Bishop’s Meeting, Dallas, May 13-15, 2002
The Paradox of Living the Gospel in the World:
A Reflection on Today's Mass Readings
Memorial of St. Boniface, bishop and martyr
2 Tm 1:1-3, 6-12
Ps 123:1b-2ab, 2cdef
Mk 12:18-27
It is certainly a great mystery that our life here on earth is, at one and the same time, both a faint foreshadowing of the Kingdom of Heaven, and yet also something quite different from it. We are invited to share in God's life here and now through our baptism. Our celebration of the Eucharist is surely a re-echoing of the perpetual praise of God in the heavenly court. And being sent forth from that worship, we are called to proclaim the Gospel in the world, to let God's Kingdom break into our time and space.
Yet the message of the Gospel runs counter to the message of the world, where the cross is seen as folly, where selfishness is praised and self-giving is scorned, and where we create God in our own image. This is seen in today's Gospel where the Sadducees equated too much of what goes on in this world with what will happen in the next. According to them, when a man dies, he dies. End of story. When a woman and a man marry, they form a relationship which ends with the death of one of them. When that happens, the other is free to marry. With this understanding of the world and of the Law which God gave through Moses, the resurrection of the dead is natually unintelligible.
After listening to them, Jesus let them know clearly that they had been misled. They limited the power of God. In our own lives in the world, we are very limited in what we can do, in what we can control. But God in his Kingdom, as well as mysteriously here on earth, can do anything: he can raise the dead to a new and eternal life, he can help us love him and all people with a pure love, rendering marriage unnecessary. Marriage here and now is a sign of the love that all will have for all in the world to come; it is also an instrument for bringing that love into this world.
And because the message of the Gospel can seem so different from the message of the world, the average person might conclude it to be shameful to suffer for it. Paul seemed to have heard that from various people in his travels. For in the first reading for today, he exhorts Timothy to be unashamed of proclaiming the Gospel. And he himself claims to be unashamed despite the fact that he is now a prisoner on account of that message. We are to feel no embarassment because we can trust Jesus whom we know in faith and in whom we were reborn in baptism. We can trust him to fulfill the Gospel before all eyes on the final day.
However, it is already being fulfilled for those who see with the eyes of faith. Unlike the Sadducees, who defined the next world by only seeing this one, those of us who have faith in the Gospel of Jesus, can begin to see this world as being transformed by the power of the next. Without faith in one as powerful as the Father, as trustworthy as Jesus his Son, and as generous in building up our courage and strength as the Spirit, we could never accept the paradox of living the Gospel in this world. With that faith, our broken world is being healed before our very eyes.
(For a different perspective on today's Gospel, go read what Peter Nixon has to say at his blog, Sursum Corda)
Tuesday, June 04, 2002
A Website that is all Mary, all the time
A reader wanted me to pass on the good word about Mary Links which is, in the words of the reader, a "thorough, organized collection of links about the Virgin Mary." After having perused it myself, I'd have to agree. Check it out!
Good News on the Baby Front
Michael Joseph, our first baby, is now a little over a month old. He was born at 6 lbs 13 oz but soon dropped to 6 lbs 1 oz (somewhat to be expected). Well, we went to the doctor today and learned that he is now up to 8 lbs 15 oz. He had gained almost two lbs in the last two weeks. Now that didn't come as a surprise to his parents, who feel like they've gotten only two hours sleep in the last two weeks...
Limited Blogging Today
Won't be doing much blogging today. Have to tend to family matters first. Gotta have priorities, you know.
The image of God and the image of Ceasar:
A Reflection on Today's Mass Readings
Tuesday of the Ninth Week of Ordinary Time, Year II
2 Pt 3:12-15, 17-18
Ps 90:2, 3-4, 10, 14 and 16
Mk 12:13-17
Mark tells us that some Pharisees and Herodians came to Jesus with the question about paying taxes in order to "ensnare him in his speech." They wanted to find a way to put a label on him. Would he say that taxes shouldn't be paid and so be an insurrectionist? Or would he say that they should be paid and so be a collaborator? In this way, these questioners have the same kind of motivation that many members of the press and others associated with political parties or special interest groups have: foster division among people.
