Category: Uncategorized

In the Gospel this Sunday, the Lord gives four important principles for a disciple. He also teaches on the concept of being worthy of Him. We tend think of being worthy as acting in a way that meets a certain standard, but the Greek word for “worthy” involves more than merely external behavior, important though that is. To be worthy of the Lord is to ascribe worth and give proper weight to who He is and what He teaches. Let’s take a look.

I.  The priority of a disciple – The text says that Jesus said to His apostles, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me.”

The Lord could not be clearer: we are to love Him more than we love anyone or anything else. There is to be no person or thing in our life that has greater importance than the Lord. So fundamental is the priority of our love and obedience to Him that it eclipses even the most fundamental relationships in our family. Our love and honor for our parents is very important; it is mandated by the Fourth Commandment: Honor your Father and your Mother. And yet, even it cannot overrule the most fundamental of all the commandments, the First Commandment: I am the Lord your God, You shall have no other gods before me.

Therefore, even the love and respect owed to parents and the love that parents should have for their children cannot be preferred to the love and obedience we owe to God. If a son or daughter, even while still a minor, were to hear a parent instructing him or her to disregard a clear teaching or commandment of God, the child would have to respond, “Sorry, Mom, Dad, but I love God more. I cannot obey you in this matter.”

The same is true for any other relationship. If a spouse, a sibling, a boss, or a government official were to try to compel us to act contrary to God’s truth and commands, the answer must always be the same: “I’m sorry but I cannot comply; I love God more. Even if I suffer at your hands as a result, I cannot and will not comply.”

The love of Jesus, who is Lord, supersedes every other love, respect, or honor due to others, be they persons, philosophies, nations, or political parties.

Truth be told, many Christians manifest greater allegiance to political parties, careers, and the opinions of men in general than to the Lord and His Church. Many prefer worldly thinking to what the Lord teaches. Many cave in and compromise to what others demand of them in order to ingratiate themselves to others, to gain access, or simply to preserve a false peace. Silencing the Gospel is never a recipe for true or lasting peace.

II.  The Profundity of a Disciple – Jesus speaks strongly and says that such people as this are not “worthy” of me. As noted above, we tend to measure worthiness externally, by whether we live up to expectations of us. While this is proper, it overshadows the more internal dimensions that are the deeper part of being worthy.

The Greek word translated here as “worthy” is axios, and which is related to weights and scales. Most literally the word means “drawing down the scale,” and thus implies weighing as much or more than something else.

Internally, the concept of being worthy of the Lord here is that we assign a greater weightiness in our life to Him than to the passing treasures and trinkets of the world. We are to ascribe greater “worth” or “worthiness” to Him than to anything or anyone else. We take the Lord seriously. His teaching is to weigh on us and to carry a weight in our life. This internal disposition of being worthy of God produces the external behaviors that are worthy of Him.

The Lord paints a kind of picture for us to show that if we love anyone or anything more than we love him, the scales are tipped wrongly; we are not ascribing enough weight or worth to Jesus and are thus living in an unworthy way.

As we “size things up” in life and weigh the true importance of things, remember this: No person, no political party, no boss, no person at all who seeks our money, time, loyalty, or acquiescence ever died for us. None of them can ever save us, for none of them is God. If we esteem anyone or anything more than we do Him, then we are weighting His Blood and His saving love too lightly.

III. The passion of a disciple – The text says, … and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Every disciple must be willing to take up his cross; if he does so, there is ample reward. The Lord originally offered us paradise, but Adam and Eve wanted a better deal. Welcome to that better deal: Paradise Lost. In Paradise Lost, suffering is a reality. But suffering, by God’s gracious mercy, is also redemptive. The Lord teaches us that we must join our cross to His. Taking up the cross is a way of “losing” our life in the sense that it often diminishes our enjoyment of this earthly existence. But in dying to self and to this world, we find our true life: God and the things He offers!

It is interesting to note that we are often willing to take up crosses for worldly gain. We work hard for a paycheck or to earn a college degree. Why not then for the Lord? An old song says, “No cross, no crown.” The Lord asks of us no less than what the world demands for its trinkets. The Lord teaches that rewards far greater than worldly trinkets come with the cross He instructs us to take up. The Lord’s insistence on the need for the cross is not unreasonable, yet many of us bristle. Although we will gladly spend several years and a lot of money in order to obtain a college diploma, going to Church on Sundays or giving up some of our favorite sins is viewed as unreasonable, or just too much trouble.

In effect, the Lord demands that we take him seriously, that we give weight to His words and to His promise. If we dismiss His words lightly then we are not worthy of Him, if we do not give proper weight to His words then we do not take Him seriously. This is a bad idea because He who mercifully summons us now to His truth will one day be our judge.

