Category: Uncategorized

Posted on

The Hell There Is – A Meditation on the Gospel for the 26th Sunday of the Year

In the Gospel for today about the rich man and Lazarus the Lord gives us some important teachings on judgment and on hell. Now it is a fact that we live in times where many consider the teaching on Hell to be untenable. Many struggle to understand how a God described as loving, merciful and forgiving can assign certain souls to Hell forever. No matter that the Doctrine of Hell is taught extensively in Scripture and quite a lot by Jesus himself, the doctrine does not comport well with many modern notions and emphases of God, and, hence many think  it has to go.

But this reading goes a long way to address some of the modern concerns about Hell and so we ought to look at it. Prior to doing that however it might be important to state why Hell has to exist. I have done that more extensively on this blog here:  http://blog.adw.org/2010/07/hell-has-to-be/   However I summarize that lengthier article in the nest paragraph

Hell has to exist essentially for one reason: “Respect.” God has made us free and respects our freedom to chose his Kingdom or not. Now the Kingdom of God is not a mere abstraction. It has some very specific values and these values are realized and experienced perfectly in heaven. The values of the Kingdom of God include: Love, kindness, forgiveness, justice to the poor, generosity, humility, mercy, chastity, love of Scripture, love of the truth, worship of God, God at the center and so forth. Now the fact is that there are many people in our world who do not want a thing to do with chastity, or forgiveness, or being generous and so forth. And God will not force them to adopt and live these values.  While it is true that everyone may want to go to heaven, heaven is not merely what we want, it is what it is, as God has set it forth. Heaven is the Kingdom of God and the values thereof in all their fullness. Hence there are some (many?) who live in such a way that they consistently demonstrate that they are not interested in heaven, since they are not interested in one or many of the Kingdom values. Hell “has to be” since God respects their freedom to live in this way. Since they demonstrate they do not wnat heaven, God respects their freedom to choose “other arrangements.”

Now this  leads to today’s Gospel which we can see in three stages.

1. The Ruin of the Rich Man – As the Gospel opens we see described a rich man (some call him Dives, which simply means “rich”). There was a rich man who dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day. Now it is clear he lives very well as has the capacity to help the poor man, Lazarus,  outside his gate. But he simply does not. His sin is not so much one of hate, but of indifference. He is living in open rejection of one of the most significant Kingdom values, that of the love of the poor. His insensitivity is a “damnable sin” in the literal sense since it lands him in Hell. So the ruin of this rich man is his insensitivity to the poor.

Now the care of the poor may be a complicated matter and there may be different ways of accomplishing it, but in no way can we ever consider ourselves exempt from caring for the poor if it is in our means to help them. We simply cannot avoid judgement for our greed and insensitivity. As God said in last week’s reading from Amos regarding those who are insensitive to the poor: The LORD has sworn by the pride of Jacob: Never will I forget a thing they have done! (Amos 8:7)  God may well “forget” many of our sins (cf Is 43:23; Heb 8:12) but apparently, trampling the poor and disregarding their needs isn’t one of them.

Hence this rich man has willfully and repeatedly rejected the Kingdom and is ruined by his greed and insensitivity. He lands in Hell since he doesn’t want heaven where in the poor are exulted (cf Luke 1:52) Abraham explains the great reversal to him: ‘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.

2. The Rigidity of the Rich Man– Now you might expect the rich man to be finally repentant and to have a change a heart but he does not. Looking up into heaven he seems Lazarus next to Abraham. Rather than finally seeing Lazarus’ dignity and seeking his forgiveness, the rich tells Abraham to send him to Hell with a pail of water in order that the rich man might be refreshed. He still sees Lazarus as beneath him (even though he has to look up to see him). He sees Lazarus as a “step and fetch errand boy” and wants him to come to Hell. Notice too, the rich man does NOT ask to be admitted to heaven!  He is unhappy with where he is but still does not seem to desire heaven and the Kingdom of God with all its values. So he has not really changed. He is regretful of his currently tormented condition but does not see or desire heaven as a solution to that. Neither does he want to appreciate Lazarus’ exalted state. He wants to draw him back to the lower place he once occupied.

Now this helps explain why Hell is eternal. It would seem that there is a mystery of the human person which we must come to accept. Namely,  that we come to a point in our life where our character is forever fixed, where we no longer change. When exactly this occurs is not clear. Perhaps it is death that effects this fixed quality. The Fathers of the Church often thought of the human person as clay on a potter’s wheel. As long as it is on the wheel and moist it can be molded, changed and fashioned. But there comes a moment when the clay is taken off the wheel and placed in the fiery kiln (judgment day (cf1 Cor 3:15)) and it’s shape is forever fixed and cannot be changed. The rich man manifests this fixed quality. He has not changed one bit. He is unhappy with his torments and even wants to warn his brothers. But he apparently does not intend to change or somehow experiences his incapacity to change. Hence,  Hell is eternal since we will not change there. Our decision against the Kingdom of God and its values (a decision which God respects) is forever fixed.

