Posts

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.

Posted on

I am having a "Fifth Station Moment"

When they led Him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, coming in from the country, and placed on him the cross to carry behind Jesus. – Luke 23:26

Many Catholics have a devotion to a saint or a particular prayer. Over the past ten years or so, I have developed a devotion to the 5th Station of the Cross. In fact, I refuse to have a “bad day.” Rather, I chose to call those times “Fifth Station Moments.”

Simon the Cyrene is pressed into service

The Fifth Station recalls the moment Simon the Cyrenian is pressed into service to carry the Cross of Christ. Simon was a bystander who probably had no interest in helping. In fact, he probably thought of Jesus as a common criminal and was angry when the Roman soldiers forced him to carry the Cross.

At times, we are all pressed into service

I have a special devotion to this station because in my life there are many times I feel like Simon. In others words, there are times when I feel like a relatively innocent man who has unwillingly and unfairly had a Cross thrust upon his shoulders. Sometimes it is the Cross of one of my students, fellow parishioners or teachers. Other times it is the Cross of another member of my family. I have even had a Cross of two that was purposefully thrust upon me by the calculated and sinful actions of another Christian. Finally, I must admit that very often, it may a Cross of my own making that I am forced to carry.

When this happens, I try hard not to lament my circumstances, though I often do exactly that! Rather, through prayer, I try to turn to the Fifth Station and the example of Simon. Simon is mentioned only briefly in Holy Scripture but he is mentioned by name in the three synoptic Gospels. Therefore, his example is worthy of some contemplation.

Simon was clearly a reluctant participant during this pivotal moment in salvation history. If this were not true, he would not had been “pressed” into service. Nonetheless, it is easy to imagine that Simon eventually realized that he had been given a privilege to carry the Cross of Christ. Furthermore, in carrying the Cross he did not walk away or go ahead. He was still following Christ. And, more profoundly, maybe only after Simon recognized Jesus as the Redeemer, Jesus eventually took the Cross back and proceeded up Calvary on his own.

Bad day? No, just a “Fifth Station Moment”

When I am having a “Fifth Station Moment” it helps me to remember that in the end, the Cross is always taken away from me, by God himself no less! I have to bear it for a while but it is Christ alone who died for my sins. He still has the hardest part of the deal. The Fifth Station also helps me to recognize the redemptive power of suffering. Christ said, “Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.” – Luke 14:27.

Let us remember that all of our burdens can and will be carried by Jesus, but only as we too recognize Him as our Savior.

I hope you have a good day today.  But, if not, I pray you have a “Fifth Station Moment” instead.

Posted on

"You Just Put Your Hand in Mary’s and Let Her Lead you to Christ"

As a young very young child I was so close to God. I spoke to him in a very natural way and He too spoke plainly to me. I have very few memories of early childhood but surely one of my most vivid is how close I was to God. But somewhere, as early puberty approached, I slipped away from God, drifting into the rebellious and angry years of my teens. As the flesh came more alive, my spirit submerged.

The culture of the time didn’t help. It was the late 1960s and early 1970s and rebelliousness and the flesh were celebrated as “virtues.” Somehow we thought ourselves as being more mature than our pathetic forbearers who were “repressed.” But at that time there was the attitude around among the young  that we had come of age somehow and we collectively deluded ourselves through the message of rock music and haze of drug use that we were somehow better.

So it was the winter of my soul. The vivid faith of childhood gave way to a kind of indifferent agnosticism. Though I never formally left Church (mother would never had permitted that as long as I lived in under my parents roof!) I no longer heard God or spoke to him. I may have told you that I joined the Church Youth Choir in High School. This was not religious passion but passion of another kind. There were pretty girls in the choir and I sought their company, shall we say. But God has a way of using beauty to draw us to the truth and week after week, year after year as we sang those old religious classics a buried faith began to awaken.

But what to do? How to pray? I heard I was supposed to pray. But how? As a child it was natural to talk with God. But now he seemed distant, aloof, and likely angry with me. And I’ll admit it, prayer seemed a little goofy to high school senior still struggling to be “cool” in the sight of his friends and in his own eyes. Not only that but prayer was “boring.” an unfocused, unstructured and “goofy” thing.

But I knew someone who did pray. My paternal grandmother “Nana” was a real prayer warrior. Everyday she took out her beads and sat by the window to pray. I had seen my mother pray now and again, but she was more private about it. But Nana, who lived with us off and on in her last years just knew how to pray and you could see it every day.

Rosary Redivivus – In my parish church of the 1970s the rosary was non-existent. Devotions and adoration were on the outs in that sterile time. Even the Crucifix was gone. But Nana had that old time religion. So I asked her one day to show me how to pray the rosary. My mother had taught me as a little child but that was over ten years back. Nana gave the technical details but more importantly she gave me the vision. She said, “Holding these beads is like holding Mary’s hand. You just put your hand in hers and let her lead to Christ.” She went on to say, “You’ll be fine.”

Ad Jesum per Mariam – There are those, non-Catholics especially, who think that talking of Mary and focusing on her at all takes away from Christ. It is as though our hearts were a zero-sum game and we could not do both. But my own experience was that, just as my grandmother said, Mary led me to Christ. I had struggled to know and worship Christ but somehow a mother’s love felt natural, safer, more accessible to me. So I began there, where I could. Simply pole-vaulting into a mature faith from where I was did not seem possible. So I began, a little child again, holding my mother’s hand. And gently, Mother Mary led me on to Christ, her son. And through the rosary, that “Gospel on a String,” I became reacquainted with the basic gospel story.

The thing about Marian devotion is that it opens a whole world to you. For with this devotion comes an open door into so many of the other traditions and devotions of the Church: Eucharistic adoration, litanies, traditional marian hymns, lighting candles, modesty, pious demeanor and so forth. So as she led, she also reconnected me to many things I only vaguely remembered. The 1970s suburban Catholicism had all but cast these things aside and I too had lost them. Now in my late teens I was going into the “Church attic” and taking things down. Thus, little by little,  Mother Mary was helping me put things back in place. I remember my own mother being pleased to discover that I had take some old religious statues out of a drawer in my room and placed them again on my dresser. I also took down the crazy rock and roll posters one by one and replaced them with traditional art, to include a picture of Mary.

Praying the Rosary and talking to Mary began to feel natural. And, sure enough, little by little, I began to speak with God. In the middle of College I began to sense the call to the priesthood. I had become choir director by now and took a new job in a city parish at, you guessed it, “St Mary’s Parish.” There the sterility of suburban Catholicism had never taken hold. The candles burned brightly at the side altars. The beautiful windows, marble altars,  statues and the traditional novenas were all on display in Mother Mary’s Parish. The rest is history. Mary cemented the deal between me and her Son, Jesus. I became his priest and can’t stop talking about him. He is my hero, savior and Lord. And praying again to God has become more natural and deeply spiritual for me.

It all began one day when I took Mary’s hand and let her lead me to Christ. And hasn’t that always been her role? She, by God’s grace, brought Christ to us and showed him to us at Bethlehem, presented him in the Temple, ushered in his first miracle even despite his reluctance. Said to the stewards that day and to us now, “Do whatever he tells you.” And on account of that miracle the text says. Jesus did this as the beginning of his signs in Cana in Galilee and so revealed his glory, and his disciples began to believe in him  (John 2:11). And so her intercession strengthened the faith of others in her Son. That has always been her role, to take us by the hand and lead us to Christ.