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.”
In yesterday’s Gospel the Lord made a promise to us of peace: Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give it to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid. (John 14:27) Now this promise is perhaps the hardest of promises for many Christians to realize. Anxiety seems deeply rooted in the human condition, at least the fallen version of it that we have inherited. Upon hearing the words, “Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid” many become downcast and even feel a failure at their incapacity to “snap out of it.” Exhortations and rational expectations seldom ease feelings. And being told to have courage or cheer up can sometimes seem almost cruel.
But is that what the Lord is really doing here? Is he merely exhorting us to do something out of our flesh power? No indeed. But He is leaving us a promise of a gift to increasingly receive and experience. It must however be his work, his peace. True inner peace and serenity cannot be something this world gives or that emerges from our own unregenerate flesh. It must be Christ’s peace.
What is inner peace? Like most of the deepest gifts of the Lord peace is hard to reduce to mere words. But generally speaking inner peace is the experience that everything is all right. I have underlined the word experience since the statement “everything is all right” is not just a postulate of the intellect, it is an experience of the whole person. It is deeper than knowledge, it is an experience that is present and very real. It is sometimes called “serenity” which comes from the Latin word serenus that referred to water that was clear because it was calm and untroubled.
The experience that everything is all right does not have to mean that everything is exactly the way we want it or that there are not issues that puzzle us as to their outcome. There may in fact be things that need attention and resolution but we are not vexed by this fact and do not ruminate endlessly as to their outcome. We may even have preferences as to certain outcomes but inner peace supplies the experience that, whatever happens it will be just fine.
The experience of true inner peace, though it can be given by God at any time is usually the fruit of long experience and deepening prayer. The gift of peace usually grows gently, almost imperceptibly in the person who is serious about prayer, reception of the Sacraments and growing in the faith through recourse to the Scriptures and the teachings of the Church. One who is faithful in these matters becomes gradually aware that anxiety has largely departed and many things that used to vex and trouble them, no longer have the power to do so.
It is a true fact that some people are naturally less anxious than others. Further, most people are not anxious in the same way, but have a certain range of things that provoke worry and other things over which they are care-free. While these natural dispositions to being carefree are sometimes called peace, they are not to be confused with the Lord’s gift of inner peace which is a far deeper experience than a lack of worry. It is more than an absence of anxious thoughts, it is the positive presence of calm and the experience that everything is in God’s hands and hence, is just as it should be.
Perhaps it will be helpful to describe some of the signs of inner peace. They are fruits that emerge in the person who is increasingly experiencing God’s gift of inner peace:
1. A tendency to think and act deliberately, rather than from fears based on past experiences.– As fear and anxiety begin to dissipate we begin to be less reactive to life and more reflective and proactive. Fear tends to incite rash judgements. Serenity permits greater reflection and deliberation and we can act more from what we positively value than from what we fear. As trust grows we are less superstitious and we also see how bad experiences of the past are not necessarily predictive of the present circumstances. For example, a person may have grown up under a severe or domineering father. But that does not mean that every male authority figure is this way. As inner peace increases in us we begin to stop projecting bad experiences from childhood or the past on to persons or situations of the present.
2. An increasing ability to enjoy each moment and live in the moment – Rumination and worry about future matters rob from us an appreciation of the present moment and blinds us to the blessings of this moment. As peace increases and worries subside I am freed to be present to the blessings of the moment.
3. A loss of interest in conflict and aggressive behavior– As peace increases in us we become content with what God has given us. We are open to the invitation to “come up higher” but are also content to “sit at the lowest place.” As this takes place we are less aggressive in getting our needs met and less conflicted that there are some things we don’t have. We are not drawn into silly competitions with others as to place, position, reward, or credit. Happy with what we have, we do not need to fight to get things we don’t have. When necessary we will fight for what is right but not out of ego needs and the desire to “win.” But, rather, from a serene desire to usher in what is just and right. As peace increases in us fighting and aggressive behavior seem foreign and increasingly unnecessary.