3. The Reproof of the Rest of Us – As already noted, the rich man, though he cannot or will not change, would like to warn his brothers. Perhaps if Lazarus would rise from the dead and warn his brothers they would repent! Now let’s be clear, we are the rich man’s brethren. And we are hereby warned. The rich man wants exotic measures but Abraham says no, ‘They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them.’ The rich man replied, ‘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.'”  Of course, this reply is dripping with irony given Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. That aside, the fact is we should not need exotic signs to bring us conversion. The phrase “they have Moses and the Prophets” is a Jewish way of saying, they have Scripture.

And the scriptures are clear to lay out the way before us. They give us the road map to heaven and we have but to follow it. We ought not need an angel or a ghost, or some extraordinary sign. The Scriptures and the teachings of the Church are sufficient. Their instructions are clear enough: Daily prayer, daily scripture, weekly Eucharist, frequent confession all lead to a change of heart wherein we begin to love the Kingdom of God and its values. We are more merciful, kind, generous, loving toward the poor and needy, patient, chaste, devout, self controlled and so forth.

In the end we have to be clear: Hell exists. It has to exist for we have a free choice to make and God will respect that choice even if he does not prefer our choice. You and I are free to choose the Kingdom of God,  or not. This Gospel also makes it clear that our choices lead ultimately to final and permanent choice wherein our decision is forever fixed. The modern world needs to sober up. There is a Hell and its existence is both reasonable and in conformity with a God who both loves us and respects our freedom.

This Homily can be heard here: http://frpope.com/audio/26%20C%20OT.mp3

Posted on

"R You In?"

If you are a Washington Redskins fan, you have, no doubt, already answered this question! “R You In?” was the rally cry for Redskins training camp and the tag line for season ticket sales. I’m not in with the Redskins but I love the simple and direct nature of the question.  It really demands a “yes” or “no.”

Archbishop Wuerl is asking us the same question, in much more poetic language in his pastoral letter Disciples in Mission: Sharing the Vision.  While we can opt in or out with the Redskins with very little consequence, opting out of full and active participation in the New Evangelization for those of us who are baptized, does have consequences for us and for the church.

Sharing the vision

Msgr. Pope did a nice job introducing us to the pastoral letter and I plan, from time to time, to share stories about people and parishes who are in– who are giving new definition to what it means to be Catholic Evangelizers.

It begins with the sign of the cross

One of the ideas in  the pastoral letter that seems to have hit home is the suggestion to pray grace before meals in public. I was out with a group of colleagues, with whom I had not shared a meal and wondered if they were the types who pray grace in public places. The food came, there was a pause, and then a chuckle and two of us in unison said, “We’re all about the New Evangelization, and we are going to pray.”

At Mass on Sunday, I was chatting with a fellow parishioner and he said, “Susan, a friend read the pastoral letter, and told me that before reading the letter, he would make a small and quick Sign of the Cross before eating in public, now he decided, he would make a real Sign of the Cross.” Another friend wrote, “My husband and I are going to pray grace in restaurants.”

Evangelization really can be this easy and people do notice. At the hotel where we stayed while we were at the Passion Play, we had assigned tables for meals in the hotel restaurant. When we sat down for dinner, there was a woman who was also assigned to our table. She was just about finished when we arrived.  She was reading the paper and sipping coffee. We sat down and began with Grace. The next day, we came back to the hotel and were sitting in the coffee bar.  She came in and sat down and we started to chat with her. At the end of the conversation, she said, “I just want to say that I thought it was really nice you prayed Grace before you ate, you don’t see that often and not from Catholics.”

Hopefully, as we study and discuss the pastoral letter and our renewed commitment to the New Evangelization we will take advantage of other opportunities to share our love for the Lord and the joy we have found in the Catholic Church. The Sign of the Cross, the public acclamation that we live, and move and have our being in the name of the Father and of the Son and Holy Spirit is a great way to start. Buon apetito!

Posted on

"I want a laity…"

So, if a member of the family (Body of Christ) is going to be canonized, will I still be accused on jumping on the bandwagon by writing about him just like every other Catholic blog, newspaper, and news outlet. I’ve decided not to write much, there is so much you can read. See The Catholic Standard or or Zenit.

I want to share an excerpt from Newman that is part of the philosophy of Education Parish Service, where I worked for four years in Rome and ten years in Washington D.C. EPS is a lay formation program for Catholics adults, so it is not surprising that John Newman would be a guiding light. This piece however is what best describes why I am so passionate about my work.

“I want a laity, not arrogant, not rash in speech, not disputatious, but men [and women] who know their religion, who enter into it, who know just where they stand, who know what they hold and what they do not, who know their creed so well that they can give an account of it, who know so much of history that they can defend it. I want an intelligent, well-instructed laity – I wish [them] to enlarge [their] knowledge, to cultivate [their] reason, to get an insight into the relation of truth to truth, to learn to view things as they are, to understand how faith and reason stand to each other, what are the bases and principles of Catholicism.’  (Sermon 9, Duties of Catholics towards the Protestant View, 1851)

As we give thanks for the gift of Cardinal John Henry Newman and how he lived to perfection to vocation to which God called him, I pray our parishes will be the home of exactly this kind of person.

Posted on

A Lover of the Traditional Latin Mass Reflects on the Virtues of the Newer Vernacular Mass

As a priest I have been privileged to walk in the “wide Church.” That is to say, I have been able for all 21 years of my priesthood to say the Traditional Latin Mass while at the same time celebrating the newer, Ordinary Form of the Mass in some very dynamic parishes.

