Posts

Posted on

Of Crosses and Crowns: A Meditation on the Gospel for the 29th Sunday of the Year

In today’s gospel, the Lord Jesus speaks of crosses and crowns. The apostles have only crowns in mind, but the Lord Jesus knows the price of that crown. And thus, he must teach them, and us, that crowns, namely the things that we value most, come only through the cross.

It may help to remember the context of this gospel. Jesus is making his final journey to Jerusalem. He is on his way to the Cross, and has announced this Cross already, on two occasions, to his disciples. But all through this final journey, they prove unwilling, and or incapable of grasping what he is trying to teach them.

Today’s gospel is a perfect illustration of a common biblical theme known as the inept response. What this refers to is the common pattern in the gospels wherein Jesus will give a profound and important teaching, and within a matter of verses, or even just a few words, the apostles demonstrate that they have absolutely no understanding of what he just told them.

Today’s gospel illustrates the inept response. You may recall that on the previous two Sundays, the Lord gave two critically important teachings. Two weeks ago he stood a young child in their midst and spoke of the child as being truly great. He also warned that we must be able to receive the kingdom of God like a little child. Last week, he warned of the pernicious effects of wealth, how hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.

And yet, as this gospel opens, on very heels of those teachings, James and John, and later all the apostles, wish honors upon themselves. They want seats at the head of the table, high offices in the Kingdom, which they still conceive of, in very worldly terms. Nevermind, that Jesus has taught them that the place of honor is not at the head of the table, or even at the foot of the table. The place of honor is for those who wait on tables.

And thus we see here the “inept response.” The apostles, and us, we just don’t get it. No matter how clear Jesus is, no matter how often he repeats himself, we just don’t get it.

Let’s look at this gospel in 3 specific stages.

I. Misplaced Priorities–the Gospel opens with James and John approaching the Lord with an inept question, even a demand. “Grant that in your glory, we may sit, one that you right, and the other at your left.”

As we have already seen, this is a misplaced priority. Their understanding of the places of honor is worldly. Further, they want to move right to the head of the table. They want the Lord merely to grant them this honor. Even in a worldly way of thinking,  places of leadership, places a high honor, must usually be earned. Some are born into royalty, but most of the rest of us attain to leadership and honors only after years of effort. Thus, even from a worldly point of view, James and John are being utterly bold, and exhibit little understanding that prior to honors comes labor, comes the earning of it. Their priorities are misplaced. They want to crown but without the cross.

II. Major Price–the Lord Jesus, replies to them, “You do not know what you are asking! Can you drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”

Was Jesus astonished, was he amused, or was he sad? It is not easy to say. But the bottom line is clear, they had absolutely no idea what they were asking. And neither do we. So often we want blessings, we want honors, we want seats in the high places. But we give little thought to the crosses that are necessary both to get there, and to stay there.

Those who finally do attain to leadership, often know what cross it is. It can be lonely, there are many pressures, often there are many long hours, and the heavy weight of a sense of responsibility. True leadership has its perks, but it is hard, and most leaders know also the consistent sting of criticism and isolation.

There is an old joke among bishops, to the effect that “When a man becomes a bishop, two things are certain. He will never again have a bad meal. And he will never again hear the truth.” Leaders in many other walks of life know something very similar.

And thus the Lord Jesus wonders if James and John have any idea what they are really talking about, what they are really asking for. His question is also poignant, for he has been trying to teach them of the kind of passion, the pain, the crucifixion that awaits him, and which he must endure before he, even the Lord of glory, must endure before entering into his glory. No, not only do they not know what they are asking, they just don’t get it.

And this must make the Lord very sad. Sometimes we underestimate the kind of suffering the Lord endured long before the garden of Gethsemane that fateful night, as the sufferings of his passion began in earnest. To one degree or another, prior to that evening, the Lord endured a kind of death by a thousand cuts: enemies trying to trap him, crowds wanting medical miracles but no true healing, strident and judgmental Pharisees, and other religious leaders, ridicule, and disciples who walked away from him as he talked on the Eucharist. And even the Twelve  to whom he looked for friendship, seemed completely disconnected from what he is trying to teach them. He also knew that one would betray him, another deny him, and all but one, would abandon him, and never make it to the foot of the cross. Oh the grief that they gave the Lord.

And Oh the grief that we continue to offer up, how we continue to offend his external glory and be difficult cases for the Lord. How easy it is for us to be hardheaded, stubborn, to have a neck of iron and a forehead  of brass! No, it is hard to scorn the apostles, for we do the very same things

To them and to us the Lord can only remind us of the major price, the true cost. No cross, no crown! Ultimately, Heaven costs everything, for we must leave all this world behind to attain to heaven. The Easter Sunday of glory, whether in this world or in the world to come, is accessed only by a journey through Good Friday.