4. A loss of interest in interpreting the actions of others– A rather large source of anxiety and unease in our lives are suspicious and cynical attitudes. We too easily observe the actions of others and rush to conclude often negative motivations. For example, “He’s trying to make me look bad.” Perhaps this true, perhaps there were other motives too. But as inner peace begins to increase in us we are less concerned with the motives of others. Inner peace helps us to be less concerned with the motivations. Cynicism and suspicion begin, little by little to seem foreign to us and we just loose interest in their voice.
5. An increasing loss of ability to worry – As inner peace increases, it is not just that worry goes away, but the actual ability to worry also wanes. People frequently try to get us to worry about stuff. There is a lot of fear mongering in our culture. It’s everything from the advertisers trying to get us to obsess about how we look or what others think of us to the doomsayers trying to work us into a frenzy over the impending doom of the planet. But as inner peace increases in us it is harder for others to get us to carry their fear. We have fewer buttons for them to push. Even if someone frantically warns of this or that, it is not enough to trigger worry in us. This is a miraculous sort of transformation as we begin to discover an increasing loss of even the ability to worry.
6. Frequent, overwhelming episodes of appreciation and joy – A fear begins to depart we are less distracted by its gnawing presence and freer to enjoy and appreciate things. Joy and gratitude begin to occupy the space fear once did.
7. Contented feelings of connectedness with others and nature and God. – As fear competitiveness, anger and suspicion begin to depart we are more compassionate and aware of the gifts and goodness of others. Since fear less distracts us we become better listeners and are more present to others, more connected. With distracting fear and rumination increasingly behind us we can also become more aware the world around us and appreciative of its beauty. As for God, as peace begins to grow, we often begin to experience the first beginning of contemplative prayer. This sort of prayer is described as a restful quiet in the presence of God beyond words, images or discourse. It is a simple, calm, serene and ever deeper grasp of God’s loving presence.
8. An increasing tendency to allow things to unfold, rather than resisting and manipulating the outcomes– As our experience that everything is alright grows we have less need to control and manipulate life. We make necessary plans and provisions but are more able to allow things to unfold differently than our plans insisted. Imperfect outcomes are not seen as failures necessarily. Perhaps they are opportunities to learn. Control is paradoxically an enemy of peace. For control is ultimately more illusion than reality. You may have plans for tomorrow but I cannot guarantee you that you will even finish this article before you die. Whatever things we do control are contingent on many more things that we do not control. As inner peace grows we are less insistent on controlling every detail and more content to allow things to unfold.
So there it is, the second hardest promise of the Lord: Peace. But what is the hardest promise of the Lord? you may ask. Perfection! Jesus promised it when he said, So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matt 5:48) Don’t try to do it on your own. Only the Lord can do it in you. But it’s the hardest promise since it will surely wait until death and probably beyond in Purgatory. Perfection will come, but that’s another article.
Meantime:
Let nothing disturb you,
Let nothing frighten you,
All things pass away:
God never changes.
Patience obtains all things.
He who has God
Finds he lacks nothing;
God alone suffices.
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.
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:
It is too easy to take our faith for granted. We can complain at the slightest requirement. Perhaps the Mass is “too long.” Perhaps the air conditioning or PA system is less than ideal. Perhaps the Church’s moral teaching seems too demanding or “out of touch” with modern thinking. Perhaps some aspect of the Liturgy seems “boring.” And so forth.
But have you recalled that martyrs died so you could have this faith? Every one of the Apostles except St. John the Evangelist died a martyr’s death for our capacity to know that Jesus is Lord and that he died and rose for us.
Andrew was crucified on an X shaped cross after being scourged. He preached to his tormentors to his last breath.
Bartholomew had his skin flayed off
James the Great (Son of Zebedee) was beheaded
James the Younger was cast off the Southeast pinnacle of the Temple. When the 100 foot drop did not fully kill him he was beat to death with clubs.