I have always loved both forms of the Roman liturgy and this sometimes gets me in trouble since there are dynamics within the Church where, at times, people on both sides want me to choose sides. I have no problem that people have their preferences, but as a priest I think I am required to serve a very diverse Church. I thank God too for the gift to be able to do this and to really love the current diversity. I realize too that diversity has its limits and, thus, I stick to the rubrics in both forms of the Mass: “Say the black, do the red!”

I have discussed in the past why I like the Traditional Mass and the video at the bottom of this post is a PBS interview where I speak of my love for it. I would like to take a moment however and also say what I like about the newer Ordinary Form of the Mass and also my acceptance of the fact that the old Mass did have need for some attention.

1. Rediscovering the value of subordinate roles and ministries in the Mass – There was a tendency in the Traditional Latin Mass for the action of subordinate ministers such as the deacon, subdeacon, choirs and cantors, to be non-effectual. In other words, what they did, didn’t really count. The schola (or choir) might sing the introit, the Kyrie and Gloria, but what they did still had to be recited by the priest quietly as well. In effect, their singing didn’t really count. It might sound pretty and all but it was really only what the priest recited that mattered. The last version of the Traditional Mass in 1962 had begun to remedy this. Thus the priest was no longer required to read the Scripture readings quietly if the Deacon and Subdeacon were chanting them. It was OK for him to listen to what they were chanting. But the schola’s chant still had to be re-read by the priest to “count.” The newer, Ordinary Form of the Mass has restored the subordinate ministries to their own proper function. Hence, if the readings are read by a lector or deacon the priest does not have to re-read them. If the choir sings the communion verse or song, this suffices and it is not required that the priest re-read it. I like this about the new Mass.

2.  I love the cycle of readings in the newer Mass. It is rich in its sampling of Scripture. The three year rotating cycle means that most of the New Testament is read every three years along with a rich sampling of the Old Testament. The Traditional Latin mass usually offered only a brief reading from the New Testament epistles and a Gospel pericope. It is very limited compared to the richness of the current Lectionary which includes, on Sundays, an Old Testament passge, a psalm, a New Testament epistle and a Gospel passage. Further the sequential reading from one of the four Gospels along with a matching Old Testament reading is helpful. The readings from the Traditional Latin Mass tended to skip around and its logic was not always clear.  As a preacher and lover of Scripture I have been richly fed by the new lectionary. I could wish for a slightly better translation than the current NAB we use here in the States but in the end I feel very well schooled by the newer liturgy when it comes to Scripture.

3. Restoration of the General Intercessions – There is a strange moment in the Old Mass when, after the homily and creed the priest turns and says to the people (Dominus vobiscum  (The Lord be with you) and they reply et cum spiritu tuo (and with your spirit). He then says, Oremus (Let us pray). But there is no prayer. He simply turns back to the altar and the people are once again seated. Many centuries before there had been bidding prayers here similar to our current “Prayers of the Faithful” or “General Intercessions.” They had been composed by Pope Gelasius but were later suppressed by Pope Gregory since they prolonged the Mass. But somehow the call to prayer (that odd little “oremus“) stayed there all those centuries.

There was need to attend to this. Either restore the prayers or drop the call to prayer. The current, Ordinary Form of the Mass has restored these prayers or general intercessions. I think this is a valuable aspect of the Ordinary Form of the Mass if it is done correctly. We ought to to pray for others as is so beautifully done in the Eastern Rites of the Church. It seems suitable that, after hearing and reflecting on God’s Word, we be drawn to pray for ourselves and the world.

However there is a tendency in some parishes to misunderstand the nature of these prayers. They are general intercessions, not particular ones. The prayers ought to be of a general nature not for every one’s sick cousin, aunt, or brother, mentioned by name with a full medical report included in the prayer. Rather we pray for the sick in general, for the poor, for Church leaders, Government leaders, for abundance of the fruits of the earth, for peace and so forth. Specific political and idiosyncratic prayers are wholly to be avoided.

If these norms are observed, the general intercessions (or prayer of the faithful) is a beautiful and ancient practice restored in the ordinary and newer form of the mass and it also links us more to the practice of the Eastern Rites.

4. The general rediscovery of the existence and role of congregation is a good part of the newer Ordinary Form of the Mass. In the Traditional Latin Mass, especially in its recited form the congregation had little to do but watch the Mass. The priest interacted only with the servers who made the responses on behalf of the people. Even when the priest turned to say something to the congregation he was instructed to look down.

If members of the congregation did wish to interact and make Latin responses this was made more difficult by the fact that the Mass was largely whispered by the priest. In the 1950s attempts were made to remedy this by encouraging the people to learn their responses in the Mass and use missals to follow the Mass carefully. Permissions were given for the priests to say the Mass in a louder voice and microphones were even added to some altars. But the lengthier Latin responses were still difficult for many ordinary Catholics to make and keep up with.

