Author: Msgr. Charles Pope

Posted on

Learning the Lessons of Lazarus and the Rich Man

The well known story of the Lazarus and the Rich Man was read at Mass yesterday morning. At one level the story seems plain enough: to neglect the poor is a damnable sin. But there are other important teachings contained in this Gospel, teachings about death, judgment, heaven and hell.  They are hidden in the details and are somewhat subtle. But that is the beauty of this story, its subtlety. Let’s take a look at some of the teachings beginning with the obvious one.

  1. Neglect of the Poor is a damnable sin – There was a rich man who dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day. And lying at his door was a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who would gladly have eaten his fill of the scraps that fell from the rich man’s table. Dogs even used to come and lick his sores. The vision of Lazarus’ poverty is dramatic indeed. The unnamed rich man (dubbed Dives by some but this name simply means in Latin rich) does not so much act in an evil way toward Lazarus. His sin is a sin of neglect and omission. He seems undisturbed and remote from Lazarus’ suffering. This neglect, this omission, this insensitivity lands him in Hell as the text plainly says, The rich man died and was buried, and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he raised his eyes. Care  for the poor will be a central theme of our judgment as is clear from Matt 25:31ff  where Jesus separates sheep from goats, the just from the unrighteous,  based on whether they cared for the least of his brethren. To those who fail in this regard the Lord Jesus says, Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt 25:41). How best to care for the poor is a matter of some dispute, But that we MUST care for them in some explicit way is not in dispute. Hence we find the Rich Man who sinfully neglected Lazarus now in Hell. Here is a call to sobriety about the reality of judgment and for us to review if our care for the poor is what it should be.
  2. Though in torment the Rich Man has not changed –  The Rich Man in torment, raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off  and Lazarus at his side. And he cried out, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue,  for I am suffering torment in these flames.’  Notice that the Rich Man still fails to see Lazarus’ dignity. In effect he still sees Lazarus as an errand boy who should step and fetch him water. Though he has to look up to see him, he still looks down on him. He does not ask Abraham to send Lazarus to him so that he may apologize for his sinful neglect and seek his forgiveness. Rather he merely wants Lazarus to serve him. The Rich Man, though in torment is unrepentant. He doesn’t like where he is but he remains unreconciled with Lazarus and seems to have no idea that he should even seek to be reconciled. He is hardened in his sin. While Lazarus lived he never saw his dignity. He is still blind to that dignity. Over time sin hardens our heart. The more we remain in sin the harder our hearts become and the less likely it is that we will ever change. Why is Hell eternal? Look at the the Rich Man. He will not change. He cannot change. His decision, his character and demeanor are forever fixed. There is an old litany that goes like this: sow a thought reap a deed; sow a deed reap a habit; sow a habit reap a character; sow a character, reap a destiny. The mystery of the world to come is that our character is forever fixed. The Fathers of the Church spoke of this mystery like clay on a potter’s wheel. As long as the clay is moist and on the wheel, the potter can shape and reshape it. But there comes a time when the clay form is placed in the kiln and when it is fired and its shape is forever fixed. It is this way for us when we come before God who judges us by fire (cf 1 Cor 3:12-15). Fire will forever fix who we are in terms of character and this judgment through fire will either purify us or bring us condemnation.  The fixed quality of the human person is illustrated in the Rich Man’s attitude.
  3. The Rich Man does not ask to come to heaven– It is a very strange fact that the Rich Man does not ask that he might come to heaven but asks that Lazarus be sent to Hell. One of the saddest facts about the souls in Hell must be that they would not be happy in heaven anyway. After all, heaven is about being with God, it is about justice, love of the poor, chastity, the heavenly liturgy, the celebration of the truth, the praise of God, and God (rather than me) being at the center. And the fact is, many show by the way they live that they do not want many of the things on this list. But heaven is about these things. It is surely unlikely that someone who has disliked, even hated these things will suddenly start liking such things at the moment of death. Someone who ignores or disdains God and considers his faithful to be hypocrites etc. would hardly be happy in heaven. The rich man demonstrates this by the fact that he does not ask to come to heaven. He surely does not like where he is, but shows no repentant desire for heaven either. The teaching, though subtle, seems clear enough, the souls in Hell have little real interest in heaven despite their dislike of Hell. Here too their desires and aversions are forever fixed. Abraham further affirms the fixed and insurmountable gulf between heaven and hell when he says Moreover, between us and you a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours.’ While it is not absolutely clear from the text,  there seems implied that while someone might possibly wish to cross from heaven to hell (presumably to help the poor souls) yet the word wish  is not repeated when the possibility is denied of someone crossing from Hell to Heaven. We are not unsafe in concluding that the text teaches there is no wish to do so on that side of the chasm.
  4. The Great Reversal – Abraham further indicates to the Rich Man and to us the “great reversal”: My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented. We spend a lot of time trying to be on top in this world. We want comfort, wealth, position, power, and so forth. But the Lord warns here that we ought to beware of the great reversal that is coming. Lazarus who was poor is now rich. The Rich Man is now poor. Jesus teaches this elsewhere:  But many who are first will be last, and the last first (Mk 10:31). Mary too remarked, he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. He has brought down rulers from their thrones  but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things  but has sent the rich away empty. (Lk 1:51-53)  This is the great reversal. We so want to be rich and comfortable in this world and we run from any suffering or setback. But the Lord warns of riches: How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! (Mk 10:23). Yet still we want to be rich. He also says Anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple (Luke 14:27) Yet still we run from the cross and suffering. The great reversal means that many who are first in this world will be last in the world to come. It is true we cannot assert a one-to-one correlation between success here and loss in the world to come. But neither should we simply ignore the teaching that striving to make it  in the world and be somebody is a dangerous path. And IF we have amounted to something we’d better humble ourselves by generosity to the poor and associating with the humble. Worldly success as a goal to be principally pursued is a dangerous plan for the great reversal is coming. Better to be found among the humble and poor or at least well associated with them than to be mighty and high. Beware the great reversal!
  5. To refuse the truth of Revelation is a damnable sin – The Rich Man does not repent to God, neither does he seek to be reconciled  with Lazarus. But he does have some concerns for his brothers, for his family. We need not assume that the souls in Hell have no affections whatsoever. It simply remains true that their affections are not for God and what God esteems. And so the Rich Man, still seeing Lazarus only as an errand boy for his own needs, asks Abraham to dispatch Lazarus to his family with warning. Perhaps a vision from the grave will convince them! But Abraham indicates quite clearly that they have the clear witness of God in the witness of the Moses and the Prophets. In other words they have the Scriptures, the very Word of God, to warn them. But the Rich Man insists: Oh no, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ Then Abraham said, ‘If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded  if someone should rise from the dead.  The last point is dripping with irony considering the fact that Jesus would rise from the dead. But the fact remains, and Abraham says it clearly, there are many sinners who are hardened in their sin and no matter what the Scriptures say or what the Church solemnly teaches, they will never be convinced. This is so very true today as many remain hardened in their sins. No amount of Scripture or Church teaching will convince them that they are wrong. This is what happens to us if we remain in unrepented sin. Our hearts are hardened, our minds are closed and our necks are stiffened. In the end, this story teaches that such hardness is damnable.