John the Evangelist was thrown into a vat of boiling oil and when he miraculously survived he was sent to prison on the Isle where Patmos where he died years later.
Jude was shot through with arrows
Simon was Crucified
Matthew was killed with a sword
Phillip was beheaded
Peter was crucified upside down.
Thomas was stabbed to death with a spear
St. Matthias was stoned then beheaded.
Mark was dragged to death by horses.
Paul was beheaded
Luke was Hanged to death
What will you suffer for handing on the faith? The martyrs went to death to proclaim Christ but some us cannot bear if some one merely raises an eyebrow at us or scoffs. Merely being less popular or excluded from the world’s admiration is too high a price for many. The next time you recite the Creed at Mass remember those words are written with blood. The next time you kids protest going to Church or your teenager scorns the faith you insist they practice, remember that others have faced far more formidable does than an unhappy child. The next time you are challenged for your faith and merely have to risk ridicule, remember others suffered (and still suffer) prison. Many were (and still are) killed for it.
Remember the Martyrs and stay faithful, dedicated and courageous. Stand firm in the Faith and never give up.
Last week, a colleague asked me, “If there is one truth that you want young adults to know, what would it be?”
My answer?
“God has created me for some definite service. He has committed some work to me which he has not committed to another.” -Cardinal Newman
Young adulthood is one of transition, uncertainty, and longing. It may be moving to a new city, searching for employment after graduation, or praying God sends you your spouse…soon!
Many young adults make life decision on their own, determine what success is on their own, pursue relationships with their own criteria without asking what God wills. And often, they end up feeling lost, empty, and hurt.
If young adults (or anyone for that matter) knew in their hearts that God loves them and has a unique plan for them, they could move forward into adulthood with confidence and joy! Here are some tips to consider if you are at a crossroad in your life:
* Remove mortal sin from your life with the help of a spiritual director and/or Catholic psychotherapist. It’s impossible for grace to get in if sin is blocking the way.
* Develop a prayer life through daily Scripture meditation, weekly Mass (or more often), and monthly confession (or more often). Jesus is in the sacraments; go find Him there!
* Learn to correctly discern how the Holy Spirit is guiding you. Recommended reading includes: “Finding God’s Will For You” by St. Francis de Sales and “What Does God Want?: A Practical Guide to Making Decisions” by Fr. Michael Scanlan.
Feel free to share with the blog how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have guided you toward God’s Will!
“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever.” John 14:16
One of the great indoor sports of New Testament Biblical Scholarship is how to interpret the subtleties in the dialogue between Jesus and Peter in today’s Gospel. It is the classic interaction wherein Jesus asks, “Peter do you love me?” And Peter responds “Yes, Lord you know that I love you.” This exchange occurs three times. But to us who read the passage in English some of the subtle distinctions in vocabulary are lost. There is an interplay between two Greek words for love, Agapas and Philo. Jesus asks of Peter’s love with one word, but Peter responds with another. There is also a subtle shift in the use of another verb meaning “to know.” Peter moves from odias to ginoskeis. Both can be translated “you know” but again the question is why the shift and how should this be interpreted?
No one disputes these facts about the Greek text. Allow me to reproduce the well known dialogue with the distinctions stitched in:
Jesus: “Simon, son of John, do you love (agapas) me more than these?”
Peter: “Yes, Lord, You know (oidas) that I love (philo) You.” Jesus: “Simon, son of John, do you love (agapas) me?”
Peter: “Yes, Lord, You know (oidas) that I love (philo) You.”
Jesus: “Simon, son of John, do you love (phileis) me?”
Peter: “Lord, You know (oidas) everything; You know (ginoskeis) that I love (philo) You.”
But there are the facts. But here is where the debate begins. The central questions are these:
Is there any real distinction to be made between agapas and philo? Or is it a distinction without a difference?