Today, in the newer liturgy the role of the congregation is respected and they are expected to play an active role in the Mass and make responses proper to them. It is true that there has been some obsession with this by overzealous liturgists. At times some of them demand that the people do everything and that there is never a place for a choir to sing a more advanced setting of something. But in general, the integral involvement of the congregation in the newer and ordinary form of the Mass is something I value highly.

5. The Vernacular is also a positive development. I love the Latin Language but I also know that it is a great advantage to have many parts of the Mass in the local language. This has assisted in greater participationof the faithful in the Mass to an immense degree.  It is difficult to expect the congregation to take a routinely active role if the Liturgy is almost wholly said in a language they do not know. Simple Latin responses are one thing, but try to get the whole congregation to say the confiteor (I Confess) well together. It can be done in some self-selected congregation where there is interest in Latin, but in more general settings it would be difficult.

That said, it is a true loss that most of the faithful have become completely separated from any experience of the Mass in Latin. This is something not envisaged by the Council which permitted a wider use of the vernacular but also commended the use of Latin and foresaw it’s continued common use in the liturgy.

A further point here is to lament how poor our vernacular translations have been for years and how good it is that a more accurate translation is on the way. Praise God.

6. Flexibility and the wider possibility for inculturation is also something I appreciate about the newer Ordinary Form of the Mass. Careful balance is needed here and rubrics need to be followed but the greater allowance for wider forms of music and cultural expression has allowed the Liturgy to flourish in different settings. I have a vibrant African American Catholic Parish wherein gospel music and extended preaching along with a charismatic enthusiasm give real life to the Mass in an authentic manner.

It is true that not every experience of inculturation with the new Mass has been as successful. This is especially true in more suburban American settings where culture is more secular and ephemeral and too many worldly forms find their way into the Mass. But where is a sacred tradition to draw on, it is nice to have some flexibility to incorporate this.

There is no doubt that the newer Ordinary Form of the Mass has some serious issues. It emerged in a time of great cultural tumult and emerged as if out of a whirlwind. We are still waiting for the dust to settle in many respects. But there are good and wonderful things as well. Pope Benedict is helping a great deal to reconnect us to tradition and to see both forms of the Liturgy as beneficial to each other.

It is fine to have a preference but I am blest to love both forms and serve vibrant and passionate communities using both forms. Both communities love the Lord and are serious about the liturgy and deeply connected to it. What a blessing to look out each Sunday and see, not boredom, but engaged and passionate people, alive and aware that the Lord is ministering to them in the sacred liturgy. What a blessing, a double blessing!

Here is an interview I did about the Traditional Latin Mass and my love for it.

Posted on

The Day Hawking Blew It

 Msgr. Pope did a great job introducing us to the pastoral letter on the New Evangelization and we will continue to write about it as it becomes a way of life for Catholics in the archdiocese.

One dimension of the New Evangelization is engaging people in conversation and not missing an opportunity to propose that the Catholic faith has the best answers to life’s biggest questions.

In the Beginning

This came to mind, when I saw the news about Stephen Hawkings new book. I started to write something about it and realized I would not be able to make sense of the argument in the space of a blog, but, I knew who could do it. Alfred Turnipseed is the Coordinator of Christian Initiation for the archdiocese and a former astronomy major. Alfred has a real gift for taking complicated concepts and breaking them down in a way that not only makes sense but that you can remember the next time it comes up in conversation.  So, Alfred is my guest blogger today. I will be happy to pass any questions along to him for answers.

From the desk of Alfred Turnipseed

That day began like any other workday: I arrived at work, turned on my desktop computer, and waited what seemed to be a thousand years for it to boot up.  Thus I began my daily “ritual”: After checking my emails, I opened Internet Explorer so as to peruse the headlines on Yahoo’s homepage.

That’s when I saw it: “God did not create the universe, says Hawking”.

At first, I thought it was a joke.  When I clicked the link, I fully expected to be taken to a page at The Onion.  And that’s when I discovered—this is for real.  “He finally did it,” I said to myself.  “He just had to go ahead and blow it all, dagnabbit…!”

He, by the way, is Stephen Hawking, British theoretical physicist and cosmologist, the recently retired Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge (a post once held by the great Isaac Newton), and author of the internationally best-selling A Brief History of Time—the Most Celebrated Scientist In The World.

My “dagnabbit” (or some such term denoting extreme irritation caused by grave scandal) spontaneously came to mind because Hawking is also a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, who famously once wrote, “If we discover a complete theory [of the universe], it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we should know the mind of God.”

(It would seem that for Hawking, science has proved that God is so unnecessary as not to exist at all.  So much for “knowing the mind of God.”)

Okay.  So what did Hawking actually say during this, his most recent “declaration”?  His words, taken from his new book, The Grand Design—words which stir new passions in me every time I read them—are as follows: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.  Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.  It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

Now, I admit it: ever since I gave up my astronomy studies (at Cornell, no less) for philosophy (and eventually, theology), I’ve had a slight case of “scientist-envy.”  After all, theoretical physicists can get away with saying things that—were I to say them—would get me at least puzzled stares and at most laughed out of the room!  I mean, the most eminent cosmologist on Planet Earth has declared that our 13.7-year-old, goodness-knows-how-big universe just popped into existence (1) from nothing, (2) by itself, and (3) that this was all a result of gravity.  Let’s look at Hawking’s statement point-by-point.