Be worthy of the Lord. Give sufficient weight to what He says. Respect and obedience are the proper virtues for a disciple who accords worth (weight) to the Lord’s teaching and acts in such a manner.

IV.  The prize of a disciple – The text says, Whoever receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and whoever receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward. And whoever gives only a cup of cold water to one of these little ones to drink because the little one is a disciple—amen, I say to you, he will surely not lose his reward.

The Lord promises reward if we get our priorities and passions right, if we welcome His word and give weight to what He says and who He is!

Even now, we can enjoy the fruits of God’s Word as we listen to His prophets and see our life change. In welcoming the Word in my life, I have seen many positive changes. I am less anxious, more patient, and more loving than before. I have greater wisdom. I have seen sins and sinful attitudes reduced and graces come alive. Word and sacrament have had their effect; accepting the prophecy of the Church has given me a prophet’s reward. How about you?

Further, the Lord says that He will reward every work of mercy by us, which is in effect a small share in the cross. We pray that God will forget our sins, but it is said that God will never forget the good things we have done and will never be outdone in generosity.

The Lord does not demand the cross without pointing to its reward. The cross ushers in the crown. Do you believe this? Do you take the Lord seriously? Do you give weight to and count as worthy the Word that He speaks to you?

One of the great struggles in the Church today is effectively catechizing God’s people. In a world so full of error, distortion, and half-truths, this has never been more necessary.

I was asked recently to present my thoughts on this topic at a conference with Master Catechists. I did so from the perspective not only of a pastor but also of one who grew up at the end of the era of the “old Church” and through the cultural revolution of late 1960s. Today’s post is the first part of my presentation at the conference; I’ll be posting the remainder over the next several days.

Many approaches and experiments in catechesis have been tried over the past several decades and, frankly, all have ultimately failed. Though we need to try something new, that something new is really something old. We must go back to basics and tell the old stories again, within the family environment rather than just at the parish level.

In this first part of this article I’d like to reflect on four failed models of the past. I do not refer to specific programs, but more to some of the educational philosophies that underlie our practices then and now.

I. The professional class – At some point, especially in the immigrant years of Catholicism in this country, the task of catechesis shifted from the family and the culture experience of the home to a kind of “professional” class of teachers, largely priests and religious sisters.

In this system, religious education was almost always conducted away from the home. It took place in Catholic schools, which were being built in huge numbers in those years and staffed by ample numbers of religious nuns and brothers. In a largely Protestant culture, which also dominated in the public schools, the building of Catholic schools was considered a high priority for Catholics. Parents were strongly encouraged to enroll their children in Catholic schools.

Catholic schools and C.C.D. (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine) programs were remarkably effective, well-staffed, and well-attended in the immigrant years of the first half of the 20^th century and well into the 1970s.

Religious education and upbringing became a task largely conducted away from the home. Children either attended Catholic school, or if that was not possible, went to C.C.D. classes (established to educate children who attended secular schools). The point was that the education of children in the faith was entrusted to professional religious educators, priests, sisters, and some lay teachers.

Surely there were many reasons that this scenario came to be. Industrialization, urbanization, and poverty often put great strains on immigrant families. Educational levels in general among largely poor Catholics were low and to some extent it made sense to entrust the critical task of religious education to the Church. But the effect was the marginalization of parents as the primary religious educators of their children.

And this would have lasting effects when the system of priests and religious collapsed in the 1970s. Religious sisters and priests, once a numerous and effective army of teachers, diminished and largely disappeared almost overnight. Despite this, parents were still kept on the periphery. But, frankly, how could catechesis have been redirected back to the home at that time? For at least three generations, Catholics had been led to relegate religious formation to the parish rather than the home. Attitudes change slowly and there was also little catechetical experience to rely on within the family.

In reaction to this, many well-meaning but at-first-untrained laity stepped into the gap to prop up the parish-based system. Despite the revolution of the late 1960s and the exodus of religious, parish-based religious instruction continued as usual.

Add to this problem the fact that “professional class” of religious leaders and teachers in the 1960s and later came to be infested by dissenters. Poorly trained adults were at first little equipped to resist those dissenters and were easily led astray.

So the first problem is that it is never good when parents and other adults are told to consign the religious education of their children to others. It tends to remove faith from the home and allows a class of dissenters too much access and influence. As we shall see, this left many chronological adults with a faith that was little more than elementary.

II. The priority was on children – In all the immigrant years and into the 1960s, the whole focus and priority was to teach children the faith. So critical was the Catholic education of children considered to be, that bishops often instructed pastors of new parishes to build the school first (holding Mass in the hall) and build the church later.