Although modern Christians make a sharp distinction between agape love and filial (philo) love, was such a distinction operative in ancient Greek or where these words merely synonyms that were simply interchangeable?
If so, why does John and the Holy Spirit record these different words for love? Is there really no purpose at all?
And why does John shift from using the verb odias (you know) to ginoskeis? the same questions would prevail.
The answers to these questions admit of many possible answers. Now if you put three Greek scholars (or three scripture scholars) in a room together you’re going to have at least 17 opinions. But for the sake of brevity let me set forth two basic opinions or interpretations:
1. The use of different words for love is highly significant. Jesus is asking Peter for agape love. Agape love being the highest and most spiritual love wherein Peter is called to Love Jesus above all things and all people, including himself. But Peter, finally being honest says to Jesus in effect, Lord you know that I love you (only) with brotherly love (philo se). Jesus is not disappointed for entrusts the role of chief Shepherd to Peter anyway. But again he asks for agape love and Peter answers the same. A third time Jesus asks, but this time he comes to Peter’s level and says, in effect, “OK Peter then do you love me with brotherly love (phileis me)?”
And this all makes Peter sad who now becomes more emphatic and says Lord, You know (oidas) everything; You know (ginoskeis) that I (only) love with brotherly love (philo). Note here that Peter’s exasperation includes a shift in the verb “know.” He shifts from the verb oidas (meaning more literally “you have seen”) to the verb ginoskeis (meaning a deeper sort or perception that includes understanding).
So perhaps the final sentence translated with these distinctions in mind would read: “Lord! You have seen everything; and you understand that I (only) love you with brotherly love.” The Lord then goes on to tell Peter that one day he will die a martyr’s death. Almost as if to say, “Peter I DO understand that you only love me now with brotherly love. But there will come a day when you will finally be willing to die for me and you will give over your life. Then you will truly be able to say that you love me with Agape love.”
This first opinion obviously takes the distinctions in the Greek text as very significant and interprets them to the max. It results in a beautifully pastoral scene wherein Jesus and Peter have a very poignant and honest conversation.
2. The second opinion or interpretation is there is no significance in the use of different Greek verbs for love or know. The main reason for this opinion is rooted in the view that among Greek speakers of the First Century there is no evidence that they used these verbs to mean significantly different things. It is claimed that Agape was not understood in the early Centuries of the Church as God-like, unconditional love. That meaning came only later and then only among Christians, not among pagans.
There seems to be a scriptural basis for the fact that the early Christians had not reserved apape and philo for the exclusive meanings they had later. For example “agapao” is sometimes used in the New Testament for less God-like loves. Two examples are the Pharisees loving the front seats in the synagogues (Luke 11:43) and Paul’s indication that Demas had deserted him, because he loved this world (2 Tim 4:10). Further, God’s love is sometimes described using “phileo“, as when he is said to love humanity (John 16:27) or even once when the Father is said to love Jesus (John 5:20).
More evidence is also deduced from the silence of the Greek speaking Fathers of the Church who do not make mention of this distinction in the verbs for love when they comment on this passage. One would think that had the subtle distinctions been significant they would surely have dwelt upon it.
Hence, rooting itself in historical data this second opinion and interpretation sees little significance if any in the fact that Jesus and Peter are using different words for love.
So there it is. The great indoor sport of Scripture Scholarship: understanding and interpreting the subtleties of John 21:15ff. For myself I will say that while number 2 seems a compelling argument against opinion 1, I will also say that I cannot wholly reject that, if opinion 1 isn’t true, it OUGHT to be. I find it strange that these different verbs are being used and that we are to conclude absolutely nothing from it. The subtle details of John’s Gospel are almost never without purpose. SOMETHING is going on here that we ought not ignore. Peter and Jesus are subtly interacting here. There is a movement in their conversation that involves a give and take that is instructive for us.