Jesus, however, refused to be a means to their end. He refused to be pigeonholed. He was sent from the Father who was God and Creator of all, not of just one group or another. And so he said something that amazed his politically astute questioners: "Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God."
The Lord, indeed, is God of all, including our civil leaders, our 'Caesar.' The civil government under which we live exists either by the will of God or by him allowing it. We have all kinds of coins and currency here in the United States that have on them the image of various presidents. So it would seem that Jesus' words to the Pharisees and the Herodians would apply to us as well.
And for us who live under a relatively just government such a duty is not that challenging except for a few Christian groups (an example of this would be the Indianapolis Baptist Temple, which had its property repossessed last year after it had refused to pay any payroll tax on its employees for several years). Following Jesus' words in other countries, where the civil governments are terribly oppressive is more difficult.
It is my belief thought, that many of these governments are to be legitimately resisted. Why? Because they are demanding not only that which belongs to Caesar but also that which belongs to God. In many cases they demand the dignity and the lives of their very citizens. Although God has allowed such governments to exist, their existence can be an opportunity for us to reveal the full truth of Jesus' statement in today's Gospel.
Yes, a lifeless coin is made of some sort of metal onto which is imprinted the image of a secular ruler. But the person who pays the taxes with the coin, although made of the clay of the earth, has in him or her the breath of God, and has been imprinted with his divine image.
Each human being, then, is like a living coin, with the image of God indellibly imprinted on it. This coin is what is to be given to God and none other. Governments that demand payment in the form of human lives and human dignity, where a living person created in the image of God is objectified and equated with the lifeless material of a coin, are to be resisted.
But they are to be resisted in a way that is consistent with the ways of God in whose image we are all created. In trying to bring about a society where, as Peter in the first reading wrote, "righteousness dwells", we are not to act towards others in ways that would deny their humanity. When we avoid being "led into the error of the unprincipled", when we are "eager to be found without spot or blemish", we will be helping to "hasten the coming of the day of God."
When all of us "grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ", we will see being revealed before our eyes a "new heavens and a new earth." This will be the coming of that Kingdom of God where all of us, our faces shining like newly minted coins, will perfectly reflect the face of God in whose image each of us were created.
(For a different perspective on today's Gospel, go read what Peter Nixon has to say at his blog, Sursum Corda)
Monday, June 03, 2002
Reflections on Charles Lwanga and his Anglican companions
Today we are invited to honor a group of martyrs, killed for his faith in 1886 in what is now Uganda. These martyrs are referred to as Charles Lwanga and companions. Now I presume that in the Church in America, St. Charles Lwanga is not the center of many devotions. I would even be interested to know if there are any parishes in the United States that are named after him.
With little general awareness of this saint, many might be surprised to learn that some of the companions who died with him were not Catholics, but members of the Church of England. Although I presume that they are not officially listed among Charles Lwanga's 'companions', they were, nevertheless, mentioned by Pope Paul VI in the Mass (which occurred in the midst of Vatican II) at which Charles and his compantions were canonized.
This 'ecumenical martyrdom, where Catholics and Anglicans died for the faith side by side, has given pause for reflection. An ecumenical issue that I have given much thought to over the past few months is the practice of many evangelical Christians to feel a need to evangelize in countries that have traditionally been Catholic.
I have long been aware of evangelical missionaries working in Mexico, in Central and South America, and in the Philippines. Now such work is, as it were, coming much closer to home. I see it when a local Church of God or a Baptist Church starts offering services in Spanish.
I'll be honest and say that I do not like it. I am, in a sense, jealous for my faith. And while I respect the work of evangelical missionaries, a part of me also wishes that they would imitate Paul who wrote thus to the Romans about his ministry of proclaiming the Gospel: "...I aspire to proclaim the Gospel not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on another's foundation..."
Of course, it does not take much further reflection for me to realize that, in many of these places, that foundation is the only thing that was constructed. The Catholic Church has built precious little on top of it. Is it any wonder, then, that other Christians would feel a need to take the Gospel to such places. This not to say, however, that re-evangelizing is not a legitimate task. In fact, it is quite vital today and a central part of what the Holy Father calls the 'New Evangelization.'
Nevertheless, I am aware that many evangelical missionaries would feel the need to proclaim the Gospel in Rome itself, working on the belief that Catholics are 'lost' and are not really Christians at all. Is there any possibility out there for evangelical Christians and Catholic Christians to enter into a fruitful dialogue about matters of evangelization and proselytization.
