Category: Church

Posted on

The Whole Counsel of God

There is a wonderful passage from the Acts of Apostles in today’s Mass and it comprises a sermon from an early Bishop (St. Paul) to the priests of the early Church.

Paul’s Farewell Sermon – The scene is Miletus, a town in Asia Minor on the coast not far from Ephesus. Paul, who is about to depart for Jerusalem summons the presbyters (priests) of the early Church at Ephesus. Paul has ministered there for three years and now summons the priests for this final exhortation. In the sermon, St. Paul cites his own example of having been a zealous teacher of the faith who did not fail to preach the “whole counsel of God.” He did not merely preach what suited him or made him popular. He preached it all. To these early priests Paul leaves this legacy and would have them follow in his footsteps. Let’s look at excerpts from this final exhortation. First the text them some commentary:

From Miletus Paul had the presbyters  of the Church at Ephesus summoned. When they came to him, he addressed them, “You know how I lived among you the whole time from the day I first came to the province of Asia. I served the Lord with all humility and with the tears and trials that came to me…., and I did not at all shrink from telling you what was for your benefit, or from teaching you in public or in your homes. I earnestly bore witness for both Jews and Greeks to repentance before God and to faith in our Lord Jesus…..But now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem……“But now I know that none of you to whom I preached the kingdom during my travels will ever see my face again. And so I solemnly declare to you this day that I am not responsible for the blood of any of you, for I did not shrink from proclaiming to you the entire plan of God….. (Acts 20:1-38 selected)

Here then is the prescription for every Bishop, every priest and deacon, every catechist, parent and Catholic: that we should preach the whole counsel (the entire plan of God). It is too easy for us to emphasize only that which pleases us or makes sense to us or fits in our worldview. There are some who love the Lord’s sermons on love but cannot abide  his teachings on death, judgment, heaven and hell. Some love to discuss liturgy and ceremony but the care of the poor is far from them. Others point to His compassion but neglect his call to repentance. Some love the way he dispatches the Pharisees and other leaders of the day but become suddenly deaf when the Lord warns against fornication or insists that we love our neighbor, enemy and spouse. Some love to focus inwardly and debate over doctrine but the outward focus of true evangelization to which we are commanded (cf Mat 28:19) is neglected.

In the Church as a whole we too easily divide out rather predictably along certain lines and emphases. Life issues here, social justice over there. Strong moral preaching over here, compassionate inclusiveness over there. When one side speaks the other side says, “There they go again.”

And yet somewhere we must be able to say with St. Paul that we did not shrink from proclaiming the whole counsel of God. While this is especially incumbent on the clergy it must also be true for parents and all who attain to any leadership in the Church. All of the issues above are important and must have their proper place in the preaching and witness of every Catholic, clergy and lay. While we may have gifts to work in certain areas we should learn to appreciate the whole counsel and the fact that others in the Church may be needed to balance and complete our work. It is true we must exclude notions that stray from revealed doctrine, but within doctrine’s protective walls it is necessary that we not shrink from proclaiming the whole counsel of God.

And if we do this we will suffer. Paul speaks above of tears and trials. In preaching the whole counsel of God, (not just favorite passages and politically correct themes), expect to suffer. Expect to not quite fit in with people’s expectations. Jesus got into trouble with just about everyone. He didn’t just offend the elite and powerful. Even his own disciples puzzled over his teachings on divorce saying “If that is the case of man not being able to divorce his wife it is better never to marry!” (Matt 19). Regarding the Eucharist, many left him and would no longer walk in his company (John 6). In speaking of his divine origins many took up stones to stone him but he passed through their midst (Jn 8).  In addition he spoke of taking up crosses, forgiving your enemy and preferring nothing to him. He forbade even lustful thoughts let alone fornication, and insisted we must learn to curb our unrighteous anger. Preaching the whole counsel of God is guaranteed to earn us the wrath of many.

As a priest I have sadly had to bid farewell to congregations and this is a critical passage whereby I examine my ministry. Did I preach even the difficult stuff? Was I willing to suffer for the truth? Did my people hear from me the whole counsel of God or just the safe stuff?

How about you? Have you proclaimed the whole counsel of God? If you are clergy when you move on…..if you are a parent when your child leaves for college…..if you are a Catechist when the children are ready to be confirmed or have reached college age…..If you teach in RCIA and the time comes for sacraments……Can you say you preached it all? God warned Ezekiel that if he failed to warn the sinner, that sinner would surely die for his sins but that Ezekiel himself would be responsible for his death, (Ez 3:17ff). Paul is able to say he is not responsible for the death (the blood) of any of them for he did not shrink from proclaiming the whole counsel of God. How about us?