1.          From Nothing:  These words should be familiar to all well-catechized Catholics.  The Latin term is ex nihilo.  Indeed, Catholics do believe that the universe and everything in it came into existence out of nothingness (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 296-298), or in the words of Bible, “I beg you, child, to look at the heavens and the earth and see all that is in them; then you will know that God did not make them out of existing things…” (2 Maccabees 7: 28).  So far, so good.

2.         By Itself: Now here’s where things start getting ugly.  There is an old saying in Latin—ex nihilo nihil fit—”nothing comes from nothing”.  Now, here, we must be careful.  As stated just above, Catholics clearly believe not only that something can come from nothing, but that everything comes from nothing; that’s what creatio ex nihilo (“creation out of nothing”) means.  For Catholics, then, “nothing comes from nothing” must express something (pun intended!) more sublime—namely, that by itself, only nothing can come from nothingness.  To speak somewhat more subtly—nothingness, in and of itself, does not provide sufficient reason for anything to exist.

3.         Everything is a result of gravity: Nevertheless, Hawking does seem to think that nothingness can provide sufficient reason for the universe to exist, and for him, this reason is “gravity”.  But here’s the rub: whatever gravity is (whether a force, a law of physics, a mathematical reality, etc.), it is definitely not nothing.  In other words, whatever Hawking means by nothing (physical nothingness) he can’t mean what the Catholic Church means by nothing (metaphysical nothingness).  For the Church, nothing doesn’t simply mean “no matter,” “no energy,” and “no forces”; nothing means nonexistence (once again, read 2 Maccabees 7: 28 above).  Now, even Hawking would have to agree that gravity possesses some type of existence.  So whatever Hawking means by nothing, he can’t mean nonexistence, since gravity exists.  What, then, is Hawking saying?  He seems to be saying that in the beginning, there was gravity (which, in Hawkingspeak, exists, but is also nothing), and from gravity, all things that now exist, exist.  Does this make any sense to you?  Yeah, I didn’t think so!

Hawking’s statement denying the existence of, and even need for, God, has caused something of an uproar among those who care about the (seemingly) competing claims of science and religion to explain everything.  In Great Britain, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, and prominent Jewish and Muslim leaders have condemned Hawking’s “scientific atheism” as yet another case of physics overstepping its bounds.  After all, as implied above, physics is the science (or philosophy) of matter and its motion, energy, and forces.  Metaphysics (“beyond physics”), on the other hand, is the philosophy (or science) of being and existence.  So, as soon as one starts making declarations about existence, one crosses the line from physics into metaphysics.  Given all this, it really makes no sense to apply the laws of physics—or the principles of mathematics—to questions of existence.  In fact, from the perspective of genuine metaphysics, there is Being/Existence itself, and that which comes into existence or derives its existence from Being/Existence itself.  The former is God, and the latter are the principles of mathematics, the laws of physics, and ultimately, the entire universe (including space-time and non-spatial/non-temporal reality).  The point: God doesn’t “set the universe going,” as Hawking seems to think believers believe.  Rather, God causes everything to be, including the mathematical principles and physical laws that “set the universe going.”

(Note: it makes no difference whether there are, in fact, many universes or even an infinite number of universes—all derive their being from God.)

What does all this demonstrate?  Only that Stephen Hawking has no more disproved the existence of God than he has proved the existence of the extraterrestrial intelligent life forms that he so firmly believes in!  (Talk about “blind faith”!)

A final thought: If you’ve been reading between the lines, you’ve realized that “proving” or “disproving” the existence of God is not like proving or disproving the existence of some thing.  God, after all, simply IS.  In other words, “proving the existence of God” is like proving the existence of Existence.  I mean, once you realize that for any thing to exist/be, there must be EXISTENCE/BEING, you simultaneously realize that any discussion about God puts you in a whole new territory of thought (theology … ha!).  In fact, if you start thinking (actually, praying) about this really hard, you might cross into deep spirituality­—and you’ll “see” why so many saints and mystics could say that “God is nothing,” because God is not “a” thing, because God IS … and since God IS, in him, we will live forever.  “Therefore, since it is the Creator of the universe who shapes each man’s beginning, as he brings about the origin of everything, he, in his mercy, will give you back both breath and life…” (2 Maccabees 7: 23).

“The mathematics of the universe does not exist by itself, nor … can it be explained by stellar deities.  It has a deeper foundation: the mind of the Creator.  It comes from the Logos, in whom, so to speak, the archetypes of the world’s order are contained.  The Logos, through the Spirit, fashions the material world according to these archetypes.  In virtue of his work in creation, the Logos is, therefore, called the “art of God”….  The Logos himself is the great artist, in whom all works of art—the beauty of the universe—have their origin” (Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI).

Posted on

Back to school in an all new way

Are you the kind of person whose internal clock knows that it’s time to go back to school even though you are not a student. Does this cause you to treat yourself to school supplies for your home office? Or better yet, a new fall “back to school” outfit!