It is a major price,  but it is a price that James and John seem dismissive of. They simply state, categorically, that they are able to drink the cup the Lord drinks, and to be baptized into his death. But again, they have no idea what they’re talking about. Neither do most of us.

III. Medicinal Prescription–the other apostles join in the confusion, and the inept response by becoming indignant that James and John tried to get special dibs on the seats of honor. Their indignity simply shows that they share in the inept response and they have no idea of anything the Lord is talking about.

Thus the Lord tries to bring the big picture of the cross, more down to earth. He tries to make it plain. He says that the greatest in the kingdom is the servant of all, indeed, the slave of all. Is this plain enough? It is not those who sit at the head of the table, even those who sit at the foot of the table, nor any place at the table. The greatest are those who wait on the table, who serve.

Do they get it? Probably not. Neither do we. It takes most of us a lifetime before we finally get it through our thick skulls, that the point in life is not to have the corner office with a view. We have everything upside down, and exactly backwards. We are not rich in what matters to God. We think of bank accounts, addresses, the square footage of homes, salaries and titles, not things of service.

It may take our death beds before we finally realize that the greatest people in our lives are those with the ministry of care, those who feed us, perhaps change our bandages, and give us basic care.

We like these apostles can be so foolish. At the end of the day, and at our final judgment, God will not care about the square footage of our house, our titles and honors. What will capture his notice is when we served, when we gave a cup of cold water, or food for the hungry. When we instruct the ignorant, prayed for the dying and cared for the needs of the poor. He will look for the calluses and the wounds of our service, of our proclamation of his kingdom. And he will tell us that what we did for the least we did for him

Don’t miss the point of this gospel. Life is not what we usually think. There is no crown without the cross. Honors in the kingdom, crowns and the kingdom, are reserved for those who serve, who take up the cross of washing the feet of others, of going to the lowest places.

In today’s gospel, the Lord speaks of crosses and crowns, and in that very order. We will not gain, we cannot gain, any crown in his kingdom without being baptized into his death, into his cross, into the humble servitude of dying for others in loving service.

Posted on

When Cultural Radicals speak of”diversity,”they mean no such thing.

You may have read in the news that a faculty member of the Gallaudet University in Washington DC has been placed on “administrative leave,” due to the fact that she signed a petition requesting referendum on the issue of gay marriage in Maryland.

Angela McCaskill is “Chief Diversity Officer” at Gallaudet University in Washington DC. She was at church one Sunday, and requested to sign the petition that would permit the voters of Maryland to vote on the issue of gay “marriage.” She signed the petition and says she did so because she favors democracy and allowing citizens to vote on such controversial issues, as opposed to having legislatures and courts force so-called “gay marriage” on the populace. (More HERE)

But the administrators at Gallaudet University consider her signing of the petition to be unacceptable. Apparently, as “Chief Diversity Officer,” they don’t consider her kind of diversity the right kind of diversity.

To be sure, it is refreshing and surprising to hear that a “diversity officer” would have signed a petition opposing Gay “marriage” and insist that gay marriage be brought to a vote, instead of merely being imposed. As most social conservatives know, and have experienced, the usual “diversity office” at a campus is anything but diverse in its views. And, that a diversity officer might actually understand that there more than one side to the issue of Gay “marriage” surprises not only social conservatives, but also (apparently) social leftists. In effect, the leadership at Gallaudet University sees Ms. McCaskill’s actions as incompatible with their notion of diversity, and are saying, in effect, “How could you!”

But merely expressing surprise is not usually enough for radicals on the left. Thus, they have placed her on “administrative leave.” Never mind all the usual calls for tolerance from the radicals, never mind the “free exchange of ideas” that they so often extol on college campuses. Never mind all that, according to them, Ms. McCaskill has to go.

The reaction well demonstrates that when leftist cultural radicals speak of “diversity,” they don’t mean it in any fair minded or straight forward definition of the word.

The word diversity comes from the Latin word diversus: di (two) + versa (turns or sides). Thus, the true meaning of the word “diversity” means “two sides.” Or by extension, “more than one side,” “more than one viewpoint” or just “different.”

But the cultural radicals mean no such thing. In their lexicon “diversity” means you have to accept anything they propose. But it does not that they should accept you, or that they should even consider the fact that you might be troubled that they propose anything, no matter how deviant the behavior has historically been seen to be. In their lexicon, being “open-minded” means that you agree with them. “Tolerance” is your obligation to agree with them, but not their obligation to accept you, or your deeply held Christian beliefs, no matter how ancient or how well attested.