The whole counsel of God.

This video contains the warning to the watchmen (us) in Ezekiel 3. Watch it if you dare.

Posted on

Eternity is Not A Long Time, it is All Time.

In yesterday’s blog (I Don’t See Ghosts. But God Does) I mentioned eternity and that it was the fullness of time wherein the past present and future were all at once for God. God does not have to wait for things to happen nor does he have to reminisce about the past. It is all before him as one moment.

I would like to say a little more about this. First, I would like to attempt to better define eternity. And then I’d like to ponder some possible implications and see what you think.

“Defining” The Mystery of Eternity  – I have put the word “defining” in quotes purposefully since,  simply defining eternity is quite impossible. By analogy, what if I were to ask you to “Define the universe and give three examples.”  Such a request would be silly since the universe cannot simply be defined. It is just too big to be contained by words. And so it is with eternity. Ultimately eternity is a mystery in that,  whatever we  can say about it, more remains un-sayable. So, in proposing to “define” eternity I am not arrogantly thinking I can contain the concept in the mere confines of words. But since we need some parameters for our discussion, some definitions, (parameters) really are needed.

What Do we mean by Eternity?  Most people misunderstand the word eternity simply to mean “a long, long, time.”  But that is not what is meant by the word. When the Greeks coined the word eternity, (Aeon) they meant by it “the fullness of time.”   That is to say, Eternity is the past, present and future all being experienced at once.

I cannot tell you what this is like, but I can illustrate it. Look at the clock to the upper right. The time is 1:15 in the afternoon. That means that 10:00 AM is in the past and 6:00 PM is in the future. But consider the dot at the center of the clock and see that, at that spot,  10 AM, 1:15 PM, and 6 PM are all the same, they are equally present to the dot in the center. In fact every possible time that can be registered on the outer edges of the clock is equally present to the center dot. At the center dot there is no substantial difference to any outer edge time indication. There is no future, no past, all is present, all is equally accessible to the center dot. This is eternity and this is where God lives.

God Lives in eternity – We live our life in serial time, on the outer edge of the clock. But God does not. God lives in eternity. God lives in the fullness of time. For God, past, and future are the same as the present. God is not “waiting” for things to happen. All things just are. God is not waiting and wondering if you or I will get to heaven. He is not watching history unfold like a movie. In eternity, 10,000 years ago is just as present as 10,000 years from now. Eternity includes all pasts and futures in the living present.

[If you wish to read more on this you might read Peter Kreeft’s Book Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Heaven (esp. pp. 151-171)].

Scripture hints at God’s eternity in numerous passages. For example,

  1. But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day. (2 Peter 3:8).
  2. Psalm 139 says, Your eyes foresaw my actions; in your book all are written down; my days were shaped, before one came to be. (Ps 139, 15).
  3. Psalm 90 says, For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. (Ps 90:4).
  4. And then there is simply the God’s name: “I AM” In this Name, there is no past, no future, just an eternal now, the present tense.
  5. Jesus declared to the crowds, “Before Abraham ever was, I AM.” (John 8:58).

So here is the most awesome mystery of time, the fullness of time, eternity. Some implications from this are interesting to ponder.

1. God is not waiting for anything. He did not wait for you or me to be born, he is not waiting for us to die. He is not waiting to judge us. He is not waiting for us to enter heaven (or Hell!). He is not waiting for us to emerge from purgatory. He is not waiting for the end of the world. Everything is accomplished. Everything is done. And yet every thing is also underway. The day of my birth is present to God. They day of my death is present to him. The full sweep of history is before God in one glance, one comprehensive NOW. We may say, “Why is God taking so long to answer my prayer?” The fact is he has already provided. The Lord answers prayers, sooner than right now, faster than immediately.

2. This does not mean that everything is predetermined in such a way as to make our freedom meaningless. That God already knows and and has always known every decision we make does not mean that we do not in fact freely make it. God’s knowledge does not cancel our freedom.