With the education of children in the faith such a priority, the education of adults suffered and in many places was non-existent. Certainly there was little attempt to teach parents to hand on the faith. Why should there be when the parish was handling the teaching of the children?

But something sets up when the faith is taught only to children and not “translated” to an adult audience. Children are great at learning the basics, but they are not always able to “connect the dots” or to discern the deeper meaning and relevance of what is taught. That sort of process requires ongoing formation as people progress through the various stages of life. Most parishes were so focused on the elementary education of children that few resources were left to devote to the ongoing formation of adults through the various stages of their lives.

Even if adults had some access to the “nuts and bolts” of elementary doctrine from their childhood instruction, there was little capacity for most to build upon this foundation and apply the faith to the increasingly complex moral issues of the modern world.

Frankly, most parents were poorly equipped to be spiritual leaders in the home (and their children did not look to them for instruction in the faith). Neither were they equipped to be spiritual leaders in the community or to apply their faith to the temporal order or within the community. Some of this explains why, despite so many Catholics in this land, we have so little influence within the temporal order, the political realm, and so forth. Many Catholics make little or no connection between their faith and how they vote or how they think about any number of worldly topics or matters. Quite frankly, most were not taught to do so. Faith was something discussed “down at the parish” by priests, nuns, and catechists. At home and out in the world, the laity had not been encouraged to say or do much other than to engage in a few pious practices (e.g., saying the rosary, not eating meat on Fridays, and attending Mass on a few holy days here and there).

Living or discussing the faith outside the parish was minimal. And inside the parish, the faith was taught almost exclusively to children. Add to this the tendency, even the demand, for short sermons and Masses, and adults were left largely on the margins of educational outreach.

This child-centered focus of Catholic education was not only unhealthy but practically guaranteed that Catholics would be (and still are) sitting ducks when error and demanded compromise came knocking at ever increasing levels as the culture melted down.

III. The process was perfunctory – Rote learning through the use of memorized questions and answers was the common method of educating youngsters in the first half of the 20^th century. Two factors influenced this: the focus on children and the size of parishes.

As we have seen, with the focus of religious education almost entirely on children, there developed an educational model that best fit children. The “rote learning” of the Baltimore Catechism was good in itself. It presented the basics of the faith well in a concise question and answer format. As a rule, children are much better at memorization than are adults. Further, it is appropriate to provide them with basic principles as a foundation on which to build.

But therein lies the weakness as well. If all that is done is to memorize pithy questions and answers, much is left undone. For example, what do the answers mean at a deeper level? What are the consequences for our spiritual, moral, social, and emotional lives? It is true that “God is everywhere,” but what are the implications of that? Jesus is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, who became flesh and dwelt among us. But more deeply, who is Jesus Christ and what does it mean to call him Lord and God, yet also our brother? How do we experience Him? The rote method of memorizing questions and answers can supply substance but is there time for adequate reflection? Usually there was not.

And that leads to the second factor that influenced this quick, rote method: huge parishes. Many of the parishes of the immigrant period and up to the middle of the 20^th century were huge. Some of the ethnic parishes of Chicago had as many as 20,000 members. Some of the parishes took up an entire city block, with the parish and school buildings along with convents and rectories (housing armies of priests and religious). Many parishes had gymnasiums, credit unions, and social halls as well. Imagine the Mass schedules and confessions in parishes of this size! Many parishes had as many as 15 Masses on Sunday in the upper and lower churches and sometimes in the school hall—all celebrated before noon. Confessions were heard for as long as six hours on Saturdays with as many as six priests in the boxes. Parochial schools sometimes had double shifts in order to accommodate the large number of students, and there were as many as 60 children per classroom.

It’s an amazing picture, but it also shows how and why a “quick and basic” approach to just about everything took hold. These parishes were too easily like factories, quickly churning out product. Masses were usually low Masses, and the confessions were often hurried. Religious instruction had to be quick and focused. There is little time to go deeper in such a “factory system,” in which quantity too easily eclipses quality.

In reaction to this atmosphere, the Baltimore Catechism was pure genius. It captured a lot of content and memorably set it before students. But the questions posed in the catechism weren’t always the questions that the world was increasingly asking, as a cultural storm brewed heading toward the 1960s.

The depth of knowledge needed to apply the faith to changing and complex situations was not the strong point of the rote system. Add to this the fact that the home was seldom a place for further discussion of the faith and you get a generation or two that is schooled in the basics but has no model to apply them to daily life. Such models are best seen in family settings.

IV. The premise was authority, not truth itself – Before the cultural revolution that threw out (among other things) respect for authority, an argument made from a position of authority carried a certain amount of weight. One might be exhorted to go to Mass, or to believe a certain doctrine because “the Church said so.” Such exhortations were common because they worked.

