Msgr. Charles Pope, Author at Community in Mission

October 12, 2010June 10, 2015

Is Anger Always a Sin?

Some one wrote in the following question:

How would you respond to a someone who (in Zen like fashion) states that anger is always counterproductive? Is anger always a sin?

The simple answer is “No, anger is not always a sin.” In fact, in some situations anger is the appropriate response. If anger were always a sin, the Jesus never got the memo since he displays quite a lot of anger in the Gospels. We’ll look at that in a moment.

To being with, some distinctions are in order.

We ought first to distinguish between the internal experience or feeling of anger and the external manifestation of it.The internal expereince of anger as a passionate response to some external stimulus is not sinful since we cannot usually and immediately control the arising of feelings or passions. Anger usually arises out of some sense of threat. It signals us that something is wrong, threatening or inappropriate as we understand or interpret the data. Sometimes our perceptions are incorrect but often they are not. Anger, in this sense, is not only sinless, but necessary as it alerts us to the need to respond to something that is a threat or unjust and it gives us the energy to address it. In this sense, it is not sinful. It is a passion and an energy to set things right or to address a threatening situation.
Now it is possible that our anger can arise from less than holy reasons. Some of the things we fear, we should not fear. Some of our fears are rooted in pride, and an inordinate need for status and affirmation. Some of our fears come from misplaced priorities. For example we may be excessively concerned with money, property, popularity or material things. And this concern triggers inordinate fears about things that should not matter so much. And this fear gives rise to feeling easily threatened at loss or diminishment. This in turn triggers anger, since we sense that something is wrong or threatening. But we ought not be so concerned with such things since they are rooted in pride, vanity and materialism. In this case the anger may have a sinful dimension but the sin is more rooted in the inordinate and sinful drives than merely the anger itself. This is because, even when anger arises from poor motives or objects, it is still not something all that voluntary.
Now external manifestations of anger can and do sometimes have a sinful dimension when they are beyond what is reasonable. If I am experiencing anger there may be little or no sin in that. However if I express that anger by hurling insults, or physically attacking someone I may well have sinned by a sinful expression of my anger. Even here there can be exceptions. It may be appropriate at times to physically defend myself. I can think of no exception to the rule against hurling insults and personal attacks. However, it remains true that we live in thin-skinned times and people often take personal offense when they should not. We will see in a moment that Jesus did not often hesitate to describe his opponents’ in rather vivid ways.
Hence, of itself, anger is not a sin.The Scriptures say, Be angry but sin not (Ps 4:4) So anger is not the sin. However, the expression of anger may become sinful. Further, it is possible that some of our anger springs from less than holy sources.

When is the external manifestation of anger an appropriate response? Most simply put, anger is appropriate when its object is appropriate and reasonable.

For example, it is appropriate to experience anger when we see or experience injustice. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. harnessed appropriate anger of Americans toward the injustice of racism. He elicited it, and focused its energy in productive ways. Notice that he was very careful to teach against violence and revenge. Anger did not to give the Civil Rights Protesters the right to hate. What Dr. King did was to elicit a just anger on the part of many Americans. This anger in turn gave them the motivation to act creatively and energetically to resist injustice and effect change through non-violence. This sort of angry response was appropriate, reasonable and even holy. The tradition of non-violent resistance to injustice remains strong in those who protest abortion, and other sins, crimes and social injustices. It is the anger that motivates the desire to speak and the zeal to take action to rectify injustice.

Anger is also appropriate and even necessary in some forms of fraternal correction. To fail to manifest some level of anger may lead to the false conclusion that the offense in question is not really all that significant. For example if a child belts his brother in the mouth and knocks out a tooth a parent ought to manifest an appropriate amount of anger to make it very clear that this sort of behavior is intolerable. To gently correct a child in a smooth and dispassionate way with no inflection in the voice can lead to the impression that this really isn’t so bad. Proper anger has a way of bringing the point home and making a lasting impression. Again, note that the anger in question should be at a proper level, not excessive, and not too weak. This of course requires a good bit of self-mastery.

Meekness– And this leads us to an important beatitude and fruit of the Holy Spirit which helps us to master anger: Meekness. In modern English, meekness has lost its original vigor and tends to signify a person who is a bit of a pushover and easily taken advantage of. But, in its original meaning, meekness describes the vigorous virtue wherein one gains authority over their anger. Aristotle defined meekness (πραΰτης ) as the mean between being too angry, and not being angry enough. As we have noted, there is a place and a need for anger. The meek person has authority over their anger. They are able to summon its energy but control its extremes. Hence the meek are far from weak. They are the string ones who have gained authority over their anger. St. John Chrysostom says in this regard: He who is not angry when he has cause to be, sins. For unreasonable patience is a hotbed of many vices. (Homily 11). St Thomas Aquinas says: Consequently, lack of the passion of anger is also a vice, [for it is] a lack of movement in the will directed to punishment by the judgment of reason (II, IIae 158.8).

What of Jesus? One the one hand Jesus seems to have taught very strongly against anger:

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Matt 5:21-22)

On the face of it it would seem that Jesus condemns anger without exception. However, if that is the case then Jesus broke his own rule for he exhibited a lot of anger in the Gospels. What Jesus DOES clearly condemn here is unrighteous and wrathful anger. Notice that he give two examples of the kind of anger he means. The first example is to use the term of contempt: Raca. This term is hard to translate so it is simply rendered in the Aramaic. Essentially what it means to do is to strip a person of any dignity and to regard them with utter contempt. Notice that Jesus links this kind of anger to murder since, by it, the other person is so stripped of any human dignity that to murder them is no different than killing an ox or mule. This sort of anger depersonalizes the other and disregards them as a child of God. The term fool; has a similar, though less egregious, purpose. Hence, it would seem that the Lord is not condemning all anger her but rather the anger of contempt and depersonalization. To absolutize Jesus’ teaching here to include any anger would seem unreasonable given what we have said above and it would also call into question Jesus’ own example which includes not a little anger.

