Author: Msgr. Charles Pope

Every now and again I am blessed to gather with brother priests to discuss best practices and share pastoral experience. One of my diocesan brothers, Fr. Patrick Smith, Pastor at St. Augustine here in DC, often has memorable advice that tends to turn the tables on conventional wisdom and in effect shift the paradigms we use.

A Paradigm is first defined as an outstandingly clear or typical example of something. But in a more extended sense it is a philosophical or theoretical framework that commonly underlies our thinking or actions. We often adopt these frameworks and assumptions in an unreflective or even unconscious way.

To “shift” a paradigm is to bring it to consciousness, and either adapt it, apply it newly, or sometimes wholly reverse its parameters.

Fr. Smith is an excellent paradigm shifter especially when it comes reversing the parameters of a paradigm or to put it another way, “turn the tables” on common thinking. I’d like to offer two of his paradigm shifts that relate to evangelization and parish life.

Paradigm Shift 1. “We usually pray and ask God to bless what we are doing. Instead we should find out what God is blessing and go do that.” – In other words, we need to learn to follow God’s lead more. Too often we hand God our agenda and ask him to sign off on it. It is astonishing how little we really seek God’s will.

A typical prayer at the beginning of a parish meeting will go something like: “O God we just ask you to bless our efforts, (yes Lord!), bless the car raffle, and our spaghetti dinner and please help us in our effort to replace the Church roof with the money we raise. In JESUS’ Name!”

Its not a bad prayer, nothing evil is being sought. But it is a rather directive prayer that says, “God do this, God do that…” But when do we ever ask, “God what is your will? What are you blessing? What are you saying to us?” Why haven’t we saved enough money over the years to repair our roof? What is your financial plan for your Church? Do we have proper spending priorities? What works in our parish are you blessing? What works and efforts are you letting go fallow? What is growing and what is declining? Are we following your lead as we consider this?

In many parishes and organizations we too easily fall into a “we do this because we’ve always done this” mentality. And often, we ignore mounting evidence that a lot of what we do no longer makes sense or needs to be adjusted. Meanwhile we often resist new outreaches that are often being blessed by God in strange and mysterious ways.

For example,

• • Many pastors resisted the home schooling movement for years since it competed with the existing idea of running a Catholic School. Many homeschooling parents were labeled as kooks and troublemakers. Meanwhile God just kept blessing homeschooling.
• • Mother Angelica started a television network in a garage with $200. The Conference of Bishops staffers resisted her because she was competing with their efforts and the millions that had been poured into a television arm of the Conference, and EWTN had  a traditional tone the staffers didn’t like. But God just kept blessing EWTN.
• • Many radicalized orders of women have continued down self destructive paths that assure the death of their orders. Meanwhile God just keeps blessing orders that wear habits, have a focused apostolate and live in fidelity to the magisterium.
• • Many pastors have irritation at certain new movements in the Church, be it charismatic movements, Communion and Liberation, Focolare, the Traditional Latin Mass, consecrated virgins, or any number of diverse movements. God is clearly blessing many of these, and while not every parish can or should do all of them, we do well not to discredit what God seems to be blessing.
• • I am a great lover of traditional Catholic music from the Latin years. But I cannot simply deny that God has blessed many contemporary forms of music that have reached many young people.

We need to look more at what God is blessing and follow God’s lead. Discernment is still necessary. The mere fact that something is flourishing is not always a sign of God’s blessing. Nevertheless, it may sometimes surprise us what God blesses.

Do we simply ask God to bless what we are doing? Are we willing to seek what God is blessing and do that?

Paradigm Shift 2. Parish Boundaries used to tell Catholics where they should go to Church. Now Parish boundaries tell the Church where we should go.

It is widely asserted today that parish boundaries are meaningless, people will go to church wherever they please. It is true that almost no Catholic feels obliged to attend the parish within whose boundaries they live.

But parish boundaries still have this significance: the entire world is divided up into parishes and every territorial parish is responsible for every man, woman and child living inside its boundaries.

As a pastor, I am not simply responsible for the Catholics who attend my parish. Neither am I simply responsible for all the Roman Catholics who live inside my parish boundaries. Rather,  I am responsible for every man, woman and child, whether Protestant, Catholic, baptized or unbaptized.

And of course the pastor alone does not hold this responsibility, but rather the whole parish with him. As a pastor, I have taught my people that we have an obligation that human person within our boundaries has been invited to know Jesus Christ, to love him, adore him, accept him as their Savior and to live their faith in him in the beautiful Catholic Church that he founded.