And, in their form of diversity, tolerance and open-mindedness, if they can punish your non-compliance or even just your non-placet, they will do so with a sense of righteousness, and they will do so firmly and swiftly.

The central point is, when cultural radicals use these terms, they mean no such thing.

To be sure, I am not hereby articulating a position that diversity is an absolute quality or virtue. There are certain diversities to be celebrated and/or tolerate. But there are certain behaviors, which ought not be tolerated, illicit sexual union and Gay “marriage” among them.

The intent in this post is merely call the cultural radicals on their bluff. When they talk about diversity, they don’t really mean it. When they try to parade around in clothes of openness, tolerance, and diversity, they are misrepresenting themselves. When they celebrate “diversity” they don’t mean you, especially if you are a traditional Christian. Their ‘diversity” doesn’t include the Scriptures or the ancient Judeo-Christian tradition, or Natural Law. And don’t even think about mentioning the Catholic Church to them, you’re certain to be shown the door out of their “diverse” world.

To them these things are not something to celebrate or tolerate. They are something to abhor, to legally block, and for some of them, even something to destroy.

Just remember, when they speak of diversity they don’t mean it. And if they mean it all, it is only for them and their favored groups. But they certainly don’t mean it for you, especially if you are a traditional, Bible believing Christian. No, you are not part of the rainbow, you are not part of their tapestry, or their mosaic. You have no place at their table, no place in their celebration.

The views of diversity officer Angela McCaskill regarding (so called) “gay marriage,” are not clear. But one thing is clear, she has (wittingly or unwittingly) called the bluff of the diversity motif of the cultural radicals, and has incurred special wrath because she has done so.

To them she is “off message.” She actually took the word diversity to me what it says. How wrong was that! And now she is cast out of the “hallowed halls” the radicals think they own. She is proof that when cultural radicals speak of diversity they don’t mean you, they only mean themselves.

Disclaimer: I have chosen the words “cultural radicals” carefully. I am willing to admit that there are many who oppose the Church’s teaching on Biblical marriage who are far less radical, who are of good will, and may also be shocked at what happened to Angela McCaskill. There are some who are willing to allow the cultural debates of our time to be conducted in an open and honest way, and accept that varying groups, including Christians, have the rights of any citizens to engage in the political process, and to seek to influence the discussions in the on-going cultural shifts of the West.

But the radicals have no such room in their world for opposition or even discussion, and they want to silence any questioning of their agenda. They are growing in number, especially in university and government settings, and it is to them that I address the concerns of this blog.

Posted on

When Cultural Radicals speak of”diversity,”They mean no such thing.

You may have read in the news that a faculty member of the Gallaudet University in Washington DC has been placed on “administrative leave,” due to the fact that she signed a petition requesting referendum on the issue of gay marriage in Maryland.

Angela McCaskill is “Chief Diversity Officer” at Gallaudet University in Washington DC. She was at church one Sunday, and requested to sign the petition that would permit the voters of Maryland to vote on the issue of gay “marriage.” She signed the petition and says she did so because she favors democracy and allowing citizens to vote on such controversial issues, as opposed to having legislatures and courts force so-called “gay marriage” on the populace. (More HERE)

But the administrators at Gallaudet University consider her signing of the petition to be unacceptable. Apparently, as “Chief Diversity Officer,” they don’t consider her kind of diversity the right kind of diversity.

To be sure, it is refreshing and surprising to hear that a “diversity officer” would have signed a petition opposing Gay “marriage” and insist that gay marriage be brought to a vote, instead of merely being imposed. As most social conservatives know, and have experienced, the usual “diversity office” at a campus is anything but diverse in its views.  And, that a diversity officer might actually understand that there more than one side to the issue of Gay “marriage”  surprises not only social conservatives, but also (apparently) social leftists. In effect, the leadership at Gallaudet University sees Ms. McCaskill’s actions as incompatible with their notion of diversity, and are saying, in effect, “How could you!”

But merely expressing surprise is not usually enough for radicals on the left. Thus, they have placed her on “administrative leave.” Never mind all the usual calls for tolerance from the radicals, never mind the “free exchange of ideas” that they so often extol on college campuses. Never mind all that, according to them, Ms. McCaskill has to go.

The reaction well demonstrates that when leftist cultural radicals speak of “diversity,” they don’t mean it in any fair minded or straight forward definition of the word.

The word diversity comes from the Latin word diversus: di (two) + versa (turns or sides). Thus, the true meaning of the word “diversity” means “two sides.” Or by extension, “more than one side,” “more than one viewpoint” or just “different.”