Five basic teachings from a well known parable. We do well to heed these lessons!

This song says, “Rock a My Soul in the Bosom is Abraham” and it amounts to a wish that we will find our way to glory. Heeding the lessons of this parable are surely one way to find our rest in God.

Posted on

Do We Need a New Word for Marriage?

Here in Washington DC today Gay and Lesbian couples lined up to apply for “Marriage”  Licenses. It is a simple fact that word “marriage” as we have traditionally known it is being redefined in our times. To many in the secular world the word no longer means what it once did and when the Church uses the word marriage we clearly do not mean what the DC City Council means.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines Marriage in the following way:

The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament (CCC # 1601)

The latest actions by the DC Council, along with Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and Iowa have legally redefined the term marriage. Other states will likely join the list. The secular world’s definition of marriage no longer even remotely resembles what the Catechism describes.

To be fair, this is not the first redefinition of marriage that has occurred in America. The redefinition has actually come in three stages:

  1. In 1969 the first no-fault divorce law was signed in California. Within 15 years every state in this land had similar laws that made divorce easy. No longer did state laws uphold the principle which the Catechism describes as a partnership of the whole of life. Now marriage was redefined as a contract easily broken by the will of the spouses.
  2. The dramatic rise in contraceptive use and the steep drop in birthrates, though not a legal redefinition, amount to a kind of cultural redefinition of marriage as described in the Catechism which sees the procreation and education of offspring as integral to its very nature. Now the American culture saw this aspect as optional at the will of the spouses.
  3. This final blow completes the redefinition of marriage which the Catechism describes as being  a covenant, …which a man and a woman establish between themselves. Now secular American culture is removing even this, calling same-sex relationships “marriage”.

Proposal:  So the bottom line is that what the secular world means by the word “marriage” is not even close to what the Church means. Is it time for us to accept this and start using a different word? Perhaps it is and I would like to propose a new (really an old) term and hear what you think. I propose that we should exclusively refer to marriage in the Church as “Holy Matrimony.”  According to this  proposal the word marriage would be set aside and replaced by Holy Matrimony. It should be noticed that the Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to this Sacrament formally as “The Sacrament of Matrimony.”