3. At some point we will move to the eternal center with God. It does not seem likely that we will ever comprehend time and things as comprehensively as God. And yet the fact that we move to eternity, to the fullness of time, would suggest that the whole course of our life will somehow, mysteriously be present to us. I say “suggest,”  since none of this is perfectly laid out for us to know here. This is speculation based on what eternity seems to be. Since, by definition the past will be present, some how it would seem that the whole of our past life will be present and available to us in heaven. Somehow my high school graduation, my first date 🙂 , my ordination, even this typing session will be present. How and it what manner or mode it is experienced is not clear. Sometimes people ask if their pets will be in heaven. If the past is accessible it would seem that pets somehow are with us there. How and to what degree we would want to go back and “visit” the past is not possible to say. Saying what eternity seems to include is one thing, describing how it is experienced there is something altogether different and beyond the realm of what we can likely know here.

4. Why bother praying? Some my say if everything already is, what difference does prayer make? But this question presumes that God has not always known you would pray and already set forth the answer based on that. For us, time and decisions must unfold. Though God has always known what we would do or not do, we are NOT in that position and thus must decide to pray. That God has always known what we would do is beside the point from our perspective. We must decide to pray and know that God has always known if we would pray and had already acted accordingly.

5.  Are the Souls in heaven waiting for anything?  – If eternity is the fullness of time and if past and future are contained in a perfect now it would seem they are not waiting. My parents, who have both died are not likely waiting for me to join them since the future is already present to them. They are not waiting for their bodies to rise for in eternity that is accomplished. From our perspective these things are not accomplished and must unfold, but in eternity it would seem that they are already present. Or so it would seem.

Please note  that I offer these implications (speculations really) very humbly. Note how often I have used the word “seem.” That is intentional. Eternity is a very deep mystery. We can define it (sort of) but grasping how it is experienced is quite another matter. I’d like to know what you think. Analogies are always appreciated and large doses of humility are necessary. We must remember that we are talking about something we have never experienced. Further we are using mere words to describe what cannot really be reduced to words. Words are necessary, but remember, they are inadequate.

This song says, “God don’t ever change.”

Posted on

When going to Church hurts

After Mass a few weeks ago, I encountered a parishioner who was feeling very hurt by the Church and specifically, a comment that made her feel unwelcome in the parish.

Her story made me recall many years ago when I was starting my career as a high school teacher.  I attended a small parish in the town where I was living and teaching. I was one of the few African Americans living in the town and it seemed like I was one of the only African American Catholics for hundreds of miles. Having said that, I never felt entirely welcome in the parish. I thought I was a fairly active member of the parish (Knights of Columbus and lector ministries were my favorites). Nonetheless, I often wondered if the pastor considered me a joy or an intrusion in his little church.

On leave – Not missing in action!

As a teacher, I often spent my summers traveling, visiting family and teaching at a summer program in another part of the country. So, though I attended Mass faithfully during the summer months, I rarely attended Mass in my parish of registration. Furthermore, I would inform the parish secretary of this each June and ask her not to schedule me as a lector until I returned in September. Year after year, she would accommodate my request in the spring and welcome me back to town warmly in the fall.

Well, one fall, I returned and was told that I would have to talk to the pastor in order to get back into the lector ministry. When I approached Father, he chastised me for my “sparse attendance at Mass.” Furthermore, he told me that I had no business on the altar if I did not bother to come to Mass regularly.

Judge not

Needless to say I was livid! Once I explained my circumstances, I think he understood and almost apologized. But, I was livid still. I told him, “What if I were sick, or lost my job and couldn’t come to church? Worse yet, what if I had actually lost faith as you suspected and did not find Mass important? As a pastor, couldn’t you have made a phone call before you removed me from the lector schedule?!”

Almost a lost sheep

I walked out and vowed never to return to that parish. Every Sunday, I drove an extra 15 miles to the next Catholic Church until I moved back to Washington a year later.  Furthermore, that is certainly not the only time in my life I have been hurt by the Church.

Now that I am older, wiser and more grounded in my faith, I wonder how many others have walked away not just from a parish but from the entire Catholic Church because of a negative experience such as the one I described. On the other end of the spectrum, I wonder about those who have experienced far worse than a judgmental pastor and how impossible healing may seem to some of them.

A step toward healing

Consider the following poem that was given to me a few years ago after a hurtful experience with our beloved Church. What do you think about it?

How much I must criticize you, my church, and yet how much I love you!

You have made me suffer more than anyone and yet I owe more to you than to anyone.

I should like to see you destroyed and yet I need your presence.

You have given me much scandal and yet you alone have made me understand holiness.

Never in this world have I seen anything more compromised, more false, yet never have I touched anything more pure, more generous or more beautiful.