Happily, I am legitimately back to school as I am teaching a class this fall. I am also celebrating the opening of an exciting new Catholic school adventure in the archdiocese. St. Francis International School opened its doors this week. After beginning the day, the year and the new era in prayer, kids made their way to class. What makes St. Francis so special is that it celebrates the great gift that comes with the cultural diversity of our parishes and neighborhoods. St. Francis International was born from two parish schools—St. Mark in Hyattsville and St. Camillus in Silver Spring. Housed in the former St. Camillus school building, St. Francis “offers a Catholics, standard-based education with a global perspective that will equip students with a worldview and practical skills to fully and actively participate in a diverse world.” See my Catholic Standard.

Social Media at work

If school and Catholic school in particularly brings back good memories, I am  passing along an opportunity to support a really creative school initiative. From the world of a friend of a friend via Facebook, St. Pius X School in Lincoln, NE is trying to win $500,000 in a Facebook/Kohls contest. www.facebook.com/kohls and click on “Top Schools.”They need you to vote up to five times for St. Pius. I imagine you may find some other Catholic schools on the list, so hunt for your favorite and vote to support Catholic education. Having done that you can then head off to Kohls and pick up some new pencils and post-its!

Posted on

Who’s Your Daddy?

One of my favorite stages in the lives of my nieces and nephews is when they start putting the family connections together. That “Grand pop” is Dad’s father, that I and their dad are siblings who were once little kids. Of course, they find these ideas to be some of the craziest things they ever heard. Imagine, “dad” as a little kid! For days they will announce each relationship. The phone rings and they say “Dad, it’s your sister, Aunt Susan,” or they will ask someone who walks into the gathering, “Hey, did you know that when Mom was little, her mother was Grand mom?” They love tracing all of the relationships and it inevitably leads to questions about where we grew-up, where we went to school, who else is related to us. At some point, out comes the photo album and we marvel at how much Grand pop, when he was 12 looks like Daniel who is about to be twelve. It is these conversations that help a child find their place in the world; feel connected to a group of people who have influenced and them in ways that can’t always be seen. We are beginning to see a whole generation of kids who will never know their father or their father’s family. They may never learn that their passion for music has been shared by three generations of people before them, they may never know that their grandfather was also an all-star athlete or that their great-grandmother chose medicine as well. Dads, it seems are becoming optional.

Life according to Hollywood

This summer Hollywood is all about celebrating that dads are really not necessary in a child’s life. In two movies with huge stars, Jennifer Aniston, Annette Bening, Julianne Moore and Mark Ruffalo, the theme is the lives of children whose father’s origin is a donated sperm. In The kids are All Right, a brother and sister born of the same donor begin a search to find and meet their “dad.”

From the time that the movie came out, I was struck by the title “The Kids are All Right.”  It seems to beg the question, “Might they not be all right?  Or, did someone suggest that the kids are not“all right?” As is often typical with Hollywood, these movies want to promote a new norm. It is just fine for woman to choose motherhood as a single adult. If a mother can provide for all the child needs—who needs a father? In a recent interview Jennifer Aniston comments “Women are realizing more and more that you don’t have to settle, they don’t have to fiddle with a man to have that child.”  While science makes that possible what science can’t change is that a child comes into the world with the imprint of a mother and father on his or her heart. It is not just that a child inherits certain physical features from Mom and Dad –I watched my brother and his son walk across a baseball field this summer and they walk exactly alike—they inherit a desire to be known by and to know mother and father.

 Exactly how do you explain the “donor dad” concept to a child?

Any parent can tell you this is the case. I wish we would see more about how difficult it must be for those mothers who have to explain the concept of “donor dad” to a child who wants a Dad like the other kid’s dad. What you don’t see too much these days is social science supporting the idea that the best environment for children is a stable home with a mother and a father. The evidence is there in studies. In the early 1990’s, France commissioned a 33 member group panel to examine issues related to same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples. The member organizations were not religious; they represented education, social service, mental health and government. The panel concluded that a child has a right to a mother and a father and so therefore laws ought to support the mother-father-child- construct as normative.

Studies paint a troubling picture

In a Wall Street Journal article dated June 18, W. Bradford Wilcox reports on more recent studies. Results of a study co-authored by Elizabeth Marquardt, Norval Glenn and Karen Clark, suggest that children are negatively impacted by the experience of being born of a “donor dad.” For example, 50% “feel sad” when they see “friends with their biological fathers and mothers.” In an article in the Washington Post, a few years ago, Katrina Clark writes about envying friends who have a biological mother and father. “That was when the emptiness came over me, I realized that I am in a sense a freak. I really truly would never have a dad. I finally understood what it meant to be a donor-conceived, and I hated it.”

 What about the future of “donor dads”

I wonder also about the “donor dads” who probably have many reasons for participating in such a program; easy money, genuine interest in “helping” a woman out, or finding the idea of offspring for whom they have no responsibility appealing. I wonder however, if they give thought to the phone call that might come one day from the child looking for a relationship or as in the movie The Kids Are All Right points out meeting up with these young children who share some of your quirkiest habits. As much as five years ago on a news program, I saw a feature story about a group of kids in Colorado who were all the children of the same “donor dad.”  They had formed a support group because they wanted to know their “siblings.” That to me is evidence of the innate desire to belong, to be family in a way they do not experience with a single-Mom. As much as I think being a sperm or egg donor is wrong, I feel for the “donor dads” and “donor-moms”. They did not sign-on to be in the lives of these kids, imagine what it must be like, twelve-fifteen-twenty years after the fact to be approached by a child who in their mind has called you “dad” or “mom.”