The word matrimony also emphasizes two aspects of marriage: procreation and heterosexual complimentarity. The word comes from Latin and old French roots. Matri = “mother”  and mony, a suffix indicating “action, state, or condition.”  Hence Holy Matrimony refers to that that holy Sacrament wherein a woman enters the state that inaugurates an openness to motherhood. Hence the Biblical and Ecclesial definition of  Holy Matrimony as heterosexual and procreative is reaffirmed by the term itself. Calling it HOLY Matrimony distinguishes it from SECULAR marriage.

To return to this phrase “Holy Matrimony” is to return to an older tradition and may sound archaic to some but at least it isn’t as awkward sounding as “wedlock.” But clearly a new usage will be difficult to undertake. It is one thing to start officially referring to it as Holy Matrimony. But it is harder when, for example, a newly engaged couple approaches the priest and says, “We want to be married next summer.” It seems unlikely we could train couples to say,  “We want to be wed next summer.” or to say, “We want to have a wedding next summer.”  Such dramatic changes seem unlikely to come easily. Perhaps we cannot wholly drop the terms “marry” and  “married.” So the more modest form of the proposal is that we at least officially discontinue the use of the word marriage and refer to it as the “Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.”

What do you think? Do we need to start using a new word for marriage? Has the word been so stripped of meaning that we have to use different terminology to convey what we really mean?

Posted on

Critical Keys for Catholic Catechesis: Discipline and Content

Almost no one in the Church would claim today that we have done a good job of handing on the faith to our children. Depending on how we reckon it we have lost two or three generations to an ignorance and inability to articulate the  faith. Even the most basic teachings are unknown to the young.

A few years back I was talking to Catholic sixth graders about Adam and Eve and it became clear to me that they had little idea of who Adam and Eve were except that they were “in the Bible or something.” That was it. I collected all the glossy page religion books and instituted a “back to basics” curriculum at every grade level. We started with creation and the fall of man  and used the Biblical narrative along with memorized questions and answers and culminated  the year with a “religion bee” wherein the children were expected to demonstrate their mastery of the material for prizes. The  kids did well and they whooped their parents. The following year we instituted a parallel program for the parents. While their kids were in Sunday school class the parents were being instructed in the same material by yours truly.

I am no expert in pedagogy (educational theory) but it seems rather clear to me that we seriously lack in two major areas of catechetical instruction: discipline and content. Pretty devastating gaps it would seem! Not much is left over except self-esteem and slogans like “God loves you.”

In terms of content, it seems we have made improvements. The publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and stricter standards that our Catechetical materials conform to it,  has been the single greatest reform. Our materials are more orthodox, and the content is more substantial than the darkest years of the 1970s and 80s. Several good series have been published as well which have good content and are visually pleasing as well. I will not mention them by name since this is a blog of the Archdiocese and it is not appropriate for me to single them out. (It seems to me that you are free to speak of series you like in the comments since the Archdiocese does not endorse every comment that appears here). So I think content is improving.

But content is not enough. Academic discipline is also required. All the best material and visually beautiful as well cannot alone help children master the faith. Stronger and more rigorous academic discipline must be reasserted in the catechetical process. There are a number of elements of this academic discipline that I would like to mention and perhaps you will add more.