Most Catholics do not think this way. Especially in an era commuter Catholicism were many shop around for a parish they like, too many Catholics drive into a parish they have joined, going past many men and women who have never had Christ effectively proclaimed to them. Most Catholics think little of the responsibility they have towards them: “They aren’t my neighbors.” Yes, but they DO live in the territory of the parish you claim as yours. So they ARE your neighbors.

Sadly, most pastors don’t think this way either. They look out the front window, or drive through the streets of their parish boundaries and many never think these are God’s people, and God has assigned me to care for them, and to call them to know him.

Too many parishes are clubhouses rather than lighthouses. People come in and form closed little circles, enjoy each others company, and certain types of liturgy, and then go home. Never mind that Jesus said, “Go make disciples.”

Demographic issues often intensify the problem. In my own parish which is historically Black, and situated in an historically black neighborhood, we have recently experienced rather significant and sudden shift, so that most of our new neighbors are White. In parishes like this where the attendees do not reflect the ethnicity or race of the neighbors the tendency is even stronger to say, “Not our folk…”

To the credit of my parishioners, a few naysayers aside, we have taken up the call to knock on doors, walk the neighborhood and make disciples. Up to forty parishioners walk on designated Saturdays to do sidewalk evangelization and door to door meetings. Most of my parishioners have well internalized our boundaries which I often recite: North to F Street, West to 11th Street, South to Pennsylvania Ave, East to the river. These are our folk, go call them!

Parish boundaries no longer tell Catholics where to go to Church, they tell the Church were to go.

Two paradigm shifts. Do you have any paradigm shifts…any ways of turning the tables on conventional thinking?

There is a danger when we speak of God’s Law, to consider it as we might any secular law. For example, we may well consider secular law merely to be some sort of impersonal code written by some nameless legislators or bureaucrats. We have not met them, we do not know them, or necessarily love or trust them. In effect, they are an abstraction in our mind called “the government” or “the man” or just “they,” as in, “They don’t want you to park here” or “They’ll fine you for that.”

God’s Law is Personal – But when it comes to God’s Law we are dealing with something different, something very personal, if we have faith. For God’s law is not given by someone we do not know, love or trust. If we have faith, God is someone we do in fact know, someone we love and trust. Further, we believe he loves us and wants what is best for us. God’s law is not the equivalent of a no-parking sign hung by some nameless, faceless city government. Rather it is a personal exhortation, instruction and command given by someone we know and who knows and loves us.

Consider an example. Suppose you pull in front of my church to park and you see a no-parking sign. Now suppose you also decide to ignore it. Alright, you have broken a law, not a big one, but a law nonetheless. You’ve chosen to ignore a sign put there by “the government.” But suppose another scenario: I your beloved blogger and the pastor of the Church you are attending or visiting is standing out there, and I say to you, “Please don’t park here.” Now the situation is very different. I, someone you know and love, 🙂 , am personally requesting that you leave the space open for some reason. When you experience the law this way you are far more likely to follow it, because someone you know and trust is asking and directing you.

But what if, despite this, you still choose to ignore the instruction not to park there. Well then, the situation is quite different in this case, for, in this case, the law is personal. The refusal to follow it now becomes personal as well and there is a far more serious situation we are dealing with.

Scripture: It is a frequent thing when the Law is recited in the Old Testament to see the refrain “I am the Lord” For example:

“You shall not defraud or rob your neighbor.
You shall not withhold overnight the wages of your day laborer.
You shall not curse the deaf,
or put a stumbling block in front of the blind,
but you shall fear your God.
I am the LORD.

“You shall not act dishonestly in rendering judgment.
Show neither partiality to the weak nor deference to the mighty,
but judge your fellow men justly.
You shall not go about spreading slander among your kin;
nor shall you stand by idly when your neighbor’s life is at stake.
I am the LORD. (Lev 19:11-14)

Note how the litanies of the law each end: “I am the Lord.” (These are but two of other litanies). I am the Lord. On the one hand it gives solemnity to the pronouncement. But, at another level what God is saying is, This is Me talking. It is I who speak to you. I who created you, who led you out of slavery, parted the Red Sea, dispatched your enemies, fed you in the desert and gave you drink from the rock. It I, I who love you, I who care for you, I who has given you everything you have, I who want what is best for you, I who have earned your trust. It is I, your Father who speak to you and give you this command.

An ancient Rabbi explained the inclusion “I am the Lord” this way: “It is God’s way of saying to us, ‘Look now. I am the one who fished you out of the mud. Now come over here and listen to me.'”