The wisdom of Catholic Moral Teaching

One of the beauties of Catholic teaching is that we do try to anticipate the consequence of moral actions on individuals and society, we say “no” in many cases because we see implications down the road that will be detrimental to everyone involved. In this case, we say “no” to protect a young person from an in the moment–seeing only an easy way to make quick and serious cash– (An Ivy League school alumni magazine posts want ads for donor eggs, offering as much as $10,000 dollars) and not really thinking about the child that will be born. We say “no” to protect a woman who may find at some point in her surrogate pregnancy that she does not want to give the child up, that she had no idea what it would mean to carry a child to birth for someone else. We say “no” to a decision that is so self-centered, it does not, in the moment, give full consideration to the still unborn child. How hard can it be to put ourselves in the position of a child who asks “who is my Dad” and imagine how crazy the “donor dad” answer will sound.

Posted on

An Ancient Bishop Rebukes His Emperor for Crimes Against Life: A Story of St. Ambrose and the Emperor Theodosius

There is a remarkable event that took place between the Emperor Theodosius and St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan. What makes it remarkable is that it shows an ancient Bishop interacting with an ancient politician over the dignity of human life. In this case the politician was the Emperor and he had the power of life and death over Ambrose the Bishop. St. Ambrose knew he had to correct the Emperor but also knew this might endanger his life or freedom. Nevertheless he did it and wrote a personal letter of rebuke to the Emperor. Let’s look at this remarkable incident, what Bishop Ambrose did and what the outcome was.

 The Offending Incident –Theodosius, Roman Emperor from 378 – 392 was in many ways and extraordinary Emperor. He had successfully dealt with the Goths and other tribes and brought greater unity to the troubled Empire in the West. But the Emperor  was also famous for having a bad temper. In 390 AD in Thesolonica, a bad riot broke out which resulted in the death of the Captain of the Roman Garrison there. It seems a certain charioteer  had become very popular with the crowds. Now he also lived a rather debauched life. This offended the Captain  of the Roman Garrison, a Goth,   and also a very upright and disciplined man. The  name of the Garrison Captain was   Botheric. He had the charioteer arrested for debauchery .  The crowds in turn rose up in favor of the athlete and rioted. In addition to the arrest there may also have been ethnic jealously involved on both sides since the Roman Garrison was comprised largely of Goths and the town was largely Greek. In the riot Botheric, the Captain was killed.

 When Theodosius  heard of this he was incensed and his temper flared and he ordered  the Roman Army to round up the whole town and place them in the stadium  and have them all killed.  7000 were killed that day!  The day after issuing the order when his temper had cooled Theodosius regretted his decision and sent another messenger to try and stop it but it was too late.

 Theodosius  was mortified and went to Milan to seek solace from St. Ambrose. But Ambrose, fearing the Church was  just be used as a political prop or fig leaf left the city before Theodosius  arrived and in effect refused to meet with the Emperor.  This surely endangered Ambrose for it risked inflaming the Emperor’s infamous temper once more.

Ambrose then wrote  to the Emperor a private letter (now known as Letter 51). You can read the whole letter here:  http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/340951.htm   The Letter is a respectful but clear call to public repentance by the Emperor and a refusal to admit him to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass or to celebrate it in his presence until such public repentance had occurred. Here are excerpts:

 The memory of your old friendship is pleasant to me, and I gratefully call to mind the kindnesses which, in reply to my frequent intercessions, you have most graciously conferred on others. Whence it may be inferred that I did not from any ungrateful feeling avoid meeting you on your arrival, which I had always before earnestly desired. And I will now briefly set forth the reason for my acting as I did…..

 Listen, august Emperor. I cannot deny that you have a zeal for the faith; I do confess that you have the fear of God. But you have a natural vehemence [i.e. temper] , which….if any one stirs it up, you rouse it so much more that you can scarcely restrain it……Would that….no one may inflame it! …. restrain yourself, and overcome your natural vehemence by the love of piety….

  This vehemence of yours I preferred to commend privately to your own consideration, rather than possibly raise it by any action of mine in public…..

 There was that done in the city of the Thessalonians of which no similar record exists, which I was not able to prevent happening; which, indeed, I had before said would be most atrocious when I so often petitioned against it, and that which you yourself show by revoking it too late you consider to be grave, this I could not extenuate [i.e. minimize]  when done. When it was first heard of….there was not one who did not lament it, not one who thought lightly of it; your being in fellowship with Ambrose was no excuse for your deed…..

 Are you ashamed, O Emperor, to do that which the royal prophet David, the forefather of Christ, according to the flesh, did? ….he said: I have sinned against the Lord. Bear it, then, without impatience, O Emperor, if it be said to you: You have done that which was spoken of…. say: I have sinned against the Lord. If you repeat those words of the royal prophet: O come let us worship and fall down before Him, and mourn before the Lord our God, Who made us. [I]t shall be said to you also: Since you repent, the Lord puts away your sin, and you shall not die.