I know for a fact that, at least here in America, groups of Catholic and evangelical Christians have entered to dialogue about and discovered much common ground on the topic of justification, something that, in the past, was so divisive for us. This was seen in the document produced in 1994 called "Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium", published in the journal First Things. Strong evangelicals such as Chuck Colson, Max Lucado, and Mark Noll were its signatories. And they were joined by such outstanding Catholics as Fr. Avery Dulles, SJ, Dr. Peter Kreeft, and Fr. J. A. DiNoia, OP.
Do you have any thoughts or feelings about the work of evangelical missionaries among peoples that were traditionally or even strongly are Catholic? Is there any possibility for Catholics and evangelicals to come to some common ground on this topic as they have on such a controverted topic such as justification? Let me know what you think.
Arts and Letters Daily
Here's a blog for all of you humanities majors to waste some time on. Thanks to my friend Amy (not Ms. Welborn), for pointing it out to me.
Reverse Donatism
Karen Marie Knapp over at her blog, From the Anchor Hold, has some interesting thoughts on Donatism and The Situation.
But the one that intrigued me the most came at the end of her post. There she expressed her concern that bishops and priests might use the Church's teaching against Donatism (that a sacrament's validity is not dependent upon the holiness of the one presiding over it) as an excuse for not speaking of their own "embarassing truths" and taking actions that would follow from such a revelation. In a note to me she expressed it even more succinctly: "I'm afraid the Donatism problem can work both ways....our bishops using it as an excuse not to do what needs doing."
Another interesting perspective on The Situation that I had not considered.
'Roman Catholic Faithful' and creeping Donatism
A couple of days ago I noted how Archbishop Weakland made passing reference to Donastism (without actually naming it) in his apology which he made last Friday.
Some readers seem to have been wondering, along with me, if this old heresy, which holds that the validity of a sacrament is dependent upon the holiness of the cleric presiding over it, is re-emerging during this crisis. I have also wondered if the definition of Donatism could be broadened. Would the validity of a bishop's teaching be brought into question as a result of the sinfulness of his own behavior?
In a comment on my earlier post (see the link on 'I noted' above), a reader wrote that, in his opinion, the organization Roman Catholic Faithful promotes stances toward various priests and bishops that could be described as donatist. In fact, he claimed that he attended a meeting where the head of that organization spoke and the man openly "...wondered if Jesus will show up in the Eucharist if the sacrament is celebrated by an unworthy priest." If indeed that is what this man said, then it sounds like Donatism to me.
Now, to be fair, I perused several articles on RCF's website. There are many articles on the website that I was unable to read. However, I read one closely, entitled 'For the Permanent Record.' In this article, the author, Thomas Droleskey tries to be clear about the reasons why RCF openly questions the teachings of certain bishops and priests:
It is vital to point out errors in order that the faithful be armed with the means to protect themselves and their families from being seduced by the Devil. Errors are pointed out not as a means of creating scandal nor the sake of dwelling on the salacious. As everything we do must be premised on a desire to save souls (starting with our own), it is a matter of simple justice to help Catholics in the pew to recognize that not everything that may be preached from a pulpit or contained within a diocesan newspaper is actually of the Catholic Faith. If that means that a particular bishop (even one who is a cardinal) has to come in for scrutiny, so be it.
It seems to me that this section, as well as other parts of the article, are very carefully phrased so as to avoid charges of Donatism, strictly speaking, or under the expanded definition that I proposed above. But I just wonder, what source or what authority is this organization using to judge the orthodoxy of a bishop, if we are to presume that bishops are the first teachers of the faith in the Church? It would seem to me that they are close at times to holding the same position that Mother Angelica held when she told the faithful in Los Angeles to render Cardinal Mahoney 'zero obedience' (Mark Shea has an interesting post on this).
At any rate, I haven't formed a full opinion about this matter and what the RCF does in questioning the teaching of priests and bishops, the latter especially. I'd be interested to hear your opinions on this.
Mail Bag
I've had some responses to my question "What else are we feeling?" regarding The Situation. According to Andrew Sullivan and other bloggers, it would seem that rage is what Catholic Americans are feeling primarily.