But after the revolution, not only did the argument from authority carry little weight, it was often an additional reason not to accept something as true, even a reason to scorn it all the more. The argument from authority certainly has a place, but its effectiveness varies a lot from person to person and from culture to culture. Some believers are more prone than others to accept the simple weight of authority. Others seek evidence and demand more reasons.

In the end, the argument from authority has a flawed premise. Something is not true because the Church teaches it; rather, the Church teaches it because it is true. Authority is helpful because issues can be complex and disparate, and authorities or experts can present them coherently. But at the end of the day, something is true of itself, not merely because an authority says so. While the Church is an important vehicle for truth, the truth is from God, and the Church believes, teaches, and proposes something for belief because God has revealed it through the Scriptures, the Book of Creation, and Sacred Tradition.

Pedagogically, this argument from authority, which carried a lot of weight and was a common Catholic appeal, had the drawback of encouraging acceptance of a declaration without going deeper through questions such as these: Why is this so? How is this related to this other teaching that seems to say something different? Are there distinctions to be made and if so what are they? How do we know this is revealed by God and not mere human doctrine? These questions need not be asked in an impudent or contrary way; they are the stuff of rational inquiry, of faith seeking understanding. In the “because the Church says so” mode, one risks accepting a teaching and suffering the same fate as the seed that falls on rocky ground and withers for lack of root, or the seed that falls on the path and is taken away by the the birds of the air, or the seed that falls among thorns and is choked off.

And this is precisely what happened when the revolution hit. The beautiful, docile (docile meaning teachable, not gullible) faith of many Catholics lacked the depth necessary to endure the tsunami that came in successive waves. Thus the generations raised on rote, authority-based systems in which both the questions and the answers were supplied could not withstand the questions raised by a post-revolutionary world. Parents, especially, were ill-equipped to set up a wall of truth for their children, since catechesis had not been their bailiwick for generations and the catechesis they did have was rooted in the child-centered systems of Catholic parishes and schools.

Sadly, as we know, a lot of these structures remain in place today. Family-based catechesis is still rare; whatever religious education does occur is still mostly consigned to schools and parishes rather than taking place in the home. Opportunities for adult education have increased, but most parishes are still heavily focused on catechizing children (not a bad thing) and provide limited opportunities for adults. Further, there is almost no effort made to help parents to be better catechizers of their children at home.

So although the “old days” at least had good content, we know that by the 1970s the content had become quite poor—even in some cases erroneous and heretical.

As a way forward, we need both good content and better support structures. I’ll continue with more on this in Monday’s post.

Memories

What a wondrous and challenging feast we celebrate at Pentecost! A feast like this challenges us because it puts to the lie a lazy, sleepy, hidden, and tepid Christian life. The Lord Jesus said to the apostles, I have come to cast a fire on the earth (Luke 12:49). This is a feast about fire, a transformative, refining, purifying fire that the Lord wants to kindle in us. It is a necessary fire, for as the Lord first judged the world by fire, the present heavens and the earth are reserved for fire. Because it is going to be the fire next time, we need the tongues of Pentecost fire to fall on us to set us on fire and bring us up to the temperature of glory.

The readings today speak to us of the Holy Spirit in three ways: the portraits of the Spirit, the proclamation of the Spirit, and the propagation by the Spirit.

I. The Portraits of the Spirit – The reading today speaks of the Holy Spirit using two images: rushing wind and tongues of fire. These two images recall Psalm 50, which says, Our God comes, he does not keep silence, before him is a devouring fire, round about him a mighty tempest.

Rushing Wind – Notice how the text from Acts opens: When the time for Pentecost was fulfilled, they were all in one place together. And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind, and it filled the entire house in which they were.

This text brings us to the very root meaning of the word “spirit.” Spirit refers to breath. This is preserved in the word “respiration,” which is the act of breathing. So, the Spirit of God is the breath of God, the Ruah Adonai (the Spirit, the breath of God).

Genesis 1:2 speaks of this, saying, the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. Genesis 2:7 speaks even more remarkably of something God did only for man (not the animals): then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

So, the very Spirit of God was breathed into Adam, but he lost this gift and died spiritually when he sinned.

Thus, we see in this passage from Acts an amazing and wonderful resuscitation of the human person as these first Christians experience the rushing wind of God’s Spirit breathing spiritual life back into them. God does C.P.R. and brings humanity, dead in sin, back to life! The Holy Spirit comes to dwell in us once again as in a temple (cf 1 Cor 3:16). It has been said that Christmas is the feast of God with us, Good Friday is the Feast of God for us, but Pentecost is the Feast of God in us.