But the cultural radicals mean no such thing. In their lexicon “diversity” means you have to accept anything they propose. But it does not that they should accept you, or that they should even consider the fact that you might be troubled that they propose anything, no matter how deviant the behavior has historically been seen to be. In their lexicon, being “open-minded” means that you agree with them. “Tolerance” is your obligation to agree with them, but not their obligation to accept you, or your deeply held Christian beliefs, no matter how ancient or how well attested.

And, in their form of diversity, tolerance and open-mindedness, if they can punish your non-compliance or even just your non-placet, they will do so with a sense of righteousness, and they will do so firmly and swiftly.

The central point is, when cultural radicals use these terms, they mean no such thing.

To be sure, I am not hereby articulating a position that diversity is an absolute quality or virtue. There are certain diversities to be celebrated and/or tolerate. But there are certain behaviors, which ought not be tolerated, illicit sexual union and Gay “marriage” among them.

The intent in this post is merely call the cultural radicals on their bluff. When they talk about diversity, they don’t really mean it. When they try to parade around in clothes of openness, tolerance, and diversity, they are misrepresenting themselves. When they celebrate “diversity” they don’t mean you, especially if you are a traditional Christian. Their ‘diversity” doesn’t include the Scriptures or the ancient Judeo-Christian tradition, or Natural Law. And don’t even think about mentioning the Catholic Church to them, you’re certain to be shown the door out of their “diverse” world.

To them these things are not something to celebrate or tolerate. They are something to abhor, to legally block, and for some of them, even something to destroy.

Just remember, when they speak of diversity they don’t mean it. And if they mean it all, it is only for them and their favored groups. But they certainly don’t mean it for you, especially if you are a traditional, Bible believing Christian. No, you are not part of the rainbow, you are not part of their tapestry, or their mosaic. You have no place at their table, no place in their celebration.

The views of diversity officer Angela McCaskill regarding (so called) “gay marriage,” are not clear. But one thing is clear, she has (wittingly or unwittingly) called the bluff of the diversity motif of the cultural radicals, and has incurred special wrath because she has done so.

To them she is “off message.” She actually took the word diversity to me what it says. How wrong was that! And now she is cast out of the “hallowed halls” the radicals think they own. She is proof that when cultural radicals  speak of diversity they don’t mean you, they only mean themselves.

Disclaimer: I have chosen the words “cultural radicals” carefully. I am willing to admit that there are many who oppose the Church’s teaching on Biblical marriage who are far less radical, who are of good will, and may also be shocked at what happened to Angela McCaskill. There are some who are willing to allow the cultural debates of our time to be conducted in an open and honest way, and accept that varying groups, including Christians, have the rights of any citizens to engage in the political process, and to seek to influence the discussions in the on-going cultural shifts of the West.

But the radicals have no such room in their world for opposition or even discussion, and they want to silence any questioning of their agenda. They are growing in number, especially in university and government settings, and it is to them that I address the concerns of this blog.

Posted on

“I know Him in whom I have believed.”

Are You Smarter than a Fifth-Grader?

Archdiocese of Washington: Year of Faith seriesWritten by:

Dominican Brothers of the Province of St. Joseph

You see the computer screen flicker and a blue screen pop up.  You read there has been a fatal error.  Not knowing what to do, you take out your cell phone and call your brother-in-law.

I think we’ve all had this experience before.  In the world today, no one can be an expert in everything.  Whether it’s a plumber, an electrician, a mechanic—or your brother-in-law the computer guru—we need to trust experts in different fields.  Having faith in matters of human expertise is so normal we hardly think about it.  We couldn’t live in society, or pass a single day if we didn’t.

Why does faith make sense?  The answer is fairly simple.  We look for people who are certified, who have experience, and who know how things work.   Since they have “vision” or direct knowledge about their skill or field of expertise, it makes sense to enter into a relationship of trust with them and rely on them.

This is why the Catholic faith also makes sense.  The substance of the Catholic faith is above earthly experience.  We won’t literally “see” the truths of the faith until we are with God in heaven.  But God knows these truths.  God “sees” them.  And in heaven, we will see them finally.  Since we cannot see them now, we have to rely on God’s authority to receive them.  This is what St. Thomas Aquinas is getting at in his famous hymn about the Eucharist where he says, “what God’s Son has told me, take for truth I do;/ Truth Himself speaks truly or there’s nothing true.”

This shows us the connection between our personal relationship with God and believing all of God’s truth.  This is why the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that faith is first of all “a personal adherence of man to God,” and “at the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed” (CCC 150).  Believing in God, we also believe everything He tells us.  So the Catechism says that believing means first believing the Person and then believing the truth, “by trust in the person who bears witness to it” (CCC 177).