Most people are familiar with Jesus’ anger in the cleansing of the temple. But there are other places as well where he manifest not a little anger:

Jesus said, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!”You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? (Matt 23:29-33)

Jesus said, “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire! He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God!” ( John 8:44-47)

Passages like these do not exhibit the “Mr Rogers” kind of Jesus common in the modern imagination. Jesus was no “Caspar Milquetoast.” His vigorous anger is also on display in the video below.

What to make of these angry displays?

Not sinful – Clearly they are not sinful displays of anger since the scriptures assure us that Jesus never sinned (e.g. Heb 4:15).
There may be an important cultural dimension to remember here. In the culture of the ancient Jews there seems to have been a wider acceptance of the expression of anger than in our own American setting. Even in America there is a wide variance in the acceptance of anger. I once dated an Italian girl in college and she and her mom could really set to it: lots of loud shouting in Italian! And then in a moment it was over and they were on to the next topic. In their family anger was a more accepted expression than in the typical American setting. The cleansing of the Temple by Jesus was also an expression more acceptable than our culture would usually permit. Turning over the tables etc. was a “prophetic action.” Prophets did things like this. In that culture it was more acceptable than perhaps in ours. But even we find a place for civil disobedience. We may not always like it, but we respect that it has a place in our culture.
Yet Jesus clearly is angry. He is grieved at the hard heartedness of his opponents and his strong tone is an authoritative summons to repent. A lowered and lyrical voice might not convey the urgency of the situation. These are hardened men and there is a need for pointed and passionate denunciation. This is righteous anger.
We ought to be careful before simply taking up Jesus angry tone for two reasons. First, he was able to see into their hearts and properly conclude as to the proper tactics necessary. We may not always be able to do this. Secondly, the wider Western culture in which many of us live may not be as prepared to accept such an angry tone. It may be a less effective tactic in our setting and prudential judgment is a necessary precursor to using such tactics.

But in the end, anger is not, ipso facto, sinful or wrong. It is sometimes the proper and necessary response. We do well to be careful with our anger, for it is an unruly passion. We ought to see above all the fruit of the Spirit which is meekness and ask to Lord ot give us authority over our anger and a prudence as to its effective use.

This video shows Jesus’ anger:

October 11, 2010June 10, 2015

When God Says "No"

It is common for all of us to have to struggle as to the great mystery of God’s providence and will. If it is not our own struggle then we must often commiserate with others who are in distress. One person is losing her young daughter to cancer, a friend is struggling to find work, still another has a husband who is drinking. Some will say to me, “I’ve been praying, Father. Nothing seems to happen.” I am not always sure what to say and God doesn’t often explain why we must suffer, or why he delays, or why he says, “No.”

Just think of how he answered Job. Job wanted answers as to why he was suffering. And God spoke from the whirlwind and upbraided Job with provocative questions meant to humble him. But in the end he gave him no real answer. He DID restore Job though. And somehow in the midst of God’s mysterious ways we DO have to remember that if we are faithful God is going to more than restore us one day. But in the midst of trials, future restoration seems pretty theoretical.

So, often in the midst of trials, the best we can do is to be still. To breathe, to sigh and yearn, and to weep with those who weep. Scripture says, The LORD is good to those who wait for him, to the soul that seeks him. It is good that one should wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD (Lam 3:25).

Scripture does give some answers as to God’s delay and to his “No.” And while these explanations may not always emotionally satisfy us, they do provide a teaching which can ultimately assist us in not allowing our sorrow, anger or disappointment to interact with our pride and lead us away from faith. Let’s look at a few of these explanations as to God’s “No” and his delay. Some of these explanations pertain to God and some to us. I place the word “sometimes” before most of these since they do not all apply to all of us, all the time.

1. Sometimes, “No” is the Best Answer – We often think we know what is best for us. We want to have this job, or we want that person to fall in love and marry us. We want to be delivered from a certain illness or receive a financial blessing. We see these as good outcomes and are sure that God must also see them this way. But God may not, in fact agree with our assessment as to what is best for us. And thus his “No” is really the best answer to our prayers.

For example we may always prefer that God answer our prayer that none of our children be born with any disabilities. But God may see that the experience of disability may be just the thing that we or the child may need in order to be saved ultimately. St. Paul prayed for deliverance from some sort of physical affliction: Three times I begged the Lord about this, that it might leave me, but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in 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 12:7-10).

The fact is, we really don’t know what is best for us or for someone else. We may think we know, but we do not. God’s “No” to Paul helped to save him for it helped him better understand the power of the cross in his life and how we must learn to depend on God. So too for us. We may prefer certain outcomes, but God alone really knows if our preference is truly good for us or just apparently good.

2. God is love – Many confuse love with kindness. Kindness is a common attribute of love but it is not the same as love. Any parent knows that they must often times discipline their children, and that it is the loving thing to do. A parent who is always kind and never punishes, spoils that child and does not exhibit true love. Parents will sometimes inflict pain on a child by limiting their freedom and insisting that they do what is right. They will bring an unwilling child to the doctor for shots, they will insist that they finish their homework before play. They may give a firm “no” to certain requests that they know are harmful or interfere with greater duties. Kindness always wants to say yes, but love sometimes says no and even inflicts hardships where necessary.