Tongues of Fire – The text from Acts then says, Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, which parted and came to rest on each one of them.

The Bible often speaks of God as fire or in fiery terms: Moses saw Him as a burning bush. God led the people out of Egypt through the desert as a pillar of fire. Moses went up onto a fiery Mt. Sinai where God was. Psalm 97 says,

The LORD reigns; let the earth rejoice; let the many coastlands be glad! Clouds and thick darkness are round about him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne. Fire goes before him, and burns up his adversaries round about. His lightnings lighten the world; the earth sees and trembles. The mountains melt like wax before the LORD, before the Lord of all the earth. The heavens proclaim his righteousness; and all the peoples behold his glory (Psalm 97).

Scriptures also call God a Holy fire, a consuming fire (cf Heb 12:29) and a refining fire (cf Is. 48:10; Jer 9:7; Zec 13:9; Mal 3:3).

So it is that our God, who is a Holy Fire, comes to dwell in us through His Holy Spirit. As a Holy Fire, He refines us by burning away our sins and purifying us. As Job once said, But he knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold (Job 23:10).

God is also preparing us for judgment, for if He is a Holy Fire, then who may endure the day of His coming or of going to Him? What can endure the presence of Fire Himself? Only that which is already fire. Thus, we must be set afire by God’s love.

So, in the coming of the Holy Spirit, God sets us on fire to make us a kind of fire. In so doing, He purifies us and prepares us to meet Him one day, to meet Him who is a Holy Fire.

II. The Proclamation of the Spirit – You will notice that the Spirit came on them like “tongues” of fire. The reference to tongues is no accident, for the Holy Spirit moves them to speak and ultimately to witness. The text says, And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim. Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven staying in Jerusalem. At this sound, they gathered in a large crowd, but they were confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language. They were astounded, and in amazement they asked, “Are not all these people who are speaking Galileans? Then how does each of us hear them in his native language? We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene, as well as travelers from Rome, both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs, yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God.”

So, behold how the Holy Spirit moves them to proclaim, not just within the safety of the upper room, but also in holy boldness before the crowds that have gathered.

Notice the transformation! Moments ago, these were frightened men huddled together in secrecy behind locked doors. Now, they go forth to the crowds and proclaim Christ boldly. They have gone from fear to faith, from cowardice to courage, from terror to testimony!

What about us? Too many Christians are silent, overcome by fear. Perhaps they fear being called names or being unpopular. Perhaps they are anxious about being laughed at or resisted, or of being asked questions they don’t feel capable of answering. Some Christians gather in the “upper room” of the parish and are active—even leaders—but once outside the safe confines of the “upper room” they slip into what I call “secret agent” mode.

Well, the Holy Spirit wants to change that. To the degree that we have really met Jesus Christ and experienced His Holy Spirit, we are less able to keep silent. An old gospel song says, “I thought I wasn’t gonna testify, but I couldn’t keep it to myself, what the Lord has done for me.” The Holy Spirit, if authentically received, wants to give us zeal and joy, to burn away our fear so that testifying and witnessing come naturally to us.

Note also how the Spirit “translates” for the Apostles. The people in the crowd spoke different languages, yet each heard Peter and the others in his own language. The Spirit, therefore, assists not only us but also those who hear us. My testimony is not dependent on my eloquence alone but also on the grace of the Holy Spirit, who casts out deafness and opens hearts. Every Christian should remember this. Some of our most doubt-filled encounters with others can still bear great fruit on account of the work of the Holy Spirit, who “translates” for us and overcomes obstacles we might think insurmountable.

III. The Propagation by the Spirit – In the great commission, the Lord said, Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age (Matt 28:19ff). He also said, I have come to cast a fire on the earth and How I wish the blaze were already ignited (Luke 12:49).

How is the Lord going to do this?

Perhaps a picture will help to illustrate. My parish church is dedicated to the Holy Spirit under the title “Holy Comforter.” Above the high altar is the following Latin inscription: Spiritus Domini, replevit orbem terrarum (The Spirit of the Lord, filled the orb of the earth). (See the photo above of our high altar.)

The walls of my parish church answer the question. The clerestory walls are painted Spanish red, and upon this great canvas are also painted the stories of the lives of twenty saints, surrounding us like a great cloud of witnesses (cf Heb 12:1). (See also the video below.) Over the head of every saint is a tongue of fire.

This is how the Spirit of the Lord fills the earth. It is not via “magic fairy dust.” It is in the fiery transformation of every Christian going forth to bring warmth and light to a cold, dark world. This is how the Lord casts fire upon the earth. This is how the Spirit of the Lord fills the orb of the earth—in the lives of saints (and in your life)!