  1. Repetition – There is an old Latin saying: Repetitio mater studiorum (repetition is the mother of studies). Learning requires a lot of repetition for it to sink in and become second nature. One of the major flaws in the current catechetical process in most parishes and Catholic Schools is the way the curriculum is divided up. In second grade we talk about Holy Communion and Confession (but never again). The fourth graders are talking about Commandments – but never again. In fifth grade we talk about the Church (history and structure) – but never again. The sixth graders are talking about the life of Jesus – but never again. And so forth. The catechetical process is compartmentalized and doesn’t always seem to build on mastery of what came before. To discuss things but once hardly seems effective, especially if the material does not build on what came before. Back in public school, at least in my day,  mathematics did a great job of a kind of spiral curriculum which combines repetition with increasing mastery as new material was introduced. First we learned numbers. Then we used numbers to count. Then we used numbers and counting to go backward and forward by adding and subtracting them. Then we used numbers and counting and adding and subtracting to learn multiples and divisions. Then we used numbers and functions to realize that whole numbers can be fractioned and that numbers could have negative values and we learned how to count in fractions and to add and subtract them, multiply and divide them. And the material continued to build and the mastery of what went before was not left behind but folded into the new material and was used in an upward spiral. It is true that faith is not so simple as Math but the narrative of the faith does build in a spiral way. From God to creation to fall to promise of salvation to paschal mystery, to the life of grace by the sacraments to ultimate restoration with God forever in the paradise of heaven.  These basic elements must be reviewed over and over in an ascending spiral that respects human development at its various stages. But just talking about creation and the fall in the early grades and not at all later is bound to lead to a forgetful and confused student. If the wound of original sin and the loss of a relationship with God is forgotten, how will redemption make sense? No wonder it all seems “irrelevant” to many of them.
  2. Memorization –mastery of material is almost impossible without good old fashioned memorization. We just have to know things like the seven Sacraments, the Ten Commandments, the seven deadly sins, the basic prayers, the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. Further, basic definitions like grace, redemption, Mortal and venial sin, incarnation, etc have to be memorized and understood. Answers to basic questions like why God made me, who were our first parents, what is the Church, who were the prophets etc. Answers like these need to be committed to memory. Without these basic building blocks being committed to memory very little building is going to go on. These basic memorized things are like hooks on which many other things hang. Without the hooks, everything falls flat. Early in school I memorized my ABCs and then many words and how they are spelled. So much depended upon my simply committing these basics to memory. The same was true with my multiplication tables. My parents and teachers were clear, just memorize them! Do the work now and everything else will be easier and make sense as you go. I struggled but I got it and I have never lost them. Give me any two numbers between 1 and 12 and I’ll give you their product instantly. Memorizing those tables opened a whole world for me and simplified life enormously. Why should the faith be any different? In memorizing and knowing the seven deadly sins I am greatly assisted in examining my conscience, grasping the deeper drives of sin in my life, understanding and anticipating the moves of the world, the devil and the flesh, and helping others understand the negative drives in their life. It all starts with simply memorizing and grasping basic concepts.
  3. Time – Most people spend barely an hour a week trying to master their faith. This is not enough. Mastery of any discipline requires something more than one hour a week. We cannot expect magic. If we only ask kids to spend an hour week with no homework or expectations in between, we should not expect any mastery of the material. Another time related problem is that catechetical instructions in parishes are not year-round. Most Protestant Churches I know would never think of cancelling Sunday School  for the summer. They attach the same priority to Sunday School that we attach to mass. Sunday School is every Sunday almost without fail. In the Catholic Church we call the whole thing off from May through mid September. And every single three day weekend also seems to get lumped in as well. In many parishes the children have religious instruction only half the weeks of the year when summers, holidays and snow days are subtracted out. In my parish we are gradually increasing the coverage with the goal of making Sunday School year round.
  4. Accountability– at some point we need to expect young people to demonstrate mastery of the material. Things like tests, religion bees, presentations etc. should be used. Why should children take religious education seriously if they will never have to render an account for what they have done or failed to do? Things like religion bees can be fun and challenging. Rewards can be offered. Religious “It’s Academic, or Trivial pursuit formats can be fun but serious ways of assessing mastery of the material. Things like this and tests also impose certain deadlines for mastery of  the material. Deadlines are really lifelines since they awaken urgency and discipline. In the end both student and teachers must be accountable. Accountability must be returned to the catechetical process.
  5. Resourcefulness – In school I could not learn everything. But one of the disciplines I learned was how to find answers. I remember trooping off the school library and being taught the Dewey Decimal System and how to use a card catalogue. We were introduced to encyclopedias, journals, and later in College, to abstracts. Today things are easier with the Internet but we sill have to teach young people how to find answers. Sites like newadvent.org ; The EWTN Libraries; and the Bishops Website and many others are places where answers can be found. In the end, one of the best fruits of my education was how to be resourceful.

OK. That’s enough from me. How say you? You will surely have some thoughts to add to this discussion on Catechesis, particularly in terms of  content and discipline. Especially helpful are things you have found to work. What further disciplines would you add to the list?  We can all stipulate we’ve done a poor job in the Church of late. Content and resources are improving but what of discipline?

This video is a good commentary on the problem of content which I did not develop as fully here. Msgr. in the video does mention a Catechetical series. Again I must issue a disclaimer that posting this video does not amount to an official endorsement of the series. I am not empowered to make such endorsements on the part of the Archdiocese. But the video is a good reflection on the need for content as well as technique and discipline. (Hat tip to Patrick Madrid for the video)

Posted on

Only Shades of Gray: A Critique of Moral Relativism in a Monkees Song?