But not according to some of my readers. One of them argues that the feelings depend upon how directly The Situation impinges upon one's own life:
If it's MY priest who's been accused or, God forbid, MY children who have been abused, there probably aren't words for all the feelings: rage, disgust, dismay, despair probably just scratch the surface. But, even here, I think it depends on how closely you
are involved with this particular priest. In my own parish a priest who comes in for two weekend Masses was accused of improper behavior which occurred some years ago in another city with a legal adult. He has been suspended, and hasn't been back, but there seemed to be relatively little feeling about this, since he just wasn't around that much.
...I think the situation is somewhat similar with bishops. For most in-the-pew Catholics, the Bishop is simply irrelevant. I don't mean that disrespectfully, but really, aside from an occasional Confirmation, most Catholics have no contact with him, and will certainly listen to their pastor more than their Bishop for the same reason as above: they feel they know their pastor.
I also have a sense that many Catholics are reserving judgment: they're neither absolving (so to speak) or condemning priests and bishops, but waiting to see how this all plays out, how it will ultimately affect them personally. And this isn't a matter of a meeting in Dallas, or declarations. It's a matter of what they will experience in the months and years ahead.
Another reader interesting says that he or she has felt relief in the midst of this crisis:
I'm a little ashamed to say that I now feel primarily relief. I figured this sort of thing was going on for a long time (pedophilia being only the very evil tip of a much larger ice berg).
However, the relief is by and large related to suspicions finally being confirmed:
the public dissent on sexual matters so common in the clerical class and, especially, the self-styled Theological Magisterium almost certainly meant either that it rationalized past or present misconduct or predicted future misconduct that the dissent sanctioned. Words and actions tend to be related that way.
Anyway, with the burden of such perspective tainted by cynicism or weltsmertz or bitterness or something, I'm glad its coming out into the open. I hope . . . and I hope that it is good theological hope . . . that the Church can vomit it all out, become a pure, purer anyway, refuge when it does. Not just the pedophilia, however one defines it. All the pornographic stuff, and all the facilitating, enabling, and apologetic rationalizations for it.
Ouch. With relief like that, good old-fashioned ordinary rage might feel a little bit better.
Interesting enough this same reader makes a side point regarding the prevalency of and tolerance for adult/adolescent sex in our society:
That so many are so shocked by adult sex with adolescents puzzles me. Adolescents are having sex and sexual encounters all the time these days, and as a lawyer with some experience with the juvenile and family law, I can vouch for the fact that at least half of it is with men (and women) who are adults. Yet how many men or boys do we have in jail for, say, getting girls pregnant under conditions very little different from when priests have fooled with adolescent boys? Its all statutory rape, you know.
Thats an interesting, if sad perspective on The Situation and its place in our culture that I hadn't considered.
If God is the landlord, is Jesus the super?:
A Reflection on Today's Mass Readings
Memorial of Charles Lwanga and his companions, martyrs
2 Pt 1:2-7
Ps 91:1-2, 14-15b, 15c-16
Mk 12:1-12
I'm sure that scripture scholars have spilled much ink with this parable. They probably have written and spoken at great length abou the difficult conditions of tenant farmers and the oppressive schemes of landowners in Jesus' day. Such analysis may even uncover deep layers of meaning of Jesus' words that had remained hidden for a long time.
But the questions that came to my mind when reflecting on this passage is much more simple, probably those that had been asked by many a reader over the centuries. Why didn't this man, who expended so much energy in constructing his vineyard, not tend it by himself or through his own servants? And when his first tenants abused and killed many of his servants and even his own son, why would he bring in more tenants? Wouldn't they be as untrustworthy as the previous group?
Scholars examining this parable from a historical, sociological, or economic point of view might be able to provide some answers, but how many twists and turns would they have to make in order to show the spiritual relevance of them? So lets look at this passage through the analogical eyes of faith. Even from this perspective, many things could be said about the old covenant being replaced by the new, the call of God going beyond the Jews to the Gentiles.
However, I'm not quite sure if this interpretation has a great deal of meaning for the average believer in his or her daily life. So lets probe deeper and try to find a more fundamental meaning. While I recognize that a landowner in Jesus' day would have leased his land to tenants in order to increase his own income, I see a deeper, spiritual meaning in this leasing, especially when he brings in more tenants after the first group had betrayed him and he had destroyed them. He could have had his own, more trustworthy servants care for it, and he could have thus had control over all of its harvest.