  Holy Job, himself also powerful in this world, says: I hid not my sin, but declared it before all the people…..

 I have written this, not in order to confound you, but that the examples of these kings may stir you up to put away this sin from your kingdom, for you will do it away by humbling your soul before God. You are a man, and it has come upon you, conquer it. Sin is not done away but by tears and penitence. Neither angel can do it, nor archangel. The Lord Himself, Who alone can say, I am with you, Matthew 28:20 if we have sinned, does not forgive any but those who repent….

  I urge, I beg, I exhort, I warn, for it is a grief to me, that you who were an example of unusual piety, who were conspicuous for clemency…, The devil envied that which was your most excellent possession. Conquer him while you still possess that wherewith you may conquer. Do not add another sin to your sin by a course of action which has injured many.

 I, indeed, though a debtor to your kindness, for which I cannot be ungrateful, that kindness which has surpassed that of many emperors…. but have cause for fear; I dare not offer the sacrifice if you intend to be present. Is that which is not allowed after shedding the blood of one innocent person, allowed after shedding the blood of many? I do not think so.

 Lastly, I am writing with my own hand that which you alone may read….Our God gives warnings in many ways, by heavenly signs, by the precepts of the prophets; by the visions even of sinners He wills that we should understand, that we should entreat Him to take away all disturbances, to preserve peace for you emperors, that the faith and peace of the Church, whose advantage it is that emperors should be Christians and devout, may continue.

 You certainly desire to be approved by God. To everything there is a time, Ecclesiastes 3:1 as it is written: It is time for You, Lord, to work. It is an acceptable time, O Lord. You shall then make your offering when you have received permission to sacrifice, when your offering shall be acceptable to God. Would it not delight me to enjoy the favor of the Emperor, to act according to your wish, if the case allowed it….when the oblation would bring offense, for the one is a sign of humility, the other of contempt.  For the Word of God Himself tells us that He prefers the performance of His commandments to the offering of sacrifice. God proclaims this, Moses declares it to the people, Paul preaches it to the Gentiles. ….Are they not, then, rather Christians in truth who condemn their own sin, than they who think to defend it? The just is an accuser of himself in the beginning of his words. He who accuses himself when he has sinned is just, not he who praises himself.

…..But thanks be to the Lord, Who wills to chastise His servants, that He may not lose them. This I have in common with the prophets, and you shall have it in common with the saints….If you believe me, be guided by me…..acknowledge what I say; if you believe me not, pardon that which I do, in that I set God before you. May you, most august Emperor, with your holy offspring, enjoy perpetual peace with perfect happiness and prosperity.  

 Assessment – So here is a Bishop speaking the truth to the Emperor and calling him to repentance. Remember there were no laws protecting Ambrose from execution or exile for doing this. An Emperor could act with impunity doing either. Yet St. Ambrose speaks a rebuke meant to provoke sincere repentance. Neither would Ambrose allow the Church to be used as a prop for some false and flattering acclamation. What was need was sincere and public repentance. He rebukes both with the Emperor’s salvation in mind as well as the good of the faithful. He used the Shepherd’s staff (which is a weapon used to defend the Sheep) to defend the flock from damnation, error and discouragement. He insisted on truth when it could have gotten him killed by the wolf.

 So what did Emperor Theodosius do?He went to the Cathedral of Milan and brought his whole entourage. Ambrose agreed to meet him there. The emperor walked into the door of the Cathedral and shed all his royal robes and insignia and bowed down in public penance. One year later in 391 he personally went to Thessolonica and asked forgiveness. He died in 395 at the age of 48 and likely saved his soul by listening to Ambrose and placing his faith higher than his civil authority.

 A remarkable story of the power of the gospel to transform the hearts of all. A remarkable story of what risking to speak the truth can do. May God be praise.

Disclaimer – I do not relate this story to critique the modern struggle of some bishops (and priests) to speak the truth to those in power. I write rather to encourage us all by an epic tale from the past. It remains true that every bishop has to make prudential judgments in each situation based on the individual politician or prominent person involved, what is best for the faithful, and the common good. Some have judged to speak forth as Ambrose. Others in different circumstances are still pursuing quiet measures. Still others judge that public rebukes in the circumstances they face will only make heroes of the one rebuked.  It is a prudential judgment that every bishop has to make. A bishop in the Midwest may face one set of circumstances, a bishop in the northeast another set. The faithful do well to encourage their bishops and priests and pray for them to make good judgments in this regard.

 Finally, I am indebted to Rev. Michael John Witt, Church History Professor at Kendrick-Glennon Seminary in St. Louis for the background on the this story. He has a wonderful Church History site here: http://www.kenrickparish.com/michaelwitt/  The site includes hundreds of mp3 lectures on Church history that are engaging and inspiring as well as manifesting a love for the Church.

Priests too face challenges in speaking forthrightly to their congregations and need to courage to announce that which may not always be popular or may be out of season. In this clip the famous preacher Vernon Johns (who preceded Dr. Martin Luther King in Birmingham) seeks to rouse a sleepy congregation to realize its own role in perpetuating injustice. Even as bishops and priests are called to speak up, so too are the laity. The clip is an remarkable glimpse at what a prophet often must sound like.