God is a Father. Kindness has its place but love is more essential for us than mere kindness which is but an attribute of love. Scripture says, My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son….God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it. (Heb 12:5-6, 11). And Again: Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus….Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this (2 Tim 2:3,7)

3. Sometimes our request cannot be affirmed without violating another’s freedom– It is a common thing that we may pray for the conversion of another person. Or we may pray that they make some decision that we prefer. God is all powerful and could force outcomes, but this would violate the freedom of others to truly decide. If freedom is contingent upon God’s whim then it is not really freedom. God can exhort through his Church and the Scriptures. He can send special graces to be of influence, but in the end, we are free and he will not generally force an individual to choose what we want or ask in prayer. The scriptures affirm our freedom. For example: There are set before you fire and water; to which ever you choose, stretch forth your hand. Before man are life and death, which ever he chooses shall be given him (Sirach 15:16-17).

4. Sometimes our request cannot be granted due to the harm it might cause to others– We can sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that we are the most important things on God’s agenda. We want a sunny day for our picnic but the farmers are in desperate need of rain. Whose need is more important? It would seem that the farmers might be a bit higher on God’s list than my picnic, however, even this, I leave up to God.

The prophet Jonah went reluctantly to the Ninevites to preach. And he didn’t want them to be converted. He want them to refuse repentance and be destroyed within 40 days. He had good reasons to want this. The Ninevites (Assyrians) were amassing an army that was a great threat to Israel and if they were destroyed Israel would be spared any further threat. But the Ninevites DID repent. And Jonah was sullen and bitter. God rebuked him with these words: Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?(Jonah 4:9) We may not be praying for another’s harm but it may sometimes be the case that what we ask for would adversely affect others.

5. Sometimes our faith is not strong enough – Jesus said: “If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.” (Matthew 21:22) And the Book of James says, But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; (James 1:6-7) There is also the sad fact of Nazareth where the Lord could work few miracles so much did their lack of faith disturb him (Matt 13:58)

6. Sometimes we ask for improper things or with wrong motives – The Book of James says : “When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures”

7. Sometimes unrepented sin sets up a barrier between us and God so that our prayer is blocked – “Surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save, nor His ear too dull to hear. But your iniquities (sins) have separated you from God; your sins have hidden his face from you so that He will not hear” (Isaiah 59:1-2).

8. Sometimes we have not been generous with the requests and needs of others – “If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered” (Proverbs 21:13)

9. Sometimes God cannot trust us with blessings for we are not conformed to his word or trustworthy with lesser things – If you remain in me and my word remains in you, ask whatever you wish and it will be given to you” (John 15:7) and Again: So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own? (Lk 16:11-12)

In this video a pastor and his cat explain suffering and the mind of God.

A Cat and his Priest explain suffering and the mind of God @ Yahoo! Video

This Song says that some of God’s greatest gifts are unanswered prayers.

October 10, 2010June 10, 2015

Where are the Other Nine? – A Question YOU must Answer

In the Gospel for yesterday (Sunday’s) Mass the Lord Jesus healed ten lepers. Only one of them returned to thank him. And Jesus asked the following question:

Ten were cleansed, were they not? Where are the other nine? (Luke 17:17)

We have discussed before (HERE) that, when Jesus asks a question, you’re supposed to answer it yourself. Do not wait for some one else to answer it. Don’t just wait and see how someone in the Biblical story answered it. YOU answer it, for yourself.

So Jesus just asked us a question: Ten were cleansed were they not? Where are the other nine? OK, so where are they? “Who?”, you might ask. Well, think in terms of evangelization. Do you not know at least nine other people who need to return to God, to the Church and to the sacraments? The Lord is asking you (not the person next to you), “Where are the other nine?”

Now the question has a rhetorical quality to it. The Lord is not merely curious as to the physcial whereabouts of unchurched loved ones and friends. It would seem He also wants to know why they are not “here,” close to him in the sacraments. We saw in yesterday’s blog post (HERE) that the gospel is really in the form of a Mass and the leper kneeling before him to give thanks has a Eucharistic meaning. So, in this sense, the Lord wants to know why the missing “nine” are not kneeling before God in the great thanksgiving we call the Eucharist (a Greek word which means to give thanks) to render thanks and receive further blessings.

So where are the other nine?

Where is your spouse who fell away from the faith years ago?
Where is your son or daughter who stopped going to church in college?
Where is your brother?
Where is your co-worker who “used to be Catholic”?
And to the priest and parish leaders:
Where is that parishioner who used to be so dedicated and hasn’t been seen in months?
Where is the choir member who once sang all those solos?
Where is the parish secretary who got ill and had to retire but you haven’t contacted since?
Ten were made whole, were they not? Where are the other nine?

Why me? It is a true fact that we cannot be personally and primarily responsible for every one’s whereabouts and falling away from Mass. But neither can we be wholly detached from this matter. One day God asked Cain, “Where is your brother?” And Cain replied with a question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Now, of course, Cain had other issues going on. (!) But aside from those, his question “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is demonstrably shallow. The fact is, we are our brother’s “keeper” in the sense that their whereabouts and well-being should be important to us. It should grieve us if they have drifted from God and the sacraments. Perhaps they did this because they were hurt, or are sick. Or perhaps they have grown lukewarm or have drifted into serious sin. Yes, “Where is your brother?”