There is a song about the sadness of moral relativism in an unusual place: “The Greatest Hits of the Monkees.” Some who are old enough may remember growing up with the songs of the Monkees. I confess their song “Only Shades of Gray” was not one I remember well from those days. But it is a fascinating song about moral relativism. Some think it’s just a song about growing up. But to most it speaks of a time when things were more certain and compares it to these more modern times when it seems everything is disputed and up for grabs, no more black and white, only shades of gray. It is all the more poignant that the song was written in the turbulent 60s and perhaps represented the anxiety generated by those times when just about everything was being thrown overboard.

Now I know that it is wrong to point any particular age as the “golden age.” Scripture itself warns against this: Do not say: How is it that former times were better than these? For it is not in wisdom that you speak this (Ecclesiastes 7:10). I am also aware that not everyone feels the same about the “good old days.” For some they were not all that good. We should not forget the terrible wars of the early half of the 20th Century. Further, I serve in a parish that is predominantly African American and for many of my parishioners previous days featured “Jim Crow” laws, disenfranchisement, lynching and enforced segregation.

And yet, it remains also true that some fifty years ago we had a much wider consensus on basic moral teachings and appropriate behaviors. Pre-marital sex was considered gravely wrong and guarded against. Remember chaperons and separate dormitory facilities? Easy divorce and remarriage was considered wrong. Abortion was illegal, it never even entered our minds to give children contraceptives. There was also strong consensus against homosexual activity. Families were larger and most were intact. There was also a general appreciation of the role of faith and prayer in American life. I could go on but perhaps this is enough.

Here too I can hear the objections: “We might have had those standards but we didn’t live them well….Things went on behind the scenes, families weren’t perfect, many kids still had sex etc. etc….” But I will respond by saying, At least we had those standards and saw them as truths to be respected. It is an extreme measure, a kind of nihilism, to say that since we do not live up to our standards perfectly we should not have them at all.

And I also know we were more wrong about some things in the past. We were more racist and less open to legitimate diversity, less concerned about pollution. But here too it is extreme to say that because we were wrong about some things in the past the whole thing should be thrown out. Why not keep the best and purify what is needed?

So here we are today, is a radically relativistic time where there is less and less agreement about the most basic of moral issues. And, without a common basis for discussion, such as Natural Law, or the Judeo-Christian worldview we are left to a battle of wills, an increasing power struggle where the one who shouts the loudest, has the most money, wins an election or has the most access wins, at least for the moment. Reason and principles increasingly do not transcend political, economic and social distinctions. There are fewer and fewer shared values that every one agrees on no matter what their party or background. Whatever our struggles of the past, we used to agree on more. Many of those certainties have been replaced by a wide presumption that everything is just shades of gray.

Listen to the song. Don’t forget my disclaimers. I do not propose a simplistic old=good; new=bad scenario. I just write to provoke thought. Please feel free to comment. I couldn’t find a good video of the Monkees performing the song (I think copyright may be involved) so I have included a group that sings it a lot like the Monkees did. First the words, then the video.

  • When the world and I were young,
  • Just yesterday.
  • Life was such a simple game,
  • A child could play.
  • It was easy then to tell right from wrong.
  • Easy then to tell weak from strong.
  • When a man should stand and fight,
  • Or just go along.
  • Refrain:
  • But today there is no day or night
  • Today there is no dark or light.
  • Today there is no black or white,
  • Only shades of gray.
  • I remember when the answers seemed so clear
  • We had never lived with doubt or tasted fear.
  • It was easy then to tell truth from lies
  • Selling out from compromise
  • What to love and what to hate,
  • The foolish from the wise.
  • It was easy then to know what was fair
  • When to keep and when to share.
  • How much to protect your heart
  • And how much to care.

Posted on

What is”the Flesh”??

There are many references to “the flesh”  in New Testament Scripture, especially in the letters of St. Paul. The phrase confuses some who think it synonymous with the physical body. It is true that there are many times when Scripture uses the word “flesh” to refer to the physical body. However when the definite article “the” is placed before the word “flesh” we are dealing with something else. Only very rarely does the Biblical phrase  “the flesh” (ἡ  σὰρξ (he sarx), in Greek)  refer only to the physical body (eg. John 6:53; Phil 3:2; 1 John 4:2) , but almost always  the phrase refers to something quite distinct from the physical body.

What then is meant by the term “the flesh” (ἡ  σὰρξ)?  Perhaps most plainly it refers to that part of us that is alienated from God. It is the rebellious, unruly and obstinate part of our inner self that is operative all the time. It is that part of us that does not want to be told what to do. It is stubborn, refuses correction, and does not want to have a thing to do with God. It bristles at limits and rules. It recoils at anything that might cause me to be diminished or something less than the center of the universe.  The flesh hates to be under authority or to have to yield to anything other than its own wishes and desires. The flesh often desires something simply because it is forbidden. The Protestants often call the flesh our “sin nature” which is not a bad term in summarizing what the flesh is. In Catholic tradition the flesh is where concupiscence sets up shop. Concupiscence refers to the string inclination to sin that is in us as a result of the wound of Original Sin. If you do not think that your flesh is strong, just try to pray for five minutes and watch how quickly your mind wants to think of anything but God. Just try to fast or be less selfish and watch how your flesh goes to war.