Jesus Christ Himself—both God and man— revealed the fullness of the truth of God.  The apostles handed on the truth of Jesus Christ in its fullness, and entrusted to the bishops of the Church in communion with the Pope the authority to teach in their name.  So when we receive the faith of the Church we receive it, “not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thessalonians 2:13).  For this reason, our personal faith must always completely acknowledge the Church’s faith to be authentic.  Perhaps this is why St. Cyprian says, “No one can have God as Father who does not have the Church as Mother” (CCC 181).

 

As we gaze upon God in faith, let us exclaim that intensely personal and creedal confession of the Apostle Thomas:  “My Lord and My God!” (John 20:28).

Posted on

The Spirituality of Imperfection

In the ideal world, everything goes off without a hitch. But in the real world there’s usually a glitch. To some extent Hollywood and TV exaggerate the perfection notion for us. We watch movies and TV shows where everything goes off like clockwork and there are no failures, except where that advances the plot.

But the perfect scene on TV or in the movies may have required dozens of “takes” to get it right. Even then, splicing of scenes may be required to make the whole thing seamless.

But in the real world things are not always perfect. People show up late, or don’t have the expected reaction. Things go awry, technologies fail, computers freeze, accidents happen.

Every now and then things seem to go perfectly only to discover that not everyone liked what went perfectly! We once had what I thought was a perfect parish event, only to find out that some thought it was too long, others thought it was too short. And yes, a few liked it just fine.

Alas, the human condition. I read a book some years ago called, “Spirituality of Imperfection.” In effect the book argues that God has placed the perfect in our heart to make us strive for and desire heaven. But he allows us to experience imperfection to teach us humility, without which we will never attain to heaven.

Imperfection is something to be accepted with humility. If we do this we are learning wisdom. It is the human condition to strive for that which is best and perfect and never give up on that quest. But the human condition is also to be able to accept with humility that which is ordinary, and imperfect; that which is our very selves and a seldom perfect world. Keep your feet on the ground and keep reaching for heaven!

Posted on

On The Problem of All or Nothing Thinking in Modern Discourse

One of the more common features of discussion and debate in the modern setting, often so polarized polemical, is the problem of “all or nothing thinking.”

All or nothing thinking is a kind of cognitive distortion which is forgetful that life often has subtlety, and that, between two positions, there may be middle ground which can and should be considered.

All or nothing thinking also has a strong influence the discussion of issues today. If the person articulates position, or point of view on some topic, they are often presumed by many to hold that position in an extreme sort of the way, without any distinction or qualifications.

I encounter a lot of this, writing on the blog, and in public speaking. If, for example, I say “A” is important, and we ought to consider “A” and give it some more attention, inevitably there will be some readers, and listeners who will say, “Oh yeah! Well what about B and C and D? Are you saying they’re not important at all?”

Of course I am saying no such thing. In the world of ideas, to hold “A”  is not thereby to exclude other concepts that might actually balance and help distinguish. But those who engage in all or nothing thinking, and increasingly common problem today, interpret the upholding of “A” to be exclusive of other concepts. This makes them react either with extreme support (as in, “Tell it like it is!”), or extreme hostility.

To cite a recent example here on the blog, I recently wondered aloud if perhaps our life lacks some depth because, instead of living locally and more intensely in communities of more natural distance, we tend to live in more selective communities that are often far-flung, either by physical or virtual distance.

One instance of this tendency is the current practice by increasing numbers of Catholics to attend Mass, not in their neighborhood church, but in some distant community more to their liking, either liturgically or for some other reason.

While such a practice is certainly permitted, I simply proposed that those who engage in it, should consider that they are going to be less deeply involved in the parish that is 30 to 45 minutes away from where they live.

I was surprised at the strong reaction with this observation provoked. A lot of the reactions were rooted precisely in all or nothing thinking. Some of the reactions were strong enough that I did not post them, due to rather uncharitable descriptions of church life. But the general gist of them went something like this, “Oh! So you are saying I have to attend my local church with dancing girls, a crazy pastor, and all sorts of hideous practices, rather than go to a distant parish which is sound, with a good liturgy and teaching?!”

Of course I am not saying any such thing. For that would be all or nothing thinking. Rather what I am saying is that, among the things we should consider when we attend Mass, is physical distance. There my, in fact, be good reasons for us to attend not the neighboring church, but a more distant one. But other things being equal, physical proximity is a good thing, and should be part of our considerations.

While I would think that my proposition of proximity as one factor, among many, would be understood as such, I find increasingly, that many think that I am speaking absolutely. I am not, and find their presumption puzzling.

But I am finding that many today, more than in the past, do divert quickly to all or nothing thinking. This then often provokes strong negativity, even hostility.