And so, the question, “Where are the other nine?” is a question we must answer. And if that means that we must go and seek the other nine and find the answer, then we ought to get about doing it. We don’t need to start with lectures. Simple heart-felt questions can often be the best beginning:

How have you been?
I haven’t seen you in Church recently. Are you OK?
Did someone hurt you?
Has your health been poor?
What keeps you from coming?
Can I help?
How do you experience God in your life?
Do you know we miss you?
Do you know we need you?
Do you know the Lord wants to feed you?
Come with me back to Mass this Sunday.

The Archbishop in his recent letter on Evangelization (Disciples of the Lord) says,

This is our mandate: to witness to others so that they reawaken to and rediscover the vital and inexhaustible friendship of Jesus Christ. Sisters and brothers, our eagerness and zeal for the task can be both the invitation and support for those who take their first steps back to the community of faith, as the ever deepening life within the seed is drawn to the light. At the individual level this action may be through a deepening of our own personal faith as well as outreach to others: a direct conversation about Catholicism, extending an invitation to Mass, or providing simple witnesses such as blessing ourselves before a meal in a restaurant, offering to pray for someone in need, keeping a devotional item on our desk at work or wearing a crucifix for others to see. (Disciples of the Lord, P. 13)

Our archdiocesan efforts to share the good news and invite others into the joy of new life in Christ are not simply a new program — one among many. I hope all of us will see the New Evangelization as a lens through which we see everything that we are doing but now in the light of our understanding of how important it is for each of us to tell the story, share the excitement and be that leaven where the faith has gone flat and that salt where the faith has lost its zest….We cannot simply invite from a distance. Instead, we search actively and carefully for our sisters and brothers who are away from the practice of their faith. (P. 15)

The Lord was surely glad to see that Leper come back and he is surely glad to see us at Mass on Sunday. Praise God! But he does have a heartfelt question for you and me, and for the Church. It is an evangelical question, and and a question that touches on the most fundamental mission we have. It is a question that we cannot utlimately ignore if we want to call ourselves the Lord’s disciples. It is a question you must answer: “Where are the other nine?” Where?

October 9, 2010June 10, 2015

The Hidden Mass in Today’s Gospel and the Perfect Thanksgiving – A Meditation on the Gospel for the 28th Sunday of the Year

One of the great human inadequacies is rendering proper and adequate thanks to God. Perhaps the biggest problem is that we don’t even know 90% of what he does for us. It is hid from our eyes. A further problem is that we tend, in our fallen condition, to be wired to magnify our distresses and problems and minimize or discount the enormous blessings of each moment. God sustains every fiber of our being and every atom of creation, his hidden blessings are countless. But we get angry if our iPod is malfunctioning or if one or two out of the trillion blessings he gives is withdrawn.

But in the end an old gospel song says it well:

I’ve got so much to thank God for; So many wonderful blessings and so many open doors. A brand new mercy along with each new day. That’s why I praise You and for this I give You praise. For waking me up this morning , For starting me on my way, For letting me see the sunshine, of a brand new day. That’s why I praise You and for this I give You praise. So many times You´ve met my needs, So many times You rescued me. That’s why I praise You.

For every mountain You brought me over For every trial you’ve seen me through. For every blessing, For this I give You praise

Fundamental Question – So here is the question at the heart of today’s Gospel. It is best asked in the Book of Psalms: What return shall I make to the Lord for all the good he has done for me? The same psalm goes on to answer the question in this way: The cup of salvation I will take up and call on the name of the Lord. (Psalm 116:12)

The Mass is signified – Yes indeed, how can I possibly thank the Lord for all the good he has done for me? Notice that the psalm points to the Eucharist in saying, The cup of salvation I will take up….” As you know the word “Eucharist” is a Greek word which means, “thanksgiving.” We cannot thank God the Father adequately, but Jesus can. And in every Mass we join our meager thanksgiving to his perfect thanksgiving. Jesus takes up the cup of salvation and shows it to us at every Mass through the priest. This is the perfect and superabundant thanks that only Jesus can offer the Father. And he joins us to his perfect sacrifice of thanks in every Mass. This is how we give thanks in a way commensurate with the manifold blessings we have received.

Hidden Mass! – Now the Gospel makes this point, that the Mass is the perfect offering of thanks to the Father, in a remarkable and almost hidden way. But for Catholics it is right there for us to see if we have eyes to see it. For the Gospel today contains all the essential elements of Holy Mass. In so doing, this Gospel about giving thanks reminds us once again that it is the Mass which is the perfect thanksgiving, the perfect “Eucharist.” Let’s look and see how it is a Mass:

Gathering – Notice first that there is a gathering. Ten lepers (us) have gathered and Jesus comes near as he passes on his way. We do this in every Mass, we gather and the Lord draws near. Indeed, in the person of the priest, who is the sacrament, the sign of his presence, Jesus walks the aisle of our Church just like he walked those ancient roads.
Kyrie – Next they cry out for mercy just like we do at every Mass: Lord have mercy! Jesus, Master, have pity on us!
Liturgy of the Word – Next Jesus quotes Scripture and then applies it to their life just like he does for us at every Mass. In saying, “Go show yourselves to the priests” Jesus is referencing Leviticus 14 which gives detailed instructions on how the priests of old were to diagnose leprosy and also its having been cured. Jesus quotes this scripture and applies it to their life. This is what we do at every Mass wherein God’s Word is proclaimed and then the Lord Jesus, speaking through the priest or deacon, applies the text(s) to our life.
Liturgy of the Eucharist – Next, the text says that one of them: fell at the feet of Jesus and thanked him. This is what we do during the Eucharistic prayer, we kneel and thank Jesus, and also, with Jesus, give thanks to the Father. As we have noted, the word “Eucharist” comes from Greek and means “to give thanks.” Here is the perfect thanks rendered to the Father. To those who say they can stay home and give adequate thanks to God, there should only be the rebuke that they are prideful. Only Jesus can give perfect thanks to the Father. And we can only give adequate thanks to Jesus by following his command to “do this in memory of me.” We have to be at Mass.
Ite Missa est – Finally, Jesus sends him on his way, saying Stand up and go; your faith has saved you. We too are sent forth by Jesus at the end of every Mass when He speaks through the priest or deacon: “The Mass is ended, God in peace.”

So, there it is. In this Gospel that very clearly instructs us to give thanks to God is the very structure of the Mass. If you want to give proper thanks to God and you made it to Mass this morning, you’re in the right place. Only here is perfect and proper thanks given to God.

It was all prefigured in the psalm long ago: What return shall I make to the Lord for all the good he has done for me? The cup of salvation I will take up and call on the name of the Lord (Psalm 116:12). It is the very cup of salvation, the chalice containing Christ’s blood that is held up at every Mass. It is the perfect sacrifice of thanks. It is the prescribed sacrifice of praise. It is the proper sacrifice of praise.

This video is of the Song I quoted above:

October 8, 2010June 10, 2015

The Christian Life Should Be Lived at 45°

There’s something spiritual and practical I’ve learned about Mass facing the people: It’s all about the angle. One of the dangers for the priest who celebrates facing the people is that he so focuses on the people that he is forgetful of God. However, one can reason that it also wrong for the priest to pay no mind to the people he so loves and for whom he celebrates the Mass.

In my own parish I am blessed with a rose window in the back of Church that draws my attention (See photo detail at right of the center oculus of the widow). And the angle is perfect, 45 Degrees. I say it’s perfect, because, looking at that angle, I can see both the Lord and the people. At the top of my visual field it the Lord whom I worship and, at the bottom of my field of vision, are the people who are the members of his body and for whom I minister.

And this is a paradigm for life: loving and seeing God and loving and seeing my neighbor. At 90°, my field of vision lacks either God or the people God loves. For example, if I look straight up (90°) I am looking toward God, but not the people God loves. If I look straight forward (90°) I am looking to the people I love but not the God I love. At 45° I can see both.

The Christian life should be lived at 45°.A life directed only to God but mindless of our neighbor is incomplete for it lack the whole second table of the Law (love of neighbor). A life wholly devoted to man and humanitarian endeavors, but forgetful of God is not spiritual at all. It is merely social activism and it neglects the first table of the Law (love of God). It is at 45° that we find the proper balance for life.

Disclaimer –This reflection is not a liturgical reflection per se. I am not attempting to enter the debate about Mass facing the people vs. Mass ad orientem . It is a simple fact that 95% of the Mass I have celebrated over 21 years have been facing the people and have learned a life lesson from this. There are very good arguments to be made for Mass at the high altar facing to liturgical East. And there are also good reasons not to make that change now. This is not what I wish to discuss here. Only the life lesson I have learned, that life is best lived at 45 Degrees.

Here is an interesting video that takes up the theme of 45°

October 7, 2010June 10, 2015

Why Does Jesus Call Us Evil?

The Gospel for today’s Mass records Jesus as saying the following:

If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him? (Lk 11:13)

I received an e-mail today regarding this verse:

This line bugs me. I think I know the larger point that Jesus makes here, and/or perhaps it’s poorly translated, but it seems a bit harsh for Jesus to refer to mankind as “evil”. Evil? That’s tough stuff! But perhaps, to Jesus, we are evil. I don’t know. Bring on the redemption Lord!!!

So what is going on here? Why does Jesus call us evil?

Let’s check first and make the translation is good. The Greek expression πονηροὶ ὑπάρχοντες (poneroi hyparchontes). Now poneroi is defined in the Greek lexicon as “bad, of a bad nature or condition.” But it is also defined as “full of labors, annoyances, hardships.” And hyparchontes is translated as “from the very beginning” or “being inherently.”

Thus the translation “you who are evil” is likely accurate. It might be more precisely translated as “If you then, being inherently bad (or evil).” Or perhaps also it could be rendered as “If you then, being evil from the beginning….”

But it also seems, if we take the second meaning of poneroi it could be rendered: “If then you, being full of labors (or hardships)…” However, I checked over a dozen translations over at Biblos.com and none of them render it in this secondary way. All of them simply say, “If then, you who are evil….”

So it seems the bottom line analysis of the text in Greek is that we’re stuck with the fact that the Lord is calling us “evil.”