Countless times I have felt like slamming the door of my soul in your face—and yet, every night, I have prayed that I might die in your sure arms!

No, I cannot be free of you, for I am one with you, even if not completely you.
Then too — where would I go? To build another church? But I could not build one without the same defects, for they are my defects.

And again, if I were to build another church, it would be my church, not Christ’s church. No, I am old enough, I know better.”

– Carlo Carretto

Posted on

I Don’t See Ghosts But God Does.

The Parish where I serve has a history stretching back to 1893. Though our current buildings reach back only to 1938, even that is a stretch of over 70 years. As I walk these buildings, especially in the quiet of the night I sense a connection. I surely have never seen a ghost but in my mind’s eye I sense those who once walked the aisles of my Church, who sat in the pews. I ponder the many, many baptisms, at our font. The thousands of brides who walked our beautiful aisle. The thousands of first communions, confirmations, the thump as penitents knelt in the confessionals still in use after all these years. And yes, the many funerals.

How many times have those venerable old doors opened to admit a soul loved by God? How many tens of thousands, maybe over a hundred thousand have cumulatively prayed in my parish.

Late at night, I often visit the Church which is connected to the rectory, and I can almost see them. Perhaps too a faint echo of organ or choral music from the deep past echoing faintly in the shadows of the hallowed hall we call our Church.

In the rectory too, I wonder at the many dozens of priests who once occupied my room, who once sat at my dining room table. Most of them long dead, some still living. At times I sense their presence. I remember one priest who is dead now. Some years ago in the early 1990s when I was assigned here for the first time I occupied the rooms he once did. I felt a strong mandate from the Holy Spirit to pray for him. He was quite old but still living at the time and had left in 1970s for a schismatic church. Three years ago he died. Recently a brother priest told he that he had reconciled him to the Church just weeks before he died. Praise God. And now here I am again, back living in the same pastor’s quarters he once lived in. I feel a connection to him and the other priests who once walked these halls and lived in these rooms.

Somehow the past reaches forward and touches me and I know it is real. For the past is just as present to God as the present moment is and every future moment. It’s all knit together by God who is eternal. For eternal means the fullness of time. It  means that the past, present and future are all the same to God, each equally present to him. So in God all those church events of the past are just as present to him as I am now. And tomorrow’s sermons is already accomplished for God as are all my sermons and Masses. And every priest who will one day come after me,  and all that they will do,  is already present to God. It’s all equally present to Him.

I don’t see Ghosts, but God does. And they are just as present and real to him as I am. And God sees those who will come after me too. The great mystery of time and God’s eternity unfold in these hallowed halls and in yours too.

The picture at the upper right is my parish in 1956.

This video is an unusual one. It depicts three priests singing of the history of a parish. And as they sing that history becomes present. There are men and women depicted going back to the 16th century. Sacraments are celebrated, people pray, and light candles. And gradually the people look more and more modern and then are of the present. Every parish holds the past as well as the present. For since God is present, so is the past, and so is the future.

Posted on

UPDATE: on Anti-Christian Bigotry Article

On Monday I blogged on Anti-Christian Bigotry in a California School District. I also mentioned the recent Supreme Court victory allowing a Cross to stand in a War Memorial Park on Federal land in California. It has now come to pass that someone who did not like the decision destroyed the Cross which has stood there since the 1930s.

I wonder if you have seen this in the news?

Here’s the Fox News Report:

Posted on

Anti Christian Bigotry in California School District is Rebuked by Judge.

I have marveled over the years at the kind of fear and anger the Christian Faith generates in some sectors of our society. Even the suggestion that there might a a small nativity scene in a park, or Christmas tree near City Hall, or a display of the Ten Commandments often elicits a hew and cry and brings forth camera crews and elicits lawsuits. But the venom seems especially reserved  for symbols of the Christian faith in particular and to some extent the wider Judeo-Christian heritage. A reference from the Q’ran in school is seen by many of this same crowd to be “tolerant” and “diverse.”  But to quote the Bible is an egregious violation of the (so-called) separation of Church and State. A comedy skit on a TV show that even indirectly depicts Mohammad is bemoaned as intolerant and anti-Muslim (which it may be) but a photo of a crucifix submerged in urine is called “art” and receives funding from the National Endowment of the Arts. Well, you know the basic drill.

Most Americans are not offended by religious display. It remains a small but very vocal minority which seeks to remove all reference to America’s spiritual and religious heritage. And due to this movement’s particular hostility to things Christian one is left to conclude that we are not dealing with a rational objection here but rather one rooted in bigotry, hatred or at least aversion to the Christian faith.