The flesh is in direct conflict with the spirit. “The spirit” here refers not to the Holy Spirit but to the human spirit. The (human) spirit is that part of us which is open to God, which desires him and is drawn to him. It is that part of us which is attracted by goodness, beauty and truth, which yearns for completion in God and to see His face. Without the spirit we would be totally turned in on ourselves and consumed by the flesh. Thankfully our spirit, assisted by the Holy Spirit draws us to desire what is best, what is upright, good and helpful.

Perhaps it is good that we look at just a few texts which reference “the flesh” and thus here in Lent learn more of the flesh and its ways. This will help us to be on our guard and to rebuke it by God’s grace and learn not to feed it. I make some comments in red with each quote.

  1. The Flesh does not grasp spiritual teachings – [Jesus said] The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. (John 6:63) Having taught on the Eucharist,  most of his listeners ridicule his teaching and will no longer take Jesus seriously. So Jesus indicates that their hostility to the teaching on the Eucharist is of the flesh. The flesh demands that everything be obvious to it on its own terms. The flesh demands to see physical proof for everything; demands that it be able to “see” using its own unregenerate power. And if it cannot see based on its own limited view,  it simply rejects spiritual truth out of hand. In effect the flesh refuses to believe at all since what it really demands is something that will “force” it to accept something. Inexorable proof which faith demands takes things out of the realm of faith and trust. Faith is no longer necessary when something is absolutely proven and plainly visible to the eyes of flesh. The flesh simply refuses to believe and demands proof.
  2. The flesh is not willing to depend on anyone or anything outside its own power or control – For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless….I [now] consider this rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ (Phil 3:3-9 selected) The flesh wants to be in control rather than to have to trust in God. Hence it sets up its own observance, under its own control. And when it has met its own demands it declares itself to be righteous. Since the flesh hates being told what to do it takes God’s  law and makes it “manageable”  based on the flesh’s own terms. So, for example, if I am supposed to love, let me limit it to my family and countrymen but I am “allowed” to hate my enemy. But Jesus says, no, love your enemy. The flesh recoils at this for unless the law is manageable and within the power of the flesh to accomplish it, the Law cannot be controlled. The flesh trusts only in its own power. The Pharisees were “self-righteous” That is to say, they believed in a righteousness that they themselves brought about through their flesh power. But the Law and flesh cannot save. Only Jesus Christ can save. The flesh refuses this and wants to control the outcome based on its own power and terms.
  3. The Flesh hates to be told what to do – For when we were controlled by the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. (Rom 7:5) The disobedience and rebelliousness of the flesh roots us in sinful behavior and prideful attitudes. The prideful attitude of the flesh is even more dangerous than the sins that flow from the flesh since pride precludes instruction in holiness and possible repentance that lead to life. But the flesh does not like to be told what to do. Hence it rejects the testimony of the the Church, the scriptures and the conscience. Notice, according to the text,  the very existence of God’s Law arouses the passions of the flesh. The fact that something is forbidden makes the flesh want it all the more! This strong inclination to sin is in the flesh and comes from pride and indignation at “being told what to do.”   The flesh is refuses God’s Law and sets up its own rules. The flesh will not be told what to do.
  4. Flesh is as flesh does – Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the spirit have their minds set on what the spirit desires. The concern of the flesh  is death, but the concern of the spirit is life and peace (Rom 8:5-6) The flesh is intent on things of this world, upon gratifying its own passions and desires. On account of the flesh we are concerned primarily with ourselves and seek to be at the center. The flesh is turned primarily inward. St Augustine describes the human person in the flesh as “curvatus in se” (turned in upon himself). But the spirit is that part of us that looks outward toward God and opens us the truth and holiness that God offers. Ultimately the flesh is focused on death  for it is concerned with what is passing away: the body and the world. The human spirit is focused on life for it focuses on God who is life and light.
  5. The Flesh is intrinsically hostile to God – The mind  of the flesh is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the flesh cannot please God. (Rom 8:7-8) The flesh is hostile to God because it is pridefully hostile to any one more important than itself. Further the flesh does not like being told what to do. Hence it despises authority or anyone who tries to tell it what to do. It cannot please God because it does not want to.
  6. The Flesh abuses freedom – You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another in love. (Gal 5:13) The flesh turns God given freedom into licentiousness. Licentiousness is to demand freedom without limit. Since the flesh does not want to be told what to do it demands to be able to do what ever it wants. In effect the flesh says, “I will do what I want to do and I will decide if it is right or wrong.”  This is licentiousness and it is an abuse of freedom. It results in indulgence and paradoxically leads to a slavery to the senses and the passions.
  7. The Flesh Demands to be fed – So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. (Gal 5:16-17) Within the human person is this deep conflict between the flesh and spirit. We must not be mistaken, the flesh is in us and it is strong. It has declared war on our spirit and on the Holy Spirit of God. When the spirit tries to obey the flesh resists and tries to sabotage the best aspirations of the spirit. We must be sober about this conflict and understand that this is why we do not do what we most know is right. The flesh has to die and the spirit come more alive. What you feed grows. If we feed the flesh it will grow. If we feed the spirit it will grow. What are you feeding? Are you sober about the power of the flesh and do you and I therefore feed our spirit well through God’s word and holy communion, through prayer and the healing power of confession. What are you feeding?
  8. The Flesh fuels sin – The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal 5:19-210) This catalogue of sins that flow from the flesh is not exhaustive but is representative of the offensive and obnoxious behavior that flows from the flesh. Be sober about the flesh,  it produces ugly children.
  9. This [condemnation by God]  is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh and despise authority. (2 Peter 2:10) Clear enough, the flesh hates authority and, did I mention (?) The flesh does not want to be told what to do.