What do the Commentaries say? It is interesting that in the seven modern commentaries I consulted, none of them make any mention of this expression. However some of the ancient Fathers make mention of the phrase:

1. Cyril of Alexandria says, When he says, “You who are evil” he means, “You whose mind is capable of being influenced by evil and not uniformly inclined to good like the God of all. (Commentary on Luke, Homily 79)

2. Bede interprets the phrase to mean, Any human mortal, weak and still burdened with sinful flesh, does not refuse to give the good things which he possesses, although they are earthly and weak, to the children whom he loves. (Homilies on the Gospel 2.14)

3. Bede also says elsewhere: He calls the lovers of the world evil, who give those things which they judge good according to their sense, which are also good in their nature, and are useful to aid imperfect life. Hence he adds, “[They] know how to give good gifts to [their] children.” The Apostles even, who by the merit of their election had exceeded the goodness of mankind in general, are said to be evil in comparison with Divine goodness, since nothing is of itself good but God alone (Quoted in the Catena Aurea at Lk 11:13)

4. Athanasius Says: Now unless the Holy Spirit were of the substance of God, Who alone is good, He would by no means be called good, since our Lord [Jesus] refused to be called good, inasmuch as He was made man. (Quoted in the Catena Aurea at Luke 11:13)

Therefore if I can be so bold to enter the company of these Ancient and approved Fathers of the Church I would like to draw a conclusion from our consideration of what the Lord means by calling us evil.

1. Jesus, it would seem, is speaking by comparison or degree here. He may not mean that we are evil in an absolute sense, rather, that we are evil in comparison to God who is absolute good. The Hebrew and Aramaic languages tend to lack comparative words and this means that ancient Jews would often use absolute categories to set forth comparison or degree. For example elsewhere Jesus tells us that we must hate our father, mother, children even our very self and that we must love him (e.g. Luke 14:26). This does not mean we are to literally despise our family and others. It means we are to love Jesus more than them. Ancient Jews spoke this way and used a lot of what we consider to be hyperbole (exaggeration) due to the lack of comparative words in Hebrew and Aramaic. Hence in calling us “evil” that Lord may not mean it in an absolute sense but is setting forth a comparison in a Jewish sort of way. Hence in modern English we might tend to say, “If you then, who are not nearly as holy as God and are prone to sin, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will God, who is absolutely good and not prone to sin give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him?”

2. However, we ought to be careful here as well not simply to discount Jewish hyperbole and simply re-write it as I have done. The point of the hyperbole cannot be missed or set aside. Created things may share in God’s goodness, but God ALONE is absolutely good. So good is He, in fact, that everything else is practically evil in comparison to him. The hyperbole places the emphasis of God’s absolute goodness. We have no goodness apart from God’s goodness. And, if we do share in God’s goodness, it is infinitesimal in comparison to God. Hence, as Bede says above: The Apostles even, who by the merit of their election had exceeded the goodness of mankind in general, are said to be evil in comparison with Divine goodness, since nothing is of itself good but God alone.

3. As an illustration, some decades and many pounds ago, I ran track. We would sometimes josh a runner who had lost a race by saying, “That guy ran past you so fast you looked like you were standing still!” It was hyperbole (and a cruel one at that). However, the exaggeration was meant to make a real point: he out-classed you, he whooped you. And so it is that, even if Jesus is using hyperbole and absolute categories, we cannot miss the point: whatever goodness we have is really a participation in God’s goodness. God is so great that our goodness can barely be seen as goodness.

4. Even Jesus refused the title “good” for himself in terms of his humanity. In the Gospel of Mark we have the following dialogue: As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good — except God alone. (Mk 10:17-18). Now, as God, Jesus is good. One would also argue that in his sinless humanity Jesus was also good. But, presuming the man merely regarded him as ordinarily human, Jesus rebukes him and declares that God alone is good.

5. So, in the end, it’s time for some humble pie. Jesus probably does not mean we are absolutely evil and with nothing good in us. But God ALONE is absolutely good. And he is so good that we can barely be thought of as anything but evil in the face of his immense goodness. Humble pie doesn’t have much sugar in it, does it?

October 6, 2010June 10, 2015

What St. Paul Can Teach Us About Respect for Church Authority

In the readings for daily Mass the past few days we have been reviewing the faith journey of St. Paul who describes his personal history and also his authority in the second chapter of the Letter to the Galatians. The story is interesting for three reasons.

It can help correct notions that some have of Paul’s rapid assent to the office of apostle (Bishop) and affirm that he was not a lone-ranger apostle. He was a man who was formed in the community of the Church for some length of time, and did not go on Mission until he was sent.
It spells out Paul’s relationship to authority within the Church.
It shows forth an important aspect of being under authority and the prevailing need for fraternal correction in hierarchal structures.

Let’s take a look at each of these matters in turn.

1. On Paul’s conversion, formation and ascent to the office of Apostle (Bishop). Many have oversimplified notions of Paul’s conversion, and subsequent missionary activity. Many who have not carefully studied the texts of Acts, Galatians, and other references assume that Paul went right to work after his conversion as a missionary. But this was not the case.

At the time near his conversion Paul was described as “a young man” (neanias). Sometime after the death of Stephen he had his conversion, encountering the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. Immediately following his encounter with Christ he was blinded for three days and eventually healed by a Christian named Ananias who also baptized him (Acts 9:9-19). Hereafter, according to Galatians, Paul went into the Desert of Arabia (Gal 1:17). Why he went, and for how long is not known. It is probably not wrong to presume that he went there to reflect and possibly be further formed in the Christian faith to which he had come so suddenly and unexpectedly. Was he there for several years as some scholars propose or just a brief time as others do? It is not possible to say with certainty but it would seem that some amount of time would be necessary to pray, reflect and experience formation in the Christian way, possibly with other Christians. A period of at least a year seems tenable and perhaps as many as three years. We can only speculate.