The latest round in anti-Christian fervor has taken place in San Diego (Spanish, by the way and meaning “St. James”!)  California. I will excerpt the story here from briefing by the Thomas More Law Center and provide a few comments of my own in red. The Full briefing with other links can be found here: Poway School Board Continues Fight to Ban God  .

In a closed-session meeting held on Monday night, the Poway Unified School District board in San Diego, California, voted to appeal the ruling of Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez that held school officials violated math teacher Bradley Johnson’s constitutional rights when they ordered him to remove two patriotic banners from the walls of his classroom because they referred to “God.” The appeal will be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Notice, the specific reason they said they wanted the posters removed was because they referred to God. The posters did not endorse a specific denomination or even reference Jesus, they simply mentioned God. Note too, they were all quotes from official US documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the National Seal, and the usual conclusion to any presidential speech: “God bless the United States of America.” Now the School officials SAY that they were concerned about references to God. But where they? As we shall see they allowed other religious references to remain. It would seem that their objections focused only only on religious references to God that emanated from the traditional Judeo-Christian heritage of this Nation’s past. This God has to go but other religious figures from Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu sources can stay. Also, as you will see anti-religious slogans were also permitted to remain. So, what are we dealing with here? Is it some sort of misguided but at least consistent and principled stance against any religious or sectarian display in public schools?  Obviously not. It is an inconsistent singling out of the Judeo-Christian heritage of this land and seems more bigoted than principled.

The banners included the phrases, “In God We Trust,” “One Nation Under God,” , “God Bless America.” [“All Men Are Created Equal, They Are Endowed By Their Creator.”]. The school district claimed Johnson’s banners, which had hung in his classroom for two decades without complaint, advocated an impermissible Judeo-Christian view point and may be offensive to a Muslim student. I could not find in any of the articles I read on this that a Muslim Student had actually complained. The School officials seem to have merely concluded that a Muslim student might be offended. But I wonder if they would? Muslims are not Christians but neither are they secular. If I were in a largely Muslim Country and saw references to Allah and was greated Allahu Akbar (God is Great) I would not be offended. After all I too think God is great. I do not share the Muslim faith or worship God under the title or vision of Allah. But somewhere I suspect that they and we are both striving for God. I think their notions of Him are quite flawed but I am surely not offended by references to Allah. It is always possible that a militant Muslim of some sort might be offended by a reference to “God” but the militants aren’t going to be pleased no matter what. So I seriously doubt that the average Muslim is going to be offended by a sign that says, “In God We Trust.”

However, the school district left untouched displays that included a 35 to 40 foot string of Tibetan prayer flags with images of Buddha; a poster with the lyrics from John Lennon’s anti-religion song “Imagine,” which begins, Imagine there’s no Heaven; a poster with Hindu leader Mahatma Gandhi’s “7 Social Sins;” a poster of Muslim leader Malcolm X, and a poster of Buddhist leader Dali Lama. OK the gig is up, they’re singling out Christians and the Judeo-Christian Heritage.

In a public statement made shortly after the vote to appeal the ruling, School Board member Jeff Mangum stated, “[I]f this is allowed, what else can go up on the wall?” The board member’s question was answered by Judge Benitez, who noted in his ruling that school officials banned Johnson’s patriotic displays while permitting other teachers to display personal posters and banners promoting partisan political issues such as gay rights and environmental causes, including global warming. Looks like the Judge smelled a rat of rank hypocrisy and selective outrage

Judge Benitez’s 32-page opinion was strongly worded and critical of the Poway school districts aversion to God: “[The school district officials] apparently fear their students are incapable of dealing with diverse viewpoints that include God’s place in American history and culture. . . . That God places prominently in our Nation’s history does not create an Establishment Clause violation requiring curettage and disinfectant for Johnson’s public high school classroom walls. It is a matter of historical fact that our institutions and government actors have in past and present times given place to a supreme God.”

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed the federal lawsuit on Johnson’s behalf after the school district ordered him to take down his banners in January 2007. The Law Center vows to defend Judge Benitez’s ruling before the Ninth Circuit and to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary…..Robert Muise, the Thomas More Law Center Senior Trial Counsel handling the case, commented,…. [School Officials]  “have no objection to a 40-foot display of sacred, Tibetan prayer flags in a science classroom, among countless other religious and political displays. But they do have a personal objection to Mr. Johnson’s patriotic banners because they recognize a fundamental truth that school officials dislike: God plays a prominent role in our Nation’s history and heritage.”