In the end, the great commission (Matt 28) is our first and most important job. No matter what else we do, we are to do this. Parishes do not deserve to exist if they do not do this. As individual Christians, we are a disgrace and not worthy of the name if we fail to win souls for Jesus Christ. The Spirit of the Lord is going to fill the orb of the earth but only through us. The spread of the gospel has been placed in your hands. It’s scary, isn’t it!

In my short time on this planet, I have seen it. Parishes that were once big and booming (and, frankly, sometimes arrogant) are now in decline; some are near closure. It happens to the best if they do not evangelize, if they do not accomplish “job one.” The Lord wants to light a fire. Why not become fire? Let the Spirit propagate the Church through you. (Yes, I am talking to you.)

Enjoy the feast of Pentecost, but don’t forget that the basic image is very challenging, for it means getting out of the “upper room,” opening the doors, and proclaiming Christ to the world. Let the Holy Spirit light a fire in you. Then you can’t help but spread light and heat to a dark, cold world.

Let the evangelization of the whole world begin with you.

The video below features details from the clerestory of my parish, Holy Comforter in Washington, D.C. Notice the tongue of fire above each saint. The paintings show how the Spirit of the Lord fills the orb of the earth through the lives of the saints (and through you, too). It is not magic; it is grace, working in your life, through your gifts and your relationships, so that the Lord will reach each soul. The witnesses on the walls of my Church say, “You are the way that He will fill the earth and set it on fire.” Let the blaze be ignited in you!

The song accompanying the video says, “We are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, looking on, encouraging us to do the will of the Lord. Let us stand worthy and be faithful to God’s call … We must not grow weary …!”

 

Most of us think that vengeance is merely a vice. And, given improper intentions, or excess or misguided application, it can indeed be a sin and a vice. However, as we read in Scripture, “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord, I will repay” (Rom 12:19). Or again, as St. Thomas Aquinas notes, the scriptures assure: “Will not God avenge His elect who cry to Him day and night?” (Lk 18:7). But if vengeance is only a vice and an evil, then how can God attribute vengeance to himself. God does nothing evil. Hence in vengeance there is the possibility of virtue and that which is good. St. Thomas treats of vengeance under his treatise on Justice. Hence, vengeance is a special virtue in service of justice.

To be sure, only God is perfectly assured of using vengeance in a good way all the time. We ought to be slow to attribute vengeance as a virtue among ourselves except under very clear circumstances and proper dispositions. As usual St. Thomas does a very good job of spelling out the qualities and circumstances necessary for vengeance to be operative as a lawful and as a virtue:

Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil (i.e. punishment) on one who has sinned. Accordingly, in the matter of vengeance, we must consider the mind of the avenger. For if his intention is directed chiefly to the evil of the person on whom he takes vengeance and rests there, then his vengeance is altogether unlawful: because to take pleasure in another’s evil belongs to hatred, which is contrary to the charity whereby we are bound to love all men. Nor is it an excuse that he intends the evil of one who has unjustly inflicted evil on him, as neither is a man excused for hating one that hates him: for a man may not sin against another just because the latter has already sinned against him, since this is to be overcome by evil, which was forbidden by the Apostle, who says: “Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good (Romans 12:21).”

If, however, the avenger’s intention be directed chiefly to some good, to be obtained by means of the punishment of the person who has sinned (for instance that the sinner may amend, or at least that he may be restrained and others be not disturbed, that justice may be upheld, and God honored), then vengeance may be lawful, provided other due circumstances be observed. (ST II, IIae, 108.1)

And while the Scriptures quoted above generally refer vengeance to God, Thomas notes that it sometimes falls to those with authority to execute it on behalf of God:

He who takes vengeance on the wicked in keeping with his rank and position does not usurp what belongs to God but makes use of the power granted him by God. For it is written (Romans 13:4) of the earthly prince that “he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” If, however, a man takes vengeance outside the order of divine appointment, he usurps what is God’s and therefore sins. (Ibid, reply to first objection)

A further distinction made by St. Thomas is that it is often praiseworthy to endure injustice and wickedness directed against us personally. However, when the wrongs are directed against others and God, those with authority to use punishment or vengeance are more obligated to use it. He quotes psudeo-Chrysostom who says, “It is praiseworthy to be patient under our own wrongs, but to overlook God’s wrongs is most wicked.” (Ibid, ad obj. 2)

Perhaps it becomes clear that too many today who have authority to punish wrongdoing are unwilling to do it. And this leads to many vices proliferating in our culture. Children are widely spoiled and incorrigible. Crime is rampant in many of our cities where prosecutors refuse to punish crimes and return repeat-offenders to the streets. This leads to many grave violations against life, property and the dignity of persons. This is a defect of proper vengeance by those who have the authority and duty to execute it. St. Thomas lists to vices contrary to vengeance:

Two vices are opposed to vengeance: one by way of excess, namely, the sin of cruelty or brutality, which exceeds the measure in punishing; while the other is a vice by way of deficiency and consists in being remiss in punishing, wherefore it is written (Proverbs 13:24): “He that spareth the rod hateth his son.” But the virtue of vengeance consists in observing the due measure of vengeance with regard to all the circumstances. (ST II, IIae 108.2, ad obj 3)

In our times, cruelty and excess are not unknown, but being remiss in needed punishment is more widespread and, as noted, causes great harm by the consequent proliferation of sin. Vengeance is lawful and virtuous in so far as it tends to the prevention of evil. Clearly vengeance is a kind of forgotten virtue, indeed even a virtue often mislabeled as evil.

The problem of deficient punishment due sin, is an aspect of the general malaise regarding authority in our culture. While it is true that there is a notable resistance, even hatred of authority, it is also true that those who have authority are too reluctant  to use it. Parents and teachers are reluctant, even fearful of teaching, disciplining and, where necessary punishing their children. Leaders and supervisors in the workplace are anxious in correcting employees or insisting on greater work quality, fearing legal actions, charges of racism, sexism, and many other “isms” and “phobes” in any number of increasing ways. Work productivity and excellence suffers and products and services due to others become deficient. Judges and prosecutors, as noted, have chosen in many places to ignore serious and repeated violations of law by often very dangerous individuals. Police are discouraged from enforcement and citizens are endangered.

All of this amounts to a sin against justice. It sins not only against the common good, but also brings about many violations of a personal nature against victims and also against perpetrators who, never experiencing proper correction and punishment run the strong risk of eternal damnation.

Vengeance, to be sure, is a delicate and “dangerous” virtue. Our anger and passion to avenge wrongdoing are unruly and easily excessive. However, we must reasonably engage this necessary virtue, showing patience where necessary but also a resolve to act when patience has run its course and the good of others and the justice of God requires it. God has consigned the duty to punish wrongdoing to those with the requisite authority and to do so with the good of souls in mind.

Vengeance, the forgotten virtue.

 

 

 

Most of you know that I write a weekly “Question and Answer” Column for Our Sunday Visitor. An interesting question came in on the question of some older Catholic prayers and Bible translations that uses the term “slave” or “slavery” to reference our relationship to God. While such terminology makes must modern people wince, it is an important biblical concept that we should not wholly lose by simply rejecting it or by covering it up with euphemistic terms such as “servant” or “handmaid.” I reproduce here what I wrote for the column.

Question:

I was recently reading a prayer of consecration wherein we were asking the Lord and our Lady to makes us slaves to the will of God. How is this not outrageous and horrifying given the history of slavery in our culture? Name withheld. 

Answer:

Your concern is understandable. The slavery of the colonial period was detestable for many reasons. In biblical times, slavery resulted largely from three causes: one owed large debts, one had committed a range of serious crimes but not capitol, or one was a solider in a losing army. Hence slavery replaced prison or death. But, the slavery of the colonial period (16th – 19th Centuries) exploited peoples who committed no crimes, engaged in no war and owed no debt. It was unjust and horrible. The slavery of biblical times was not without serious problems, hence the biblical texts admonish both slaves and slave masters to observe certain limits (eg. Eph 6:5). There is no blanket-approval of slavery as critics allege. 

So, prayers that speak of us as “slaves” to God or, subordinately, to the Virgin Mother, need to understood in the biblical tradition from which they are drawn. 

Let’s look at some texts wherein the term “slave” is applied to disciples. Often today, the Greek word “doulos” (slave) is translated as “servant.” But this is a euphemism since a “servant” is paid and free to leave employment. Slaves do not have these options. Hence our modern translations hide a more provocative image than most of us know. Consider some of the following examples: 

• • • • In the Letter to the Philippians we read: Jesus Christ, though existing as God, did not consider equality with God something to which he should cling. Rather, he emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, and being made in human likeness… (Phil 2:7) Notice then, while some translations say he became a “servant” the Greek word is δοῦλος (doulous) which translates “slave.” What this means is that Jesus became wholly obedient to death obeying his Father completely, and though, despising the shame of the Cross, he went there because his Father willed it. He did not negotiate a better deal or, like a servant, resign. As a “slave” he obeyed his Father absolutely. 

• • • • When Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord,” as most modern translations render it, there is hidden from us what she more literally said, “Behold, I am the slave-girl (δούλη = doule = slave girl) of the Lord. Let it be done to me as you have said.” Perhaps we wince at this sort of talk, but that is most literally what it says. 