Paul then returned to Damascus and joined the Christian community there for a period of almost three years (Gal 1:18). While there he took to debating in the synagogues and was so effective in demonstrating that Jesus was the hoped for messiah that some of the Jews there conspired to kill him. He fled the city and went to Jerusalem (Acts 9:20-25). Paul states that he went there to confer with Cephas (Peter) (Gal 1:18). Paul seems to imply that he thought it was time to confer with Peter since he had begun to teach and even now was gaining disciples. Later he would describe the purpose of another visit to Peter and the other leaders: to present the Gospel that I preach to the Gentiles…so that I might not be running, or have run in vain (Gal 2:2). While there on this first visit he stayed for 15 days and also met James.

After this consultation he went home to Tarsus for a period of about three years. What he did during this time is unknown. Barnabas then arrived and asked him to come to Antioch and help him evangelize there (Acts 11:25-26). He stayed there about a year. He made another brief visit to Jerusalem to deliver a collection for the poor and upon his return to Antioch we finally see his ordination as a Bishop. The leaders of the Church at Antioch were praying and received instruction from the Holy Spirit to Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them (Acts 13:3). Thus, the leaders of the Church there laid hands on Barnabas and Saul and send them forth on Mission. Here we have an ordination and the source of Paul’s status as Apostle (bishop).

Notice however, this sending happens years after Paul’s conversion. Depending on how long we account his time in the desert we are talking about 7-10 years wherein Paul lived in community with other members of the Church and also conferred with Peter. He was not a self appointed missionary and his conversion required completion before the Church sent him forth. This going-forth he undertook only after being sent.

2. On Paul’s submission to authority – We can see therefore, that Paul was not a lone ranger. He did submit what he taught to Peter and later to others apostles and leaders (Acts 11 & 15). He states that to have preached something other than what the Church proposed would be to run “in vain” (Gal 2:2). Here was a man who was formed by the community of the Church and who submitted his teachings to scrutiny by lawful authority. Here was man who went forth on his missions only after he was ordained and sent. Further, Paul and Barnabas, as they went through the towns and villages on their missionary journeys, also established authority in each church community they founded by appointing presbyters in each town (Acts 14:23). Upon completion of their first missionary journey they reported back to the leaders at Antioch who had sent them (Acts 14:27) and later to the apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 15). Hence we have an accountability structure in the early Church and a line of authority. Paul was no. He both respected authority and established authority in the churches he established. He also makes it clear to the Galatians and others that he has authority and that he expects them to respect it.

3. But here is where we also see a fascinating and somewhat refreshing portrait of what true respect for authority includes. It is clear, from what we have seen, that Paul respected the authority of Peter and had both conferred with him early on and later set forth the gospel that he preached. However, there is also a description of Paul offering fraternal correction to Peter:

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (Gal 2:11-14)

There is something refreshing about this understanding of authority. It understands that having authority does not mean one is above reproof. Too many people shy away from speaking honestly to those in authority. There is an old saying about bishops: When a man becomes a bishop he will never again have a bad meal and he will never again hear the truth. Too many of us flatter those who have authority. In so doing we tend to isolate them. They do not have all the information and feedback they need to make good decisions. And then we they do make questionable decisions we criticize them. Of course we seldom do this to their face. Rather we speak ill of them behind their back and continue to remain largely silent and flattering to their face. The cycle continues, and everyone suffers.

But here Paul stands face to face (κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην) with Peter and accuses him of a moral fault. Peter had taught rightly of the equality of the Gentiles but drew back from keeping company with them. We as Catholics teach of the infallibility of the pope but we do not teach that he is impeccable (sinless). Even those who teach rightly (as Peter did) sometimes struggle to fully live the truth they preach (believe me, I know).

Accountability in the Church demands that we learn to speak the truth to one another in love, even if the one we must speak to has authority. People are often reticent to speak frankly to their Pastors. Bishops too are often isolated in this way. Even their priests often refrain from frank discussion of issues. In this Archdiocese I know that Archbishop Wuerl is very serious about consultation and he enjoys a vigorous airing of issues at the priest council, and other consultative bodies.

Clearly correction and/or frank discussion should be done charitably, but it should be done. Now Paul here is a little bolder than I would be but he also lived in a different culture than I. As we can see from the Gospels and other writings Jesus and the Apostles really “mixed it up” with others. The ancient Jewish setting was famous for frank and vivid discussion of issues that included a lot of hyperbole. Our own culture prefers a more gentle approach. Perhaps the modern rule is best stated: Clarity with Charity.

In the end, we show a far greater respect for authority by speaking clearly and directly to those in authority. False flattery is unhelpful, inappropriate silence does not serve, and speaking scornfully behind the backs of others is just plain sinful.

So Paul demonstrates a sort of refreshing honesty with Peter here. He acknowledges Peter’s authority as we have seen but also respects Peter enough as a man to speak with him directly and clearly, to his face, and not behind his back.

This video is a brief summary of St. Paul’s life. Most scholars don’t agree with the concluding remark that Paul made it out of Roman prison and went to Spain. But there are two traditions in this regard:

October 5, 2010June 10, 2015

"A Life Like Yours" On The Dignity of the Disabled and the Call to Save Them From Abortion

I spent the afternoon today taking part in a “webinar” focused on providing support, Church teaching and information to families who receive a pre-natal diagnosis that their child will be disabled in some way. Perhaps they are informed that the child will have Down Syndrome, or perhaps a birth defect that will lead either to early death, or to a lifetime of challenges.

The pressure on such families to abort is often enormous. They are told, “It is the right thing to do” and, “You should not make the child suffer.” Some are even made to feel they are doing something “unethical” by bringing forth such children. There are also time pressures placed on such parents. Doctors often want the decision to terminate, made quickly, within a matter of days.