The Ninth Circuit is unfortunately not friendly to traditional religion however. I suspect there may be trouble in this appeal but there is hope if it gets to the US Supreme Court which commonly overturns the 9th Circuit. An example of this happened very recently when the Supreme Court allowed a War memorial Cross to stand on a hill top on Federally owned land in California. You can read more of that here: Supreme Court overturns objection to cross on public land

This video summarizes the school case and even includes a little humor.

Posted on

It is the Decision of the Holy Spirit and Us….On the Council of Jerusalem and the Catholicity of the Early Church

In the first reading at Today’s Mass (and all last week at daily Mass) we have recounted for us the Council of Jerusalem which scholars generally date to around the Year 50 AD. It was a pivotal moment in the history of the Church since it would set forth an identity for the Church that was independent per se from the culture of Judaism, and it would open wide the door or inculturation to the Gentiles. This surely had significant impact upon evangelization in the early Church.

Catholic Ecclesiology is Evident here: I want to set forth in this article the proposition that we have reflected here a very Catholic model of the Church in terms of how a matter of significant pastoral practice and doctrine is properly dealt with. In effect what we see here is the same model the Catholic Church has continued to use right to our own time. What is evident here and in all subsequent Ecumenical Councils is a gathering of the Bishops presided over by the Pope which considers a matter and may even debate it. If necessary the Pope resolves debates where consensus cannot be reached. Once a decision is reached, a letter is issued to whole Church and considered binding.

All these elements are seen here though somewhat in seminal form. Let’s consider this First Council of the Church in Jerusalem of 50 AD. beginning first with the remote preparation –

1. Bring in the Gentiles! – The Lord, just before he ascended gave the Apostles the great commission: Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). Hence, the Gentiles are now to be summoned  and included in the ranks of discipleship and of the Church.

2. But it looks like the Church was mighty slow in beginning any outreach to the Gentiles. It is true that on the day of Pentecost people from every nation heard the Sermon of Peter and 3000 converted. By they were all Jews (Acts 2). In fact it seems the Church did little at first to leave Jerusalem and go anywhere, let alone to the nations.

3. Perhaps as a swift quick in the pants the Lord allowed a persecution to break out in Jerusalem after the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7). This caused the gospel to begin a northward trek into Samaria at least. Samaritans however are not usually considered Gentiles, since they were a groups that had intermarried with Jews in the 8th Century BC. There is also the Baptism of an Ethiopian Official but he too was a Jew.

4. Fifteen Years  ?!  The time line of Acts is a bit speculative however if we study it carefully and compare it to some of what Paul says (esp. in Galatians) it would seem that we are dealing with over 15 years before the baptism of the first Gentile! If this is true then it is a disgrace. There were of course strong racial animosities between Jew and Gentile that may explain the slow response to Jesus’ commission. It explains but does not excuse it.

5. Time for another kick in the pants. This time the Lord went to Peter who was praying on a rooftop in Joppa and by means of a vision taught him that he was not to call unclean what God had called clean. The Lord then sent to Peter an entourage from Cornelius, a high Roman military official who was seeking baptism. He, of course was a Gentile. The entourage requests that Peter go with them to meet Cornelius at Cesarea. At first he is reluctant. But then recalling the vision (kick in the pants) that God had given him he decides to go. In Cesarea he does something unthinkable. He, a Jew, enters the house of a Gentile. Peter has learned his lesson and been guided by God as the first Pope to do what is right and just. After a conversation with Cornelius and the whole household, and signs from the Holy Spirit, Peter has them baptized. Praise the Lord! It was about time. (All of this is detailed in Acts 10)

6. It is a true fact that many were not happy with what Peter had done and they confront him on it. Peter explains his vision, and also the manifestation of the Holy Spirit and insists that this is how it is going to be. While it is a true fact these early Christians felt freer to question Peter than we would the Pope today, it is also a fact that what Peter has done is binding even if some of them don’t like it. What Peter has done will stand. Once Peter has definitively answered them, they reluctantly assent and declare somewhat cynically: “God has granted life giving repentance (even) to the Gentiles!”  (Acts 11:19)

7. Trouble Brewing – So, the mission to the Gentiles is finally open. But that does not mean trouble is over. As Paul, Barnabas and others begin to bring in large numbers of Gentile converts some among the Jewish Christians begin to object that  they were not  like Jews and began to insist that they must be circumcised and follow the whole Jewish Law, not just the moral precepts but also the cultural norms, kosher diet, purification rites etc. That is where we picked up the story in today’s Mass.