I am not sure where this increase in all or nothing thinking comes from, but I suspect it has a lot to do with the increasingly polarized and polemical nature of our culture. This quality is in turn generated by the culture wars, and the “been in the storm too long syndrome.” The television new cycles, especially the 24 hour news channels, also tend to present life in a debate format. Indeed, presenting everything as a battle, and emphasizing hard edgy commentary sells.  The quick shorthand of TV also simplifies things to soundbites and simple camp designations like “right wing” “Left wing”  and extremist labels.

There is also simplification of people such that if the person opposes abortion, they must be Republican. If they oppose the death penalty they must be a Democrat.

Life, of course is not really quite so simply categorical, and people are little more complicated than that. Ideas are not always understood or advocated in undiluted ways either. But careful distinctions generally makes for “poor” TV.  Categorical soundbites sell better. And the more usual and natural human experience of seeing a certain idea in a world of ideas, and balanced by a careful interaction of those ideas, is usually lost on TV debate formats and advocacy journalism.

Surely, as a man of faith, I will tell you but there are absolutes. But even absolute truths, often balance each other and require context to be properly understood.  Jesus is fully divine. This is absolutely true. It is also absolutely true that Jesus is fully human.

All or nothing thinking has a hard time negotiating the delicacies and distinctions of balanced truth, or the the complex interactions of the world of ideas. And many things in our culture fuel this unhealthy cognitive distortion.

What then is the remedy for all or nothing thinking? In a word, I would propose the remedy to be “discernment.” The root meaning of the word discern, in its Latin roots, means to sift, to sort, or to distinguish. Thoughtful discernment is an important remedy for the polarized, polemical, all or nothing thinking of our current cultural setting.

Respecting the context of an argument, and the intentions of someone who proposes that idea, are also important and helpful. While it is true that some do present ideas in an all or nothing way, most people present ideas or points of view in a way that holds other things equal, in a way that is presumes and respects that other factors must often be considered. As a general rule seems reasonable to assume that if a person is presuming idea “A”, they did not thereby exclude principles B,C or D,  but only that “A” should be given due consideration.

In effect, we presume good will on their part and intelligence as well. Such attitudes go along way to avoiding misunderstanding and hostility. If we wonder how idea “A” interrelates with B,C or D we can always ask. But we need not presume that our interlocutor means what he says in an absolute sense. We can also engage in our own discernment, as we sift, and sort and distinguish ideas. By discernment, we can retain what is good, distinguish were necessary, and balance ideas against one another.

For the reasons stated, reasonable discourse is becoming less common today. All or nothing thinking is one of the reasons for this we do well to identify this cognitive distortion, know it’s moves and properly rebuke it, where necessary.

Posted on

On the”Beauty”of Dying

In the Gospel from this past Sunday the Lord spoke of us giving away all we had to come and follow him. TO many that sort of talk seems crazy and we wonder how we can ever do it. But in fact we WILL all do it, as we finally die to this world and have our only treasure in Heaven.

As a priest it has been my privilege to accompany many on their final journey as they prepare for death. Some have gone quickly, others have lingered for years in nursing homes. From a pure worldly perspective, death seems little less than a disaster and a cause for great sadness. But from a perspective of faith there is something “beautiful” going on.

I know you may think it bold that I describe it this way, but in the dying process something necessary and beautiful is taking place. It is born in pain but it brings forth gifts and glory if we are faithful.

In particular I see two scriptures essentially fulfilled in many who are dying.

I. And Jesus said, “Unless you change and become like little children you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 18:3). When I walk the halls of nursing homes I behold a rather astonishing thing: Men and women who raised families, ran businesses, protested bravely in the Civil Rights Movement, fought wars, gave sage advice to their children, commanded respect in their workplace and communities…, most of these have become like little children.

Some can no longer walk, some need to be fed, some cry and need consolation, some hold dolls, many wear diapers, some can no longer talk, many need constant care. “Ah, how tragic,” the world says. But an increasing part of me sees a beauty, for they are changing and becoming like little children. A kind of innocence is being restored, and a complete dependence, without which they may never make it to heaven. Now their status as little children is fully evident and they become humble enough for heaven.

Painful but beautiful, very beautiful.

A very dear friend of mine died a few years ago. Catherine had been the Pastoral Associate and business manger of the parish of my first pastorate. I depended on her for practically everything, and she knew just about everything, having been at the parish for over 50 years. Rather suddenly, she came down with a rare and aggressive form of Alzheimer’s disease. Within six months of diagnosis she no longer remembered anyone. And yet there was a childlike joy that came over her. She had a favorite doll she hugged close and when I would walk in the room she would light up. She no longer recognized me as far as I could tell but she loved company. And she would sing, without clearly understood words but it seemed a kind of childlike nursery song.