A life not worth living? There seems to be operative a notion on the part of many in our culture that there is such a thing as a life not worth living. We have stumbled upon the very unusual and tragically ironic concept that death is a form of therapy, that the “treatment” for disabled babies is to kill them. Of course death is not a treatment or a therapy, it cannot be considered a “solution” for the one who loses their life. Yet tragically this is often the advice that many parents with a poor pre-natal diagnosis receive, the urgent pressure that they terminate the pregnancy now.

90 % are lost – All this pressure goes a long way to explain that just over 90% of families with a poor pre-natal diagnosis choose to abort. We in the Church cannot remain silent in the face of this. We must prophetically and compassionately reach out to families in such a crisis. Many of them are devastated by the news that their baby may have serious disabilities. Often they descend into shock and are overwhelmed by fear, conflicting feelings and even anger at God or others. Sometimes the greatest gifts we can give them are time, information, and the framework of faith. Simply considering some of the following may help:

1. They do not have to rush, despite what they are told. Serious life-changing decisions should never have to be made in a 48 to 72 hour time period. Pressure should never be applied to families by medical personnel and the family should consider such pressure a grave injustice.

2. Pre-natal diagnoses are not always right. We often think of Medicine as an exact science. It is not. Data can be misinterpreted and premises can sometimes be wrong. Further, there is a difference between the result of a screening and an actual diagnosis. Screenings can point to potential problems and likelihoods, but are not an actual diagnosis of a problem. Further study is always needed if a screening indicates potential problems. Quite frequently, further tests, after a screening reveal no problem at all.

3. Disabilities are not always as terrible a reality as we, in our “perfect-insistent” world, think. Many people with disabilities live very full lives and are a tremendous gift to their families, the Church and the world. Providing families with further information about disabilities and connecting them with families who have experience in these areas are essential to avoid the catastrophizing that sometimes sets in when an adverse pre-natal diagnosis is given.

4. For those with faith it is essential to connect them with the most basic truths of our Christian faith. The cross is an absurdity to the world. But to those of the Christian faith, the cross brings life and blessings, even despite its pain. Where it not for our crosses, most of us could never be saved. Bringing forth a disabled child will not be easy but God never fails. He can make a way out of no way and do anything, but fail. My own sister was mentally ill and she carried a cross. We too had a share in that cross. But my sister, Mary Anne, brought blessings to our family as well. I don’t know if I’d be a priest today if it were not for her. I am sure I would not be as compassionate and I doubt I could be saved were it not for the important lessons she taught me. I know she brought out strength and mercy, not to mention humility, from all of us in the family. Her cross and ours brought grace, strength and many personal gifts to all of us. Yes, the cross is painful, but it brings life as well. Easter Sunday is not possible without Good Friday. To the world the cross is absurdity but to us who believe it is salvation, it is life, it is our only real hope, it is our truest glory to carry it as Christ did.

5. Disability is not an all-or-nothing thing. Disability exists on a continuum. In some way all of us are disabled. Some of us have very serious weight problems, others diabetes, pressure, heart problems, etc. Some of us are intellectually challenged in certain areas. Some of us struggle with anxiety or depression, addictions, or compulsions. Some experience losses in mobility through an accident or just due to age. All of us have abilities and disabilities. Some of our disabilities are more visible than others, some disabilities are more serious than others. But in most cases we are able to adjust to what disables us and still live reasonably full lives. We may not be able to do all we would like, but life still has blessings for us. And even our weaknesses and disabilities can, and do, bring us blessings by helping to keep us humble. How much disability is too much? Can you really be the judge of that? Can you or I really decide for someone else that their life is not worth living?

6. Life is not usually what it seems. In this world we esteem things like wealth, ability, strength and power. But God is not all that impressed by these sorts of things. God has a special place for the poor and the humble. The Lord has said that many who are last in this life are going to be first in the next (cf Mat 19:30). There is a great reversal coming wherein the mighty are cast down and the lowly are raised up. In this world we may look upon those who suffer disability with a misplaced pity. But understand this: they are going to be the exalted ones in the kingdom of heaven. As we accept the disabled and the needy into our midst we are accepting those who will be the royalty in heaven. We ought to learn to look up to them, beg their prayers and only hope that their coattails may also help us attain to some of the glory they will specially enjoy. They have a dignity that this world may refuse to see but we who believe cannot fail to remember that the last are going to be the first. Life is not always what it seems.

What of those who aborted? We as a Church cannot avoid our responsibility to prophetically declare the dignity and worth of the disabled. More than ever our world needs the Church’s testimony, for it is a startling statistic that 90% of parents choose to abort in cases of a poor pre-natal diagnosis. Even as we prophetically witness to dignity of the disabled and the wrongness of abortion in these cases we must also embrace those who have chosen abortion and now struggle with that choice. We are called to reconcile and bring healing to all who have faced this crisis and fallen. Many were pressured, afraid and felt alone. We offer this embrace through confession, and healing ministries like Project Rachael which offers counseling, spiritual direction, support groups and prayer services. Even as the Church is prophetic in speaking against abortion she must also reconcile those who have fallen under the weight of these heavy issues.

For more information:

This video was produced by the Office of Special Needs and the Life Issues Department for the Youth Rally and Mass for Life, held at the Verizon Center in Washington, DC on January 22, 2010. It shares the story of Maddie, who reminds us of the dignity and joy that can be found in every human life