8. The Council of Jerusalem – Luke is a master of understatement and says “Because there arose no little dissension and debate….” (Acts 15:2) it was decided to ask the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem to gather and consider the matter. So the apostles and some presbyters (priests) with them meet and,  of course,  Peter is there as is James who was especially prominent in Jerusalem among the apostles and would later become bishop there. Once again Luke rather humorously summarizes the matter by saying, “After much debate Peter arose” (Acts 15:7). In effect Peter arises to settle the matter since (it would seem) that the apostles themselves were divided.  Had not Peter received this charge from the Lord? The Lord had prophesied: Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to sift you all like wheat but I have prayed for you Peter, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers (Luke 22:31-32). Now Peter fulfills this text as he will again and every Pope after him. Peter clearly dismisses any notion that the Gentiles should be made to take up the whole burden of Jewish customs. Paul and Barnabas rise to support this. Then James (who may have felt otherwise) rises to assent to the decision and asks that a letter be sent forth to all the Churches explaining the decision. He also asks for and obtains a few concessions.

So there it is, the First Council. And that Council like all the Church-wide Councils that would follow was a gathering of the bishops, in the presence of Peter who works to unite them. A decision is then made and a decree, binding on the whole Church,  is sent out. Very Catholic actually. We have kept this Biblical model ever since. Our Protestant brethren have departed from it for they have no Pope to settle things when they dispute. They have split endlessly into tens of thousands of denominations and factions. When no one is pope every one is pope.

A final thought. Notice how the decree to the Churches is worded: It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us (Acts 15:28). In the end we trust the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in matters of faith and morals. We trust that decrees and doctrines that issue forth from Councils of the Bishops with the Pope are inspired by and authored by the Holy Spirit Himself. And there it is right in Scripture, the affirmation that when the Church speaks solemnly in this way it is not just some bishops and the Pope as men, it is the Holy Spirit who speaks with them.

The Church – Catholic from the Start!

Posted on

Simply Catholic: Why the Faith Ought to Trump Politics

I have long observed that many if not most Catholics are more passionate about their politics than their faith. This goes for both sides of the political spectrum and for moderates too. I will not say  that I am immune from the tendency either. It’s just so much easier to speak of the faith when it conforms to something in our political mindset or worldview, and it’s so easy to doubt it if it offends against it.

Instead of being the light by which we see all things, the Faith tends to get “tucked under” our worldview and political view, our careers and preferences. The world should be seen through faith. The world should be on trial by the Word of God and the teachings of the Church. But as it usually happens, the Church, and the Scriptures end up being on trial instead. In this situation Faith is not the priority, politics and the world are. In any conflict between the two, guess what usually has to give way?

Some examples and stories:

1. Abortion– The most common and perhaps most egregious example is the horrible scourge of abortion. Too many Catholics allow their politics to trump what they know is the consistent teaching of their Faith and the Church. It is a horrible thing too when we consider that 70 million Catholics in agreement on this issue would be hard to ignore politically. If even 10% showed up in Washington for the Pro-life March that would be 7 million people on the Mall and no media bias could ignore that many people. As it is we are woefully divided and the usual cause of this is politics. Most people of any political persuasion know Abortion is indefensible. But they line up on the issue more on political than moral reasoning. Saying that they merely want to stay out of people’s personal affairs does not add up since EVERY law or legal limit inserts itself into people’s personal affairs. The question is what should the limits be or not be and that gets back to politics. It is a sad truth that many Americans allow politics to over-ride the most crucial moral decision of the day. The Church teaching against abortion is not Republican, it is Catholic.

2. A Story– As a priest in Washington DC I am called on numerous occasions to meet with members of the DC City Council and also on fewer occasions, with Federal officials. Most recently I was meeting with a certain City official over the issue of recognizing so-called Same-sex “Marriage.” I explained to him why the Church opposed such a change in the Law. I remember well what he said to me and though the quote is not exact it’s pretty close, “Father, I know what your Church teaches. But I am a politician, I was not born yesterday and I have read the polls. Almost half of your people don’t agree with your teachings about homosexuality. You claim to speak for them but you don’t speak for at least half,  and I think,  more than half. Don’t tell me how your people are going to vote. I already know how they are going to vote. You don’t represent most of them and surely not the votes I count on to win.” I guess I could have gone on to distinguish between the beliefs and voting patterns of Church-going vs. non-Church- going Catholics but that would merely have led to the fact that we rather pathetically can count on only 30% of Catholics to even come to Church, let alone vote with us. Truth was he DID know his business and he can count votes better than I can. How different would this scenario have been if Catholics were Catholics first before anything else and did vote based on their faith and what the Church teaches about marriage rather than other things such as the wallet or politcal party or personal views? Had that been the case he probably would have asked to me with me and other clergy.