But the landowner kept calling in more outsiders to work in his vineyard. I see in this, at a fundamental level, God's loving desire to share his live with those who live outside the interior life of the Trinity. In this interior life of Father, Son, and Spirit, God is wholly fulfilled. Just as the landowner did not need to bring in tenants to care for his vineyard, so also God does not need us for himself to be complete.
Nevertheless, his desire to share this interior life with his creation was so great that he sent prophet after prophet and finally his own Son to bring ever closer to him the people that he had created in his own image in the first place. This desire was fulfilled only through the death of his Son. And that is where the story of our salvation blessedly departs from this parable. For while the landowneer in the story destoryed the tenants who killed his son, our God has forgiven us for doing the same. It is only our sinfulness that has been conquered in Jesus's death and resurrection.
In the parable, the son of the landowner does not rise again. In the story of our salvation, he does. He rises to a new and unending life. He shares with those of us who believe what Peter in the first reading promised: his "glory and power" through which we "may come to share in the divine nature."
(For a different perspective on today's Gospel, go read what Peter Nixon has to say at his blog, Sursum Corda)
Sunday, June 02, 2002
Ita missa est
These are the words that concludes the Mass as it is celebrated in Latin. It is the phrase from which comes the word 'Mass' itself. And it is a phrase that deserves some thoughtful reflection this Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ.
In English, these words are not so much translated as adapted. We basically hear each Sunday, "The Mass is ended. Go in peace to love and serve the Lord." And those words are fine and can have an important meaning for us.
But I believe that something was lost in this adaptation. For if one were to translate the words "Ita missa est" literally into English, it could read, "He is sent out." (Those of you with a good knowledge of Latin may argue the niceties of this translation, but I believe that this is one possible true translation). What is it that is being 'sent out' if not the body of Christ itself. Were the words to refer to the worshippers apart from their collective connection to Christ, it would read, 'Ita missa estis." But the Latin word 'est', is a third person singular verb.
Such a translation has a great deal of meaning. It points to our collective identity as the body of Christ on earth. And it is forceful in sending us out. We are to go forth from our worship to share the life of Christ which we have taken with us with those whom we meet once we leave. Hopefully such sharing will increase the size of the body when we then return to our worship.
This is what happened when Jesus sent out his apostles in the ninth chapter of Luke. He sent them forth (the Greek word for this is the root of the word 'apostle') to proclaim his Good News in word and in deed, in their very persons (Lk 9:1-6). And when they returned, it would seem that a large crowd came soon thereafter, looking for Jesus, whereupon our Lord fed them with only five loaves and two fish (Lk 9:10-17).
Sending forth and coming back. Mission and communion. This is the rhythm of the life of the Church, the living body of Christ on earth. It is a rhythm which is fueled by that body and blood, that life of God given to us in the Blessed Sacrament. So when we go to Mass, be it today on this great feast, on another 'ordinary' Sunday (is there such a thing?), or on an average weekday, take a few moments to consider one of the most important phrases in the entire liturgy: "Ita missa est." "He is sent out." When you leave, take him with you. When you return, may the body be increased.
The Pain of the Eucharist:
A Reflection on Today's Mass Readings
Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ
Although we are now in the midst of the season of Ordinary Time, the past two Sundays have continued to celebrate the rippling after effects of Easter. We ended our paschal season with the celebration of Pentecost Sunday. Having observed with joy the coming of the Holy Spirit, we then honored God in all Three Persons, Father, Son, and Spirit, on Trinity Sunday. And today faithful Catholics come together to celebrate the central way that all of us have been given a participation in the life of Trinity: through our sharing of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ.
(As a side note, the ripples of Easter will still continue on through next Friday and Saturday when we will celebrate respectively the Solemnity of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Memorial of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.)
In many respects, all of these feasts are occasions of joy. What great blessings have been showered upon us in Jesus's resurrection, in the descent of the Holy Spirit, in our very sharing in the life of the Trinity, and in Jesus coming to dwell in us as individuals and in the Church through his body and blood. Our knowledge and experience of these blessings should cause us to rejoice not only on these special Sundays, but whenever they come to mind.
However, it may be hard for many Catholics, at least those of us in America, to rejoice at this time. Many of us feel threatened by outsiders and betrayed by those leaders in whom we had placed our trust. It might seem difficult, then, to come together and raise our voices in praise and rejoicing.
But I believe that the pain that we feel now is as much a part of the Eucharist as rejoicing is. In fact, it is when we bring our pain, anger, sadness, and all of the other emotions evoked by this crisis, that these feelings will be redeemed in and through our Lord. He who was able to take the worst sinfulness of mankind and make the greatest good out of it through his death and resurrection, he who experience all of the wrenching emotions that can fill us, this One can surely take the painful emotions that we feel right now and give us all new life out of all of it.
Our readings today point to the pain that is involved in the Eucharist. Yes, God fed the people of Israel with manna after they had been freed from slavery. But they needed this heavenly food because they were journeying for forty years in a dry and lifeless desert. They experienced the pain of living and travelling in such a desolate place to such an extent that they looked back with nostalgia upon the days they spent in slavery in Egypt.
The cup and the bread to which Paul refers in the second reading allows us to participate in the blood and body of our Lord. They allow us to share fully in his life--in his joys and in his pains. The apostles James and John wanted to share in his triumph when they came before him and asked him to place them at his right and left when he entered into his glory. Jesus asked them, "Can you drink the cup that I drink?" (Mk 10:38), referring to the passion and death he was to endure. When drink from the cup and take into ourselves the precious blood of our Lord, we too are given a share of his pain.
And the bread that gives us a share in the body of the Lord reminds me of the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch which he wrote to the faithful in Rome. Ignatius was on his way to that city to be martyred. He commanded the believers in that city to allow this to happen, to lay aside any plans to try to keep him safe. Ignatius wanted to face the wild beats that would kill and devour him:
"Suffer me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ" (Letter to the Romans 4:1).
And surely in the Gospel, we can hear some reference to Jesus's saving passion and death when he says: "...the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." But, of course, this is not only a reference to his passion and death, but our participation in it as well when we who are his followers eat his flesh and drink his blood in the Eucharist.
So, as you can see, the pain, anger, and anxiety that many of us feel at this time is something that can bring us close to Christ through the Eucharist. He who experienced all of these emotions in his life on earth comes to us in his body and blood to give us strength in our own trials. And we will not only be given strength to endure a passing time of anxiety, but something far greater: eternal life itself: "This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
Therefore we have nothing to fear from the anger and pain that some of us feel in the midst of our current crisis. When we come to Jesus in the Eucharist, we are given his patience and endurance. We are given his eternal life. And so the pain that we feel, the pain that is present in his body and blood, will be transformed into blessed joy and peace.
June 2, 2002: Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ
For a good homily on today's Mass readings, you might scroll down to Fr. Shawn O'Neal's good word for today which I posted last Friday eveing. I hope to offer my own reflection later on today.
Saturday, June 01, 2002
Donatism, The Situation, & Archbishop Weakland's Apology
Early on in his apology, Archbishop Weakland made the following interesting statement:
The early Church was wise to declare that God can use imperfect instruments to build the Kingdom and that the effectiveness of the sacraments does not depend on the holiness of the minister. For me that thought brings some, though meager, consolation. It does not in any way diminish my need to beg forgiveness of all of you.
This strikes at the heart of an issue that I believe has been central to The Situation: the possibility of the re-emergence of a kind of Donatism. About a month ago I reflected upon this issue in two different posts: Is Donatism Rearing Its Ugly Head, Part I, and Part II.
My thoughts on Donatism and The Situation then led me to consider the meaning of a word often used during this time, 'defrock', and to other related words, 'unfrock, and 'laicize.' The posts on these words lie inbetween the two posts for which I provided links above.
I was intrigued that Archbishop Weakland brought up this issue, even if he did not specifically name the heresy. More than intrigued, though, I was gladdened that he found only "meager...consolation" in the Church's rejection of Donatism and that "It does not in any way diminish my need to beg forgiveness of all of you."
Well said, Archbishop, well said.
The humble apology of a Benedictine
Last night, Archbishop Rembert Weaklan, OSB, stood before a group of his faithful gathered in prayer. And before them he offered the humble apology of a Benedictine.