It also remains a fact that not all Greek Scholars accept that Agape and Philo were simply synonyms in the First Century.
The silence of the Greek speaking Fathers is surely significant. But it also remains true that Scriptural interpretation did not end with the death of the last Father. Further, I have found that I, who speak a little German am sometimes better able to appreciate the clever subtleties of German vocabulary than the those for whom it is the mother tongue. At a certain point we can become rather unreflective about the subtle distinctions of the words we use and it takes an outsider to call them to our attention. I never really appreciated the more subtle meanings of English words until I studied Latin.
Hence, for me it is still helpful to see the distinctions in this text even if some historical purists find no room for them. I simply cannot avoid that a key message is available to us in the subtle shifts in vocabulary here. As always, I value your comments and additions to this post. Do we have here a distinction without a difference, a distinction to die for or something in between? Let me know what you think!
Some people say that if they could see they would believe. But seeing is not believing, seeing is only seeing. Scripture says Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). It also says Although you have not seen him you love him; even though you do not see him now yet believe in him (1 Peter 1:8). It is true that Jesus says to Thomas, You believe in me Thomas becuase you have seen me, but blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed. Yet as both St. Gregory (Homilia26) and St. Thomas Aquinas (II, IIae 1.4) point out, Thomas saw one thing and believed another. He saw the man which required no faith, but confessed Jesus to be Lord and God which required faith and cannot be “seen.” So again, as Scripture says, We walk by faith and not by sight (2 Cor 5:7)
And yet many people often say, if only I could have been alive and have seen Jesus workmiracles, I would believe more. Maybe, maybe not, because seeing is only seeing. Seeing even impossible things doesn’t necessarily make a person believe. Consider the video just below. What you will see in it will look impossible. And yet it is happening before your very eyes. I have been to live magic shows and seen the same thing. People seem to vanish into thin air or instantly change appearance. Is it a miracle or just some fancy illusion? Most people, even upon seeing what looks like it can only be a miracle, usually conclude that it is a trick or that there is “some way they do that.”
Now remove these magicians in the video and go with me back in time as Jesus works a miracle. Presume for a moment that you’ve never met Jesus or heard of him. Yet watch him cast out blindness or enable a paralyzed man to walk. Is it a miracle, or is it a clever trick? Should you really believe his claims to be from God and to be God based on these wonderful works? Has Jesus staged this well or is he really the Son of God? You see? It still takes faith doesn’t it? Simply seeing miracles isn’t enough. You just can’t substitute for faith, it is an absolute requirement to accept who Jesus is. Miracles can help but seeing is not believing, it’s only seeing. In the end you have to decide: fancy trick or real miracle? Son of God or just a skilled illusionist?
Remember too, Jesus did not work miracles to “cause” faith but to confirm it. When faith was lacking Jesus did not work miracles. For example it is said of him when he was in Nazareth, He could work no miracles there except to cure a few sick, so much did their lack of faith disturb him. (Mk 6:5). Further, Jesus would often inquire of a person’s faith or draw it out before working a miracle (eg. Mat 9:28; Jn 11:26; Mat 15:27; Matt 8:10; inter al.) In the end miracles are not the cause of faith, they are the result of it. Likewise, seeing is not the cause of faith but does result from it to some extent. We see many things by faith.
Watch this video and see what look like realmiracles before your very eyes. But pay attention to what your mind does and how quickly you can dismiss the visual evidence. You do not conclude that these people are gods because of what they do. Seeing even fantastic things just isn’t enough. In this case they likely are not miracles, just very well done illusions. But many saw Jesus work wonders which really were miracles and it was not enough. In the end you have to have faith. In other words, some people think if only God would work miracles in their life, they could believe. But miracles alone cannot bring faith because seeing is not believing it is only seeing.
Cumulative evidence can bring us to accept God’s existence as a reasonable proposition but only faith can really lead us to believe all that God has said. Pray for the gift of faith and you will see miracles, and more!