3. What party is the Catholic Church?– Neither of course. But depending on what is in the news you can count on labels being applied. If the issue is abortion, embryonic stem cell research, or homosexual “marriage” detractors will say the Church and bishops are “in bed” with the Republicans. But if the issue is immigration reform, capital punishment, concerns about war, or care for the poor, then they’re all “just a bunch of Democrats.”

Now I hear the objections even now that go something like: “Abortion is doctrinal, Capital Punishment is not. True enough. But it is only solemn and doctrinal things that should claim our loyalties? What if the Pope and Bishops as our teachers and leaders are asking us to stand together on an important issue in the battle against the culture of death?…an issue that affects our credibility (rightly or wrongly) with the world on the matter of abortion? Even if there are proper distinctions to be made, what if the Pope and bishops have determined that, as a pastoral strategy, we ought to oppose the State taking life under either of these circumstances?  Does that have any bearing on the issue? And if not, why not? I am aware that some would not attribute their disagreement here to politics at all but rather are clinging to distinction that the Church does not absolutely forbid capital punishment. But is absolute forbiddance the only source of our unity? Is it not enough that the Catechism, recent Popes and the Bishops see the need for recourse to capital punishment as practically non existent (cf  CCC # 2267). Scripture does ascribe the right of capital punishment to the State. But the Church, through her leaders,  has asked the State to have little or no recourse to this right. What if our stance on capital punishment was not rooted in liberalism but in Catholicism? And what if we stood together with the Church on this issue out of respect for what our legitimate teachers and leaders have asked us to do as a prudential rather than a doctrinal matter? Not as democrats, but as Catholics.

And as regards immigration. I can almost guarantee you that even Bishop’s who are predictably conservative on many issues aren’t going to line up with a strong law and order approach to this issue. There are Catholic and Biblical principles which call us to welcome the stranger and the foreigner. Legality is an important issue as well but it is complicated. Many who are currently here illegally came here legally and their status expired and the process of legalization is bewildering. Not all illegal immigrants have flagrantly violated the law in coming here. Hence, while upholding a respect for law the instinct of the Church is also to attend to the humanity of the problem which is often complex. The Catholic position on this will not be (cannot be) strict, law and order, enforcement. The posture for a Catholic ought to be, why does the Church teach in this manner and why are the Bishops as teachers of the faith taking this position? The reasons are Catholic not Democratic.

4. A story– Some few ago when I was pastor of St. Thomas More Parish I joshed with the congregation there, who, by the way, love me exceedingly more that I deserved. But I said, in jest but not without some truth: “When I preached against abortion some said, ‘He is a Republican.’ When I spoke against Capital Punishment some here said, ‘He is a Democrat.’ When I said, Gay marriage is wrong and that Children should not be given condoms some said, ‘See, he is a Republican!’ Then I preached along with the Pope and Bishops expressing concern about going to War in Iraq so quickly, and when we raised millions to build a new Recreation Center for the kids of Southeast, some said, ‘He is a Democrat!’  And all this time I just thought I was a Catholic Christian. “

Well, I may have stirred up a hornet’s nest here. But true Catholicism is radical. It cannot be tamed by any political party or mindset. True Catholicism will comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. As it was with Christ, most every one will have reason to hate it, and some will come to love the faith as it is and the Church as she is. In the end we are to be those who are “simply Catholic.”  Every other party affiliation, membership, alliance, or connection must yield to the Faith and be judged by it. No worldly thought should ever trump the Faith which God has revealed through the Church. And, even in some matters that are prudential in nature, our alliance to the Church founded by Jesus Christ ought to win the day when it comes giving the benefit of any doubt.

You will surely want to add some distinctions, and a few “yes-buts.”  That’s what comments are for. But be careful not to distinguish the main point to death which is that in the end we should be simply, plainly and essentially Catholic.

In this video, Cardinal George and the Chicago Archdiocese are making a similar point very creatively: