Posts

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

New Roman Missal Translation Contains Some Last Minute Changes

I had heard from some to expect a few changes in the new English translation of the Roman Missal, even in the ordinary texts that have been published for some time now. And sure enough I have noticed several of them. Two of them are a bit disappointing to me, I must say.

  1. Misereatur – The “absolution” formula that the priest says after the Confiteor or the Kyrie Litany  in the latest version reads: May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins and bring us to everlasting life. But the first draft read: May almighty God have mercy on us and lead us, with our sins forgiven, to eternal life. I preferred the first draft for two reasons. First it better translates the Latin: misereatur nobis omnipotens Deus et, dimissis peccatis nostris, perducat nos ad vitam aeternum (may almighty God have mercy on us and having forgiven our sins, lead us to life eternal). Secondly the first draft better distinguished the absolution formula said at Mass from the absolution in Confession.
  2. Introduction to the Penitential Rite – There is also a slight difference in the introduction to the Penitential Rite but it is very slight: “that we may” becomes “and so”
  3. St. Joseph – In the Roman Canon there has been a change in reference to St. Joseph. The First Draft referenced him as and blessed Joseph, Spouse of the same Virgin whereas the latest version simply says, and blessed Joseph her spouse. This too is disappointing since the Latin clearly says, sed et beati Joseph ejusdemVirginis sponsi (the spouse of the same Virgin). It is said that Pope John XXIII insisted on this wording to indicate that she remained a Virgin though married to Joseph.
  4. In primis quae tibi – There is another minor change in the Te Igitur. The first draft said, which we offer you first of all whereas the final draft says which we offer you firstly.

There may be other changes too I just quickly looked and found these. Let me know if you find more. Though I am a bit disappointed, especially in the one about St. Joseph, let me be clear to state that I am very happy to receive this wonderful new translation.

UPDATE: there is a pretty good summary of other changes in table format here: http://www.praytellblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Latin-2008-Aug2010-Comparison4.pdf

Posted on

On Being Sober and Serious in Seeking Salvation

Today’s Gospel is a sobering summons to be serious about our spiritual life.  Now it is a sad fact today that many, if not most people are not serious about their spiritual life. They do not pray, they do not read scripture, do not attend Mass or go to confession. They are playing around and goofing off like life were some big joke. They are often locked in serious and unrepented sin and will not be ready when judgment day comes. It is just a fact.

Perhaps you think I am overly pessimistic but I would argue that I am on strong biblical grounds. In today’s Gospel the Lord dispatches one of the most common errors of today. The error held is that most people are going to heaven. The Lord rather directly refutes this and summons us to be sober and serious in seeking salvation. Let’s look at the readings for today in three stages.

1. The Danger Described. – Jesus passed through towns and villages, teaching as he went and making his way to Jerusalem. Someone asked him, “Lord, will only a few people be saved?” He answered them, “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I tell you, will attempt to enter but will not be strong enough (Luke 13:22-23). Elsewhere Jesus elaborated on this more:   Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few (Mat 7:13-15).  So, when asked if those to be saved are many or few the Lord answers, “Few” and goes on to describe that “many” will be unable to enter the Kingdom of Heaven but are on the wide and easy road that leads to destruction – see photo above right!

This of course flies in the face of what most people think today.  We have to be sober about this and realize that many live lives that show little interest in God or the Kingdom of God. At some point this decision becomes final and God accepts their disinterest as their final choice. Beware! To persist in worldliness and to be self absorbed increasingly becomes our final disposition.

Now it is true that every says they want to go to heaven. But it is usually a heaven that they have invented. But the real heaven is the fullness of the Kingdom of God. And the Kingdom of God has values that many people today do not want. It is a place where justice, mercy, generosity and chastity are celebrated. Now it is clear today that many today are not interested in forgiving those who have hurt them. They do not want to love their enemy. They surely do not want to live chastely. The concept of justice annoys them and usually makes them suspicious that someone is after their money. Generosity too annoys them for they would rather not part with a dime. But this is what the Kingdom of God is all about and what is celebrated in heaven.

Further, heaven is described in the Book of Revelation (4,5,8) as  like a liturgy where God is at the center and is praised.  Hymns are sung, a scroll containing the meaning of all things (Scripture) is read  and the Lamb is on a throne-like altar. There are candles incense, prostrations, standing and all the things of the Mass. Now many people today say by their absence from Mass that none of this interests them. OK fine, God will not force it on any of them. Neither will he force them to accept the values of the Kingdom of God. But THIS is what heaven is about, the fullness of the Kingdom.

Now as time goes on, a person grows hardened in their aversion to the Kingdom of God, to heaven. Eventually their aversion becomes forever fixed. So on Judgment Day they are not able to enter heaven and frankly would not be happy there anyway. So here is the danger: walking the wide and worldly road that hardens the heart to God and the things of God so that heaven is “not able” to be tolerated. Hell is not God’s fault, it is the preference of damned who have hardened their hearts to God and the realities of the true (not the fanciful) heaven.

2. The Divine Desire. Now God does not want hell for anyone. He does not rejoice in the decision of the damned but he does respect it. God is clear he wants to save everyone: As surely as I live, says the LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel? (Ez 33:11-12)  Thus in today’s First Reading there is described how God widens the call of salvation to the whole world: I come to gather nations of every language;  they shall come and see my glory. …that have never heard of my fame, or seen my glory; and they shall proclaim my glory among the nations. …Some of these I will take as priests and Levites, says the LORD. (Is 66:18-21) Yes indeed, the Lord wants to bring people from every nation and race to his kingdom. The Lord wants to save us all. So the problem of Hell is not about God and what He wants, it is about us and what we want. God will  ultimately respect our final choice. I have written more on this here: http://blog.adw.org/2010/07/hell-has-to-be/

3. The Delivering Discipline  This then leads to a manner in which we can be sober and serious in seeking salvation. It is described in the 2nd reading today: My son, do not disdain the discipline of the Lord  or lose heart when reproved by him;  for whom the Lord loves, he disciplines;  he scourges every son he acknowledges.”  Endure your trials as “discipline”;  God treats you as sons.  For what “son” is there whom his father does not discipline?  At the time, all discipline seems a cause not for joy but for pain,  yet later it brings the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who are trained by it (Heb 12:5-7). We have a clear call from the Lord to submit our lives to his discipline and training. Notice how closely related the discipline is to discipleship. The Lord has a discipline for us that makes us true disciples.

Our discipline includes daily prayer, daily scripture, daily repentance, frequent confession, Mass every Sunday. We are to grow in the training of the Lord which comes from the study of our faith and the reception of the Sacraments. As we do this we grow in desire for the things of God and heaven. We come to share the kingdom values and are less worldly. More and more we start to love who and what God loves, we start to have His priorities, are transformed by the renewal of our minds. This is what God’s discipline, what his teaching, grace and mercy do for us.

So, in the end, God is not our enemy, he is our Savior and the only one who can get us ready for judgment day. But we have to be sober and serious in seeking salvation. All the playing around and goofing off, the presumption and worldliness has to end. The Letter to the Hebrews from today’s second reading has three last things to tell us:

  1. So strengthen your drooping hands and your weak knees – In other words lift up your hands in prayer and have strong knees that are accustomed  to kneeling in prayer.
  2. Make straight paths for your feet – get off that wide road that leads to destruction and get on the narrow path that leads to God. The Next time some one calls you narrow minded thank them and invite them to join you!
  3. that what is lame may not be disjointed but healed – Sin makes us lame, weak and tired of doing good. But get used to walking the straight and narrow path that is uphill to heaven and watch your strength grow, and your weak knees be healed.

 Here’s an excerpt from a Funeral Sermon I posted some time ago that seems apt for today’s theme:

Posted on

Three Sayings on Marriage

Here are a few sayings on marriage that I often use in pre-cana settings. They are humorous but meant to make a serious point. See what you think and please give me any humorous or insightful sayings you know of as well.

  1. Some want their marriage to be ideal and if there’s any ordeal they want a new deal – The problem is  wanting marriage to be ideal. There is no ideal marriage. Two sinners have married so the marriage will be imperfect, non-ideal. Marriage is life. And life has ups and down, things we like and things we don’t, joys and sorrows, delights and disappointments. Since marriage is life it will have all these. Listen to the vows: “better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health.” And yet despite vows that are very clearly worded, most ignore them and seem them merely as ritual words, things you say because you’re supposed to say them. But these words are real words that mean something and reflect a sober appreciation that life isn’t always what we want.  It is interesting, despite the usual cynicism of our age, many still have very idyllic images of marriage: that it will be wonderful and that its fundamental purpose is happiness.   But unrealistic expectations are premeditated resentments. It is frequent that, entering marriage with such high expectations, often  leads to anger and disillusionment. The most dangerous period in marriage is the first five years because that’s when the ideal gives way to the real and the real ushers in resentments. Some start looking for a new deal. In the end the key is to accept the real. Now acceptance is not the same as approval or appreciation.  Acceptance is serenity about what is, even if there are some things we wish were different. We don’t live in the ideal, we live in the real and there is serenity and stability in accepting that fact. More marriages might survive if the partners realized that sometimes the better comes after the worse.
  2. Honey, if you ever leave me,  I’m going with you – The Scripture says that a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife (Gen 2:24). Now “cling” is a strong word. It means to stick like glue. Notice that a man does this. Boys run around and play the field, but a man looks for a wife and, finding her,  leaves his parents and clings to her. This is what a man does. He works hard to preserve union with his wife. He seeks to understand her needs and to provide, to be affectionate, affirming and encouraging. He confirms her authority over the children and teaches them to respect her. Too many men today are passive husbands and fathers. But the Scriptures place on the man the first obligation to cling to his wife. When a marriage is in trouble it is usually the wife who calls me. This is already a sign of trouble since the Lord says that clinging is the essential role the man. If there is trouble he should be the first to notice it and to work to restore proper union with his wife.  It is true today that many men have little recourse if a wife simply wants to leave, no-fault divorce is too easy and is hard to fight . But of course the question is what did he do when he first saw trouble, first saw the unity of his marriage threatened.
  3. Marriage makes two people one. The trouble comes in determining which one. – One of the biggest problems  today in marriage is power struggle. In our modern age we have rejected the biblical teaching of headship in marriage. God establishes a husband in authority in the home. Every organism and organization requires  headship. A creature with two heads is a freak. A creature with no head is dead. Having rejected the necessity of headship and the biblical teaching assigning that to the husband (eg Eph 5:19 ff) the result is power struggle between the spouses. Now a husband’s authority is not a worldly, autocratic authority but a Christian, servant based authority (Cf Mark 10:41-45).  I have written more on this matter here: An Unpopular Teaching on Marriage.   It does not follow that the husband always “gets his way.” Rather, if he is smart, he listens carefully to his wife and her wisdom. Practically speaking women have great authority in the home and its daily running and a smart husband will not seek to micromanage and usurp his wife’s role and her practical authority there and with the children. But in the end, two have to become one. Oneness requires headship, common faith, shared fear of the Lord, and a heartfelt appreciation for the gifts of each.

Please share with me any pithy, humorous and/or insightful sayings on Marriage you might know.

Posted on

Is Lying Now a Constitutional Right?

It would seem that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled that lying is a constitutional right. I say “seem” because I am not a legal expert and will gladly accept correction from those of you who might be. However, here are the facts of the case as extracted from an AP report:

A 3-year-old federal law that makes it a crime to falsely claim to have received a medal from the U.S. military is unconstitutional, an appeals court panel in California ruled Tuesday.

The decision involves the case of Xavier Alvarez of Pomona, Calif., a water district board member who said at a public meeting in 2007 that he was a retired Marine who received the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military decoration…..

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with him in a 2-1 decision Tuesday, agreeing that the law was a violation of his free-speech rights. The majority said there’s no evidence that such lies harm anybody, and there’s no compelling reason for the government to ban such lies.

The dissenting justice insisted that the majority refused to follow clear Supreme Court precedent that false statements of fact are not entitled to First Amendment protection…..

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles said it was deciding whether to appeal Tuesday’s ruling.   The full AP report is here: Is Lying a Right?

You have the Right to Lie!  So based on my reading, two of the three judges have ruled that lying is protected by the Constitution. That is, lying is a Constitutional right!  Hmm…. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that law must comport with human reason:

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. (CCC 1902 quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II, 93, 3, ad 2)

Lying does not accord with right reason hence there can be no law that enshrines it as a right or in any way commends it.

Key Concern:  Now let me say I do not therefore think the Government should punish every lie or even ban every lie according to kind and number. If so most of us would be jailbirds. It may well be argued, as the court did, that the lie in question in Mr. Alvarez’s case does not rise to a prosecutable offense. Further, that a lie of this sort does not cause great harm. Perhaps the court is right in saying that the Government oversteps in banning this particular sort of lie. But it is surely absurd and unnecessary for the Court to go as far as it did and declare lying to be protected speech and a Constitutional right. That the court has found this right to lie reminds me of the “right” to abortion that was found in the “penumbras and emanations” of the Constitution. Surely this is a less egregious example but it seems quite a corruption of law and the Constitution to argue that wrongful acts, (we call them sins in the Church), are protected Constitutional rights.

Here seems more evidence that the Judicial Branch is in serious philosophical trouble. The 9th Circuit Appeals Court is famous for strange rulings of course and so perhaps my diagnosis is too sweeping.

I am not a skilled legal commentator and so invite your remarks on this especially if you do have a legal background.

Posted on

Wondering About the "Mosque" at Ground Zero and the Logic We Use.

I wonder if we have considered the wider implications of the controversy about a “mosque” near the World Trade Center Site? I put “mosque” in quotes since I am not sure that it actually is a mosque, formally speaking. Rather it seems to be more of an Islamic Center. I will admit to not knowing fully the distinction between a mosque and an Islamic Center though my premise is that such a center may have a wider purpose than just as a place of worship and would probably include places to gather to study or for social interaction such as receptions and the like. It would seem that there are already two mosques within a dozen blocks of the proposed site.

I suppose if you ask me, I don’t think building the center so near ground zero is a good idea. It has obviously proved incendiary and, if the original purpose was to promote mutual understanding the whole thing has back-fired. There are surely many reasons for this and plenty of blame to go around. There may have been some fear-mongering by those opposed. There were some problematic statements by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf . And when the politicians entered the picture, it was like gasoline being poured on the already smoldering topic.

But what I want to consider are the possible implications of this event beyond the Muslim Community to our own Catholic Church. The matter that most concerns me is that many who oppose this Mosque (though not all) seem to be asking that the Government prevent its construction. Perhaps this would be done by revoking construction permits or through zoning changes.

I’ll be honest, I don’t want the Government to have a thing to do with refusing permission for the mosque (or center). Because, truth be told, if they can intervene in a matter about a mosque they can just as easily make life difficult when it comes to building churches too.

There are many in this land who distrust Muslims and dislike many aspects of the Muslim Faith. As a Catholic I surely have many strong disagreements with what the Muslim Faith teaches.  Distrust is a more complicated question. Most Americans are willing to distinguish between extremist Islam and mainstream Islam. But here too the failure to hear of strong denunciation of violence from Muslim leaders makes Americans wonder. Further, the lack of religious tolerance in many Muslim Countries also causes consternation. To some extent this distrust makes it easier for some to demand the government step in and prevent the Mosque.

But let’s be honest and sober. We as Catholics are heading south in the popularity ratings too. There are increasing  numbers in this country who consider us hateful, backward, sexist, homophobic, judgmental, and so forth. They think this of us because we have not signed on 100% with the cultural, sexual and social revolution. Many also distrust us on account of our handling of the Clergy Sex Abuse Crisis. It is not that far of a stretch to consider that within the next decades we too will discover many obstacles toward building Churches in prominent or visible places. At first opposition to us will be rooted in complaints that we will cause traffic etc. But the next step will be to refuse us zoning easements because we are sexist (no women priests, opposition to abortion) or anti-homosexual (No Gay marriage), insensitive (e.g. no Euthanasia),  and thus our “values” do not comport well with the community in question or our presence causes some to experience outrage or hurt. Hence our prominent presence in a community could be denied simply because others experience hurt or rage. (I do not say that such feelings about us are fair or right, I simply note their current existence).

Now this may seem far-fetched, but is this not some of the logic being applied at the ground zero site? And those who think that the Government should intervene at the ground zero site should carefully think this through. It is a very poor basis on which to ask the government  to act. And we may be next in the cross hairs of this sort of logic.

We ought to be very sober about encouraging the Government to continue to expand its involvement in how private citizens use their land and resources. In the last 40 years the government has become increasingly intrusive when it comes to building anything. There are increasingly picky zoning requirements, declaration of historical districts, nature preserves, etc. And eminent domain (allowing  the government simply to take your land for its own purposes in exchange for a price it deems fair) which was once rather rare and for serious reasons  has now become shockingly common. There are certain western states that are almost wholly owned by the Federal Government and where private ownership of land has become rare. As one who has built a large building on Church property, I can personally attest to how frustrating it is to build. There are endless permits, delays, regulations, zoning waivers, delays, forms, and did I say, delays?

Now I realize that not every one who opposes the Mosque is asking the government to intervene. But for those who are, think very carefully. And even for those who are not asking the government intervention, be careful of the logic used. That a mosque causes grief and anger, fear or suspicion at ground zero may at some level be understandable but it is a poor basis on which to tell someone they cannot build a building. For I fear that same logic will be used against the Catholic Church sooner than we think in certain areas of this country. It is not a great leap of (tortured) logic to say that a mosque cannot be built because it evokes negative feelings to saying that a Catholic Church cannot be built for the same reasons. We ought to be very careful about the logic we use.

What do you think? I know that this article needs some distinctions, qualifications and factual additions. Remember this is a discussion I have started. I do not intend this blog  it as a pronouncement. I am grateful if, in addition to any comments about the issue in general, you might address the specific question of the logic of demanding the non-existence of a building on the basis that it will cause hurt or anger and how it might ultimately affect us as Catholics.

Here’s an interesting interview about the Mosque (Islamic Center) before it really heated up:

Posted on

What are You Going to Believe….Your Eyes or Your Ears?

I have found myself in recent years insisting that people believe their ears and not their eyes. Now our flesh demands to see by its own unregenerate power, only then will the flesh say it believes. But the truth is our flesh does not often believe even when it sees. We usually figure, “they have some way of doing that” or perhaps we’ll say, “This is a trick, an illusion.” And illusionist can do some pretty amazing stuff! (See the video below).

But the Scriptures are clear to say that Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom 10:17) . It also says, Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen (Heb 11:1). Even Thomas who is said to believe because he sees is really confessing  something he cannot see, that Jesus is Lord and God (Jn 20:29).

For example, when it comes to the sacraments we have to believe our ears for our eyes cannot see the reality that faith declares to be so. St. Thomas Aquinas in the beautiful hymn Adoro Te Devote says:

    • Visus, tactus, gustus in te fallitur, (Sight and taste and touch in thee fall short)
    • Sed auditu solo tuto creditur; (But only the hearing is safely believed)
    • Credo quidquid dixit Dei Filius, (I believe whatever the Son of God has said)
    • Nil hoc verbo veritatis verius. (Nothing is truer than this word of truth)

And thus I must often remind people when it comes to sacraments:

  1. Though your eyes may still see bread and wine, believe your ears: “This is my Body, This is my Blood…..” (Matt 26:26 inter al). The Bread I will give is my flesh for the Life of the world….(Jn 6:51).”
  2. Though your eyes may still see a newly married bride and groom as two separate distinct individuals, believe your ears: “They are no longer two, they are one. What God has joined together let no one divide.” (Matt 19:6)
  3. Though your eyes may see a newly baptized baby as just the same, believe your ears: “This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased….(Lk 3:21) If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation (2 Cor 5:17)…..We who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death so that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of God the Father we too might live in newness of life (Rom 6:4)
  4. A person who emerges from a confessional may appear just the same, but believe your ears: I absolve you from your sins..…Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them (Jn 20:23).

What are you going to believe….your eyes or your ears?

  • [For] we look not to what is seen but to what is unseen; for what is seen is transitory, but what is unseen is eternal….for we walk by faith, not by sight (2 Cor 4:18, 5:7).
  • And to the Pharisees who claimed they could see (but still refused to believe) the Lord said, “If you were blind, you would not  be guilty, But you remain guilty because you claim you can see. (John 9:41)
  • And to those who do believe the Lord says through Peter: You have not seen him, yet you love him; and still without seeing him you believe in him and so are already filled with a joy so glorious that it cannot be described (1 Peter 1:8)

What are you going to believe, your eyes or your ears?

Your flesh demands to see. But I promise you, even if you do see, your flesh will explain it away. Consider this video. Illusionists can do some pretty amazing things. But notice how quickly your flesh is willing to explain it away. And this case it should for these are illusions. But what if you saw a real miracle? What do you suppose your flesh would do? What do you suppose?

Faith comes by hearing.

Posted on

Pondering Porneia and Proclaiming a Pet Peeve

A reader recently sent the following question to the “Ask a Question” page of this blog:

Msgr. Pope: Why did the Catholic Church recently alter the language of the New American Catholic Bible in the Gospel of Matthew chapter 19 by replacing the word “fornication” with the word “illegal” in regard to marriages impacted by adultery?

I want to answer this question. But I would also like to lead by expressing a pet peeve when it comes to the New American Bible and it’s handling of the Greek word πορνείᾳ (porneia). For it is the meaning of  this Greek word that underlies the question of the change from “fornication” to “illegal” in the New American Bible.

The Greek word πορνείᾳ (porneia) generally includes any notion of illicit sexual union or activity. Depending on the context of the passage it can include any of the following: fornication (premarital sex), incest, homosexual activity, bestiality, prostitution, indulgence of sexual passion, and in some cases adultery. Adultery however has another word more proper to it (and this will factor in with the answer later) which is μοιχάω (moichaó).

Now although the Greek word πορνείᾳ (porneia) has a wide meaning, it is clearly related to sexual immorality, to some form of illicit sexual union. This Greek word is the likely root of the English words “porn” and “pornography.” It was traditionally translated “fornication” but many modern English translations now render it “sexual immorality” or “illicit sexual union”. So far, fine.

But here comes my pet peeve. The New American Bible consistently obscures the meaning of this word rendering it in very vague ways. It almost seems to go out of its way to avoid any sexual reference to the term. This is especially true in the Pauline corpus where the word is rendered vaguely as “immorality.” Now immorality can mean just about any form of sin. Hence for those who read the New American Bible (NAB) the true impact and meaning of the text as a warning against sexual immorality is obscure, even opaque. In an era of widespread sexual confusion and sin, texts like these  cannot afford to be obscure.

Lectionary loss – Even more sadly in terms of this matter, the NAB is the translation used at Mass here in the United States. Thus, the faithful are thus hindered from hearing what the text is actually saying in a very important matter. The obscurity of the text may also underlie the fact that many Catholic Priests do not speak often on sexual immorality since that meaning of the text does not stand out as clearly as it should and inspire their thought and proclamation.

The New Jerusalem Bible does not have this problem,  rendering πορνείᾳ (porneia) quite consistently as “sexual immorality”  or “sexual sin” or “sexual vice” Likewise, the most popular Protestant translations (e.g. the NIV, RSV and the KJV) are reliably consistent on accurately and clearly translating as either fornication or sexual immorality.

So what is wrong with the NAB and why has this problem gone unaddressed? It seems a rather serious omission to me, especially in the translation of Paul’s letters. One would hope that at least future editions of the lectionary would correct the deficiency and render πορνείᾳ (porneia) properly and more clearly as “sexual immorality.” Which of the following texts do think it more clear:

  1. Eph 5:3 from NAB Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you ….. OR
  2. Eph 5:3 from New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) Among you there must not be even a mention of sexual vice or impurity in any of its forms….
  3. Gal 5:19 from NAB: Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness…..  OR
  4. Gal 5:19 from NJB: When the flesh is at work the results are obvious: sexual vice, impurity, and sensuality…..

We can only hope the deficiency will be cleared up. Until such time, when I teach on matters of sexual immorality the NAB is practically useless. I use the New Jerusalem Bible or the New International Version.

Now as to the question raised above. Why does the NAB and in this case also the New Jerusalem Bible render the Greek word πορνείᾳ (porneia) as “unlawful marriage” (NAB) and “illicit marriage” (NJB)? The translation in this case is defensible. Remember πορνείᾳ (porneia) has a wide variety of meanings as listed above. One of those forms of illicit sexual unions can be incest. Likewise it can refer to homosexual activity as well. In the Greek world there were many forms or marriage that the Jewish and Christian communities would never recognize. Among these were incestuous relationships (where close relatives married each other). There we also various forms of Homosexual liaisons that some thought of as marriages. Thus what Jesus is likely saying here is, (to paraphrase): “If you divorce and marry another you are committing adultery. However I do not mean to include in this the so-called marriages among the Gentiles that enshrine illegitimate sexual unions.” I have written more on this here: http://blog.adw.org/2009/12/what-would-jesus-say-about-redefining-marriage/

Now the Protestants largely interpret πορνείᾳ (porneia) here to mean “adultery” and hold that the Lord permits divorce in the case of adultery. The Catholic position is that this is unlikely since Jesus could have easily used the Greek word  μοιχάω (moichaó) – Adultery – had he meant that. In fact he uses that very word later in the same sentence.

So interestingly enough, in this case I will defend the NAB as offering a reasonable translation of Matt 5 & 19. As I said the main problem in the NAB occurs in the Pauline literature where the individual or committee involved in that part of the translation did a poor job,  IMHO,   in rendering clearly the Greek word πορνείᾳ (porneia). Lets hope that future editions will correct this. The NAB is generally a readable and familiar, as well as accurate translation. In this matter however I cannot praise it.