Three days ago, I questioned how a columnist of the Indianapolis Star could describe Archbishop Weakland in this way: "His life is a cathedral built on humility." I wondered how this could be accurate when Archbishop Weakland had seemingly tried to hide his own sinfulness and failed to depend upon the strength of God to protect himself and the Archdiocese of Milwaukee were that sinfulness to be revealed.
In that earlier post, I stated that a Benedictine understanding of humility (and that virtue is a centerpiece of the Benedictine life) involved a full embrace of the full truth of oneself and one's relationship with God. And I claimed that Archbishop Weakland, himself a Benedictine, had failed to live out this humility in his earlier sinfulness and in this current crisis. And where humility is lacking, I said, pride takes its place.
Well, having read and listened to Archbishop Weakland's apology, I believe now that this Benedictine has returned to the heart of his monastic vocation: a life of authentic humility. Although he never uses the word, humility pervaded his apology. I believe that it shows itself most clearly and fully when he expressed his "willingness to accept my humanity totally" and "to be fully receptive to whatever God wants to place in [my] hands."
This is the humility that I described above, one embraces the full truth of oneself and of one's relationship with God. This is the humility which I tried to make a part of myself as a Benedictine and which I still strive to live out today.
Later, Archbishop Weakland manifested this humility when he acknowledged the place of pride in his life: "...I am also aware much self-pity and pride remains. I must leave that pride behind."
In the storms and shifting sands of a crisis, many people will cling to their roots, to the things that they learned long ago and which still remain true. I think that Archbishop Weakland showed this in his apology that he has done this by returning to the Benedictine humility around which he was formed so long ago as a novice at St. Vincent Archabbey, long before he wore an abbot's or bishop's miter.
What else are we feeling?
Yesterday Amy Welborn posted some of her reflections regarding the motivation behind the rage that many Catholics around the country have been feeling toward many of our priests and bishops. At the time I remarled that although she analysed this aspect of The Situation quite well, I nevertheless felt that there were more questions to be raised, more answers to be explored.
And so today I ask, at base, this primary question: "What else are we feeling?" Is rage the only emotion that we have been experiencing in reaction to the scandals that keep being revealed? If one were to judge the emotional reaction of Catholic to The Situation only by studying some blogs, then I believe that such a person could conclude that either this is the only emotion that is being felt or the only one being displayed.
And, indeed, I have met many Catholics who feel a good amount of anger in the midst of this crisis. However, it is not always directed at our leaders. Whether we like it or not, I believe that a good amount of the faithful out there are also angry at members of the media whom they feel are ignorant of our practices and beliefs, misrepresent them in their reporting, and, at times, are consciously and maliciously attacking the Church.
But I have also met many Catholic who are more saddened than angered by what has been going on. They feel sad when they consider the pain of the victims, or the poor morale of those countless priests who have been faithful to their promises and in their service, or the faithful in those parishes who are left confused when their pastor has been quickly removed. Others experience anxiety when they try to think about the future of the Church.
And honestly, I've also met Catholics, faithful to the life of their parishes, who do not seem to have any strong feelings about The Situation. The parish and the diocese in which they live may not have been directly affected by it. They feel quietly confident in their own faith, in the leadership of their pastor and bishop, and seem to have little fear about the future of the Church. Attribute this to some sort of parochialism if you may, but it is there in some people nonetheless.
I suppose that we can explain this complexity of emotions by saying that The Situation is, in itself, complex. Its effects cannot be attributed solely to sinful, criminal priests, and mismanaging bishops. Many of us bloggers may primarily feel anger or rage, but let us not forget that there would seem that the faithful in America are experiencing a broad spectrum of emotions.
Now I will be the first to admit that my conclusions are not based on any scientific study, just some anecdotal evidence that I have gathered in my ministry and in my conversations with friends, family, those whom I serve in my own parish, those in nearby parishes, and those, spread throughout the country, with whom I've corresponded by e-mail.
What other feelings do you think are being evoked by The Situation? What is you explanation for them? I'd be interested to hear from you about this.
No blogging until later
I won't be doing any blogging until later today, if I'm able to work things well. Hey, its Saturday and I've got to do things around the house.
|
|
 |
|
 | |