A remarkable thing to see. Here was a woman I had so thoroughly depended on now in such a state. But she was happier than I had ever seen her. She had become like a little child, and it was clear that God was preparing her for heaven. That was a gift, though a painful one.

And another great gift was this: Almost to her last day, she never failed to recognize Jesus in the Eucharist. Long after she had stopped recognizing anyone else, she still received communion with great devotion. She might be humming or looking around, but as soon as I reached in my pocket for the pyx, she stopped, looked and made the sign of the cross and folded her hands. That was years of training and faithfulness. It was a beautiful testimony of her undying faith in the Eucharist and her last lesson to all of us.

II. There is only one thing I ask of the Lord, this alone I seek, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life and gaze on the beauty of the Lord within his temple.(Psalm 27:4)

Now I suppose most of us who are still healthy and reasonably active would have a hard time really praying this prayer absolutely. The fact is we want a lot of things: a pay increase, creature comforts, good health, we want for the project we are working to go well, and yes, somewhere in all that, God too and heaven, but later. You understand, heaven can wait.

And yet how obtuse our desires can be. It’s really quite strange to want anything more than God and heaven, but, fact is, many struggle to want God more than the things of this earth. Somehow God has to gently purge us of earthly desires so that, little by little, all we want is Him.

And here too the dying process is so important and beautiful. Little by little in life we give back to God our abilities, our health, many of our loved ones. And finally we are led to that place in our dying days when we are given the grace to give everything back.

I remember my father saying to me in his final weeks, “I just want to be with God.” I heard my grandmother say that too, and many other I have accompanied on their final journey, “I just want to be with God.” And they meant it too. It wasn’t a slogan now. They had given everything back, their treasure was now in heaven. They had sold all they had for the “pearl of great price.” Now they could sing the words of the old spiritual: “You may have all this world, just give me Jesus.”Indeed, they had sold, given away, everything they had, and now they were ready to follow Jesus.

For just about all of us it will take the dying process to get us to the place where we too can say, “There is only one thing I ask of the Lord, this alone I seek, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life and gaze on the beauty of the Lord within his temple.”

And so there it is, the “beauty” of dying. It is a strange and painful beauty to be sure, but it is beautiful nonetheless. In an age of euthanasia that sees no purpose, no value in the dying process, we do well to behold and proclaim its strange but true beauty. We ought not fail to recognize the dignity of the dying who fulfill scripture as they make their final passage.

Surely we grieve, but through faith we also perceive a strange and wonderful beauty.

One of the finest hymns about dying was written by Henry F. Lyte in 1847. He wrote this as he approached his own death from tuberculosis:

  • Abide with me; fast falls the eventide;
  • The darkness deepens; Lord, with me abide;
  • When other helpers fail and comforts flee,
  • Help of the helpless, oh, abide with me.
  • Swift to its close ebbs out life’s little day;
  • Earth’s joys grow dim, its glories pass away;
  • Change and decay in all around I see—
  • O Thou who changest not, abide with me.
  • Hold Thou Thy cross before my closing eyes;
  • Shine through the gloom and point me to the skies;
  • Heav’n’s morning breaks, and earth’s vain shadows flee;
  • In life, in death, O Lord, abide with me.

Posted on

Welcome to the Golden Age of the Liturgy

A couple months back, I wrote an article asking, what What was the Golden Age of the Liturgy? For it would seem, that every period has had its challenges, and also, it’s good points. The question of what is the golden year, the paradigm,  is most pertinent among traditional Catholics, who largely regard the Golden age of the liturgy to be at some point in the past.

Though the Traditional Latin Mass is celebrated according to the form it had in 1962, most traditional Catholics would set the ideal year, the Golden age, long before that. Yet, there is great debate as to what that year should be. Informal inquiry among traditional friends of mine yielded various results. Many look back to the mid-1940s, still others set the date at the turn of the last century, with Pius X’s reforms. Still others, go back to the 16th century, just after Trent , still others all the way back the 5th century.

Recently however a priest friend of mine, a priest and friend I consider to be very solid and thoughtful, asked me to consider that this is the golden age of the liturgy. He is a priest, about 10 years older than I, but ordained later, a fine musician, classically trained, well read in Latin and Biblical Greek, and well acquainted with the history of the Church. His contention, that this is a golden age of the liturgy, is evidenced by his observation that, perhaps as never before, many are deeply engaged, and well aware of the critical questions of the liturgy, and have a highly developed sense of their own role in the worship of God.

He does not root his vision merely in modern notions of the liturgy. For indeed, there is all whole cadre of laypeople concerned for, and devoted to, the Traditional Latin Mass. Yet unlike many of their forbearers who attended the Latin Mass, say in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, they are passionately involved, and follow the liturgy carefully through the use of their missals, and their awareness of liturgical details, details of which their grandparents were either unaware, or uninterested.

It is also true that there are others engage in more modern forms of the liturgy, but who are also passionate, involved, and aware of their legitimate roles. There are lectors, who are well-trained, there are Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (I know, I know) who are needed, and aware of their role and the limits of their involvement. Servers, ushers, and choir members are also involved, active, and increasingly, well-trained.

Clergy too, especially younger clergy, are more aware of the rubrics, and the meaning of liturgical customs, and carefully observant of them. This goes for both the older, Traditional Latin Mass, and for the Ordinary Form. It is also far more common for the clergy to teach and draw the faithful into the deeper meaning in the liturgy.

Yes, both clergy and laity, are increasingly attentive and conscientious in terms of their role and the meaning of the liturgy. There is a greater flourishing of traditional forms of the liturgy as well as legitimate and diverse forms of the ordinary form of the Mass.

I know, some of you will say “But father, but Father! What about the dancing girls, what about too many Eucharistic ministers, what about… what about…” I will not deny that there are abuses, and excesses in modern expressions of the liturgy. But the dirty little secret is, there have always been such things.

Get in your time machine and go with the to the 1940s. Yes, even then, there were problems: mumbled Latin, rushed hurried gestures, half genuflections by the priest, poor sermons, and completely omitted sermons, 22 minute Masses, even on a Sunday morning, the rejection of Gregorian chant as “too complicated” and the replacing of it with poorly sung, even bellowed recto tono (usually 8th tone) chanting by Mrs. Murphy in the choir loft. The overall refusal of the sung liturgy in favor of low mass, to a fault. True, every mass could not be sung, but at least one, preferably several masses on Sunday should have been sung. But rarely were they, and up to a dozen masses were celebrated in the local parish all before noon (upper church and lower church – 6:00 am, 6:30, 7:00, 7:30, 8:00, 8:30, 9:00 (upper and lower church), 9:30 (upper and lower church), 10:00 (sung), 11:00, 11:30), often rather rushed, hurried and in a kind of mass production, factory sort of way. Some of the priest from that era tell me they’d go out and start distributing communion at the rail right after the homily while the priest went up to the altar and said the current Mass.

Few Catholics in those days were aware of many of the abuses and short cuts. Much was hidden, under poorly pronounced and mumbled Latin, rushed and hurried low masses etc. But the older priests assure me, priests that I trust, (not haters of the “bad old days,”) that things were often not beautiful in those days.

Neither today are things always beautiful. But now, as then, there are good things, and many are in fact engaged quite deeply in the celebration of the sacred liturgy. It is a sad truth that attendance is low, perhaps as low as 20% of Catholics on a given Sunday. But among those who do attend there is increasing awareness of what we do and why. We can only ask that this will grow. Abuses in liturgical practice must continue to be addressed in loving, but clear ways.

But I wonder, if perhaps my priest friend isn’t right. Perhaps we are in a golden age today.

I was privileged today to  celebrate the novus ordo (ordinary form) on two occasions, and then, in the evening, to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass. All three congregations were engaged, aware, and excited about the liturgy that was celebrated. There was fine music, though from different traditions, at all three masses. There was traditional hymnody, a youth choir, gospel music, a Latin Gregorian schola, and a choir that sang Renaissance Polyphony.

I cannot tell you how blessed I feel, how it enriched, how excited I am to celebrate the sacred liturgy in all these different ways. I walk in a wider, and more diverse church then perhaps my brethren from the 40s and 50s would ever have imagined. But I wonder too how many  of them would have heard a full Gregorian Schola singing from an unabridged Liber Usualis, and a full setting Renaissance Polyphonic Mass by Lassus by a 30-voice choir,  back in 1946, as I did today.

Yes, I have the best of the old and the best of the new. I am a man most blessed. The people I love, all from very different traditions, love the liturgy, they love the Lord, and they encounter him in every Mass in ways quite rich and  wonderful.

Maybe this is the golden age of the liturgy. Before you shake your head and wonder, “Is he insane!?” I ask you to consider if per chance you might know of an era of greater engagement and diversity. Perhaps you do not care for “diversity,” and would like the Mass to be in only one form. But be careful! For the form that might prevail might not be the exact form you prefer. Maybe diversity is okay, maybe it is what God knows is best for his Church now.

Maybe this is a golden age. Think about it…

The follow video I put together a couple of years ago wherein I pondered that maybe the TLM and more modern “charismatic” forms of the liturgy are not so far apart after all.

Photo credit; Bishop Slattery celebrating Novus Ordo, ad orientem in Tulsa Cathedral.