• • • • In Romans 6, St Paul teaches that, although we like to think we are “big-shots,” we are actually just little specks of dust in vast universe. We are going to be slaves to someone: either the devil, the world, the flesh, or God. We might as well be slaves to God who loves us. St. Paul writes: : Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness .… For when you were slaves to sin, you were free of obligation to righteousness. …But the outcome of those things is death. But now that you have become slaves to God, the fruit you reap leads to holiness, and eternal life… (Romans 6:20-23). Herein St Paul presents the paradox, namely that there is no place safer and freer than inside the will of God and in a “slavish” but loving and absolute obedience to his commands. Slavery to God paradoxically provides the greatest freedom we can ever hope to experience. 
      • Hence, as our Lord teaches, Amen, amen, I say to you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin…. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. (Jn 8:34-36). So, “bondage” and obedience to the truth our Lord teaches is the paradoxical and surest way out of destructive slavery. The horrific slavery of the devil and his world are the surest way to the glorious freedom of the children of God. 

In the end, we do best to live in a biblical world and understand its terms, not demand that it conform to our terminology. While words in our times may provoke understandable feelings, we are best served by overcoming this and learning what our Lord teaches in a counter and cross cultural way. “Slavery” in God’s commands is the surest path to true freedom. 

 

If you saw some or all of the coronation rituals for King Charles in England, you were certainly treated to an exceedingly beautiful event but also a “blast from the past.” It is highly significant that this is the first coronation in England in seventy years. Seventy years reaches back, prior to the wreckovation, iconoclasm and rude casting aside of all tradition and formality which occurred in the West  in the period of the 1960s and after. Today we are relentlessly casual; we almost never dress up and, practically,  nothing is sacred. I have little doubt that, if coronations in England had occurred in the sixties, seventies or eighties, the rituals would have been  gutted and cast aside as something hopelessly old and therefore bad by that simple fact. Likely  it would have been reduced to a mere swearing in, in a secular venue with everyone in business suits.

Yes, I remember the spirit of that time of the late 1960s and beyond, how proud and scoffing we were to anything “old.” Old was just another word for bad. We were mesmerized by our technology and confused it for the wisdom we sorely lacked. Reverence for elders and our traditions was supplanted by a glorification of youth culture with  its trendy ephemeral ideas. Beautiful old buildings were replaced with soulless glass boxes. Churches were wreckovated. Patriotism was dismissed as harmful nationalism and the  wisdom of past generations was sullied by the mere emphasis on sins of the past. What did dead white men who may have owned slaves have to say to us!? Worst of all was the steady marginalization of God, biblical wisdom, the worship that is owed to God, and the salutary notion that we will all answer to Him. Today we live in a largely soulless culture devoid of moral bearings or firm foundations. The  coronation rites we saw lay dormant in this reckless period and seemed to open a window on the ways things largely were before the cultural revolution that set in during the late sixties.

However, I do not exult them as utterly good and devoid of any problems. Clearly there were anti-Catholic aspects and other notions of kings and kingship that offend against our more democratic American ideals. I know too that rituals can be properly celebrated but be very empty. Frankly, the faith in God constantly expressed in the Coronation rites is something few Anglicans and Episcopalians  share today in the “anything-goes” mentality of most of its Western adherents.

Nevertheless, the window that opened on the way we once were is important and if there is a way back, it paints a picture of what we have lost and what we could regain through such edifying rituals. Certain things stood out:

• • • The constant reference to God and our need to depend on him for everything.
    • That a King, or any leader must answer to God and seek to foster and protect the holy Faith for God’s people.
    • The modesty of conducting the anointing behind a screen showed the discretion of the past toward sacred things and is an antidote to the modern insistence that everything, even the most sacred,  be visible and on open display.
    • The liturgies were conducted ad orientem  (facing the altar). Which mean that everyone, people, clergy and kings stand before God and face him together. God is the focus, not us.
    • The concept that rites and liturgies directed to God should be the best we can offer.  The attention to detail, the stately and careful pace, the sense of wonder and awe and that we are before God  are concepts that need rediscovery today.
    • And finally, tradition is beautiful and deserves to be rediscovered.

Though this reflection is wider than the Catholic Church, it is clear that we are desperately in need of rediscovering many of the things we cast aside. As we prepare to focus on the Eucharist this coming year we do well to ponder if our liturgies reflect our belief. Is it really surprising that belief in the true presence of Jesus is lost on many Catholics given the way we behave at Holy Mass? Does not our widespread casual approach  say, “Nothing special here?” What of our own rituals and traditions do we need to rediscover? What will assist most in reviving Eucharistic faith?  More on that later.