So here is a portrait of “the flesh.” It is ugly. You may say I have exaggerated, that the flesh is not really this bad. Well I am not, just buy a newspaper and see what the flesh is up to. You may, by God’s grace, have seen a diminishment in the power of the flesh in your life. That is ultimately what God can and will do for us. He will put the flesh to death in us and bring alive our spirit by the power of his Holy Spirit. But step one is to appreciate what the flesh is and understand its moves. Step two is to bring this understanding to God through repentance. Step three is, by God’s grace, to stop feeding the flesh and start feeding the spirit on prayer, scripture, Church teaching and Holy Communion. Step four is to repeat steps 1-3 for the rest of our lives. God by his grace will cause the flesh to die and the spirit to live by his grace at work in us through Jesus Christ.

There is no musical better at (humorously) depicting the flesh as Camelot. Here are a few video clips that depict well the flesh

In this first video Sir Lancelot ponders what a great and perfect guy he is. He goes so far as to say that “Had I been made the partner of Eve we’d be Eden still!”

 

In this video one of the Knights depicts the flesh by ridiculing the “Seven Deadly Virtues.”  The song concludes by Roddy McDowell singing: “With all those seven Virtues, Free and happy little me has not been cursed!”

In this clip, the Knights (in the flesh) ridicule goodness and sing “Fie On Goodness!”

Posted on

On Lenten Sundays: Rejoicing in the Lord Must Be Your Strength

Every Sunday in Liturgy of the Hours during Lent we read a significant reminder that although Lent is a time of penance, nevertheless Sunday remains a day of Joy. The Sundays of Lent are not numbered among the forty days of Lent. Between Ash Wednesday are 46 days. The extra six days are the Sundays of Lent. And of these days the following Instrustion given in the Liturgy of the Hours:

Today is holy to the Lord your God. Do not be sad, and do not weep; for today is holy to the our Lord. Do not be saddened this day, for rejoicing in the Lord must be your strength! (Nehemiah 8:9-10)

If one has abstained from things for Lent it is possible to set it aside on Sundays in Lent. It is true that some prefer to maintain their discipline since an on-again, off-again abstinence is sometimes harder. Yet still the freedom of “refraining from the abstaining”  is possible!  Nothing, even the Lenten season can eclipse the joy of the resurrection that is meant to permeate every Sunday.

Hence, a practice to begin in Lent and continue throughout the year is to set Sunday aside not only as a day for worship but also as a day of special joy in the Lord. The day should be marked out for special celebration with family and friends, for the Lord is truly risen.

The Psalms speak of a joy that leads the faithful enter into a kind of joyful dance with and before the God who loves them, the Bride which is  Church in a kind of Dance with her Groom, the Lord:

You turned my mourning into dancing; you have removed my sackcloth and clothed me with joy.  Psalm 30:11

Sing to the LORD a new song,  his praise in the assembly of the saints.  Let Israel rejoice in their Maker; let the people of Zion be glad in their King.  Let them praise his name with dancing and make music to him with tambourine and harp.  For the LORD takes delight in his people.… (Psalm 149:3-5)

Jeremiah too speaks of the dance that comes to the Virgin Bride, Israel after her purification:

The LORD appeared to us in the past, saying:  “I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with loving-kindness…O Virgin Israel.  Again you will go out to dance with the joyful. (Jer 31:4ff)

So we do well to enter the dance and Lenten Sundays, according to the instruction in the Liturgy of the Hours, are no exceptions

Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers in “Swing Time” 1936

Posted on

Life is Worth Living: The Resilience of the Human Person

One of the privileges our modern age demands is the right to declare that certain lives are not worth living. In utero testing sometimes reveals the possibility or even the certainty of birth defects. Abortion is often recommended to mothers who carry “defective”  children and  sometimes that recommendation becomes pressure.

And yet there are so many stories of people who have overcome enormous obstacles and who live full and rich lives. Some are missing limbs, others are blind, still others struggle with disease. Some have overcome poverty and injustice, others paralyzing accidents or great tragedies. And they are living witnesses to us that we ought never be the judge of what lives are worthwhile and what lives are not worth living. It is  true that none of us would wish to be born missing limbs, or blind or in poverty, or with chronic conditions. But we must reverence those who are, learn to appreciate their gifts, and summon them to courage and greatness.

We must declare with great certitude that there is no such thing as a life not worth living. We say this not as some politically correct slogan but rather with firm conviction that every human life is willed by God. We were willed before we were made for the Scriptures say, “Before I ever  formed you in the womb I knew and I appointed you…” (Jer 1:4). None of us is an accident nor are our gifts and apparent deficits mistakes. We exist as we are, the way we are for a purpose, a purpose for us and for others. We all have an irreplaceable role in God’s kingdom and show forth aspect of His glory uniquely. Every human life is intended and is worth living because God says so by the very fact that we exist.

The following videos show forth the resilience of the human person and give powerful witness to the fact that life is worth living. You may not have time to view them all now but I hope you’ll come back and see them all. That is why I post this over a weekend. Despite trials and setbacks all these individuals show forth the power and glory of God working though our human struggles. We might not choose the struggles they have for ourselves but we need to see that their lives are full and proclaim the dignity and resilience of the human person.

Here is the story of John Bramblitt who, though blind is a fine painter indeed.

Here is the story of Abby & Brittany, Conjoined twins born in 1990. The title of the video is “Joined for Life.” Abby says at the end of the video, “The best thing in the world about being conjoined twins is that there’s always someone to talk to and you’re never alone.”

Here’s the story of Nick Vujicic a man with no arms or legs who is a motivational speaker. He likes to say that he went from having a life without limbs to a life without limits.

I have posted this video of Patrick Henry Hughes before. Blind and crippled from birth he manifestes a profound musical ability.

Posted on

The Final Wish of a Dying Friend

Consider the following scenario. You are crossing the street with a friend and suddenly as if out of nowhere a large truck is bearing down on you both. Your friend sees it coming and pushes you out of the way but takes the full force of the hit himself. Coming to your senses you run to your friend who lies dying in the road. In grief you lament his imminent death and thank him for saving your life. You say, “What can I ever do to thank you for what you have done?!”  And he says, with his dying breath, “Please go to Church and remember me at the altar every Sunday.”  ….Would you do it? …..Of course you would! This is the final wish of a dying friend who saved your life.

Well, isn’t this what Jesus did? Just before he died for us he left us a last request: “Do this in remembrance of Me.” Do what? you might say. Here is Jesus request in context:  The setting is the Last Supper that Jesus had with his disciples on the last evening before he died. As he sat at table with them he said,  “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover  with you before I suffer…” Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.  So here is what we are to do in memory of Him: celebrate the Holy Mass, receive Holy Communion! It seems so little and yet so many have drifted away from this last request. It must have been important to Jesus since it was his final request.

So here is a powerful to get to Mass each Sunday: to fulfill the final wish of a dying friend, a dying Savior and Lord who saved your life, who died in your place: “Do this in memory of me.”  The Book of Psalms also says it so well: “What return (what thanks) can I ever give the Lord for all the good he has done for me?! The cup of salvation I will take up, and I will call on the name of the Lord.” (Ps 116:13) What a beautiful line to remember as you see the priest lift up the Chalice at every mass and remember the final wish of a dying friend.

Consider sharing this sort of reflection with those who have drifted away from attending Mass. If attending Mass and receiving Holy Communion is understood as the final wish of a dying friend then to fail to do so is seen as a much more personal neglect of a a very profound and meaningful request. Missing Mass isn’t just the infraction of some abstract law, it is a personal matter. It is to refuse the final wish of a dying friend.