Yes, God’s law is personal. Do we see and experience it this way? This will happen only if we come to know the Lord personally. Otherwise, the danger becomes that we see the Law of God as merely an impersonal code, an abstract set of rules to follow. They might as well have been issued by the deity, the godhead, or even just the religious leaders of the day.

Hence a gift to pray for in terms of keeping God’s Law is a closer walk with the Lord and an experience of his love for us. Such an experience is a great help in loving the Law of the Lord. For when we love the Lord we love his law and see it not as an imposition, but a personal code of love that is meant to protect us. And when we offend against it either willfully or through weakness, we are more able to repent with a more perfect contrition for we experience that we have offended someone we love and who is deserving of all our love.

This personal relationship brings God’s law alive, makes it personal. And so God says as he reminds of of his Law: I am the Lord. This is me talking – It is I, the one who loves you.

This song says, I Love the Lord. He heard my cry. Long As I live, and troubles rise, I’ll hasten to his throne.” (Sung by Whitney Houston)

Poll taking has its place. But polls cannot establish truth or determine what is right and wrong. All they can do is report what people think at a moment in time.

A poll in Nazi Germany in 1940 may well have reported that most Germans thought Jews could be deported or even killed. But even if 80% thought so, that did not make it right, correct, moral, or in any way decent.

And yet, despite such an obvious example, many people still think poll taking can establish something as true. Or, put more precisely, that what “most people” think about something makes it true. It does not. It only means most people think it.

The Latest Poll is out on the Church and it claims to demonstrate that “most Catholics,” worldwide (with the usual exception of African Catholics) disagree with a lot of teachings of the Church on Marriage and sexuality etc. Not all that surprising in terms of results.

Now such information can be valuable since it reminds us that we who love Church and support her teachings have a lot of work to do to overcome a huge cultural sea-change that has swept the world. Fifty to one Hundred Years ago, poll numbers like this would have been unthinkable, not just among Catholics but among any segment or sampling of anyone anywhere. So this is a sea-change and a sudden one at that.

And before the usual Vatican II bromides come out lets remember that the last hundred years have featured two world wars, the Cold War, The Vietnam and Korean Wars the nuclear arms race, The rise of atheistic Communism, the errors of Modernism, the bloodbath not only of war but of legalized abortion, and the killing of at least 100 million people for ideological purposes by the likes of Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot. Add further the sexual revolution with is resulting STDs, AIDS, contraception, abortion, single motherhood, same-sex attraction, confusion and almost complete sexual irresponsibility, capped off with the rise of no-fault divorce. Add the rise in smoking dope, using hallucinogenic drugs and the stinking thinking that it gave rise to.

Well….you get the point. It is hard to conceive of the 20th Century as anything but a nearly complete disaster, a century mysteriously given over to Satan.

And then comes a poll like this. At one level, not surprising given that many forces of Hell seem to have been set loose. At another level a picture of dramatic the least few decades have been.

Here are a few details. Among the findings:

• • Only 19 percent of Catholics in the European countries and 30 percent in the Latin American countries surveyed agree with church teaching that divorcees who remarry outside the church should not receive Communion, compared with 75 percent in the most Catholic African countries.
• • Only 30 percent of Catholics in the European countries and 36 percent in the United States agree with the church ban on female priests, compared with 80 percent in Africa and 76 percent in the Philippines, the country with the largest Catholic population in Asia.
• • Only 40 percent of Catholics in the United States oppose gay marriage, compared with 99 percent in Africa.
• • Seventy-eight percent of Catholics across all countries surveyed support the use of contraceptives
• • Overall, 65 percent of Catholics said abortions should be allowed: 8 percent in all cases and 57 percent in some.

Africa seems to be our tainted flock’s solitary boast and also helps to show that the problem is more about culture than liturgy and Vatican II stuff. The Church in Africa is very Vatican II liturgically and structurally. The main difference there it would seem is that the cultural revolution from the decadent and affluent West has had less impact.

A few thoughts on the poll and the reporting of it.

1. The title of the Washington Post article reporting the poll read in part: “Pope Francis faces church divided over doctrine…” This phraseology is a common but secular way of speaking of the Church and doctrine.  But the Church is not divided over doctrine. Our Doctrine is clear and those who can proclaim it and teach it with authority (the magisterium) are not divided. And even if a few bishops demur or get out of line, the Defined Doctrine of the Church cannot be changed because, it is true.

To illustrate this, consider the following math problem and solve for x: 2(3x – 7) + 4 (3 x + 2) = 6 (5 x + 9 ) + 3.

The answer is

Now lets suppose a lot of folks, say 78%,  look at the math problem and because they are lousy at math just answer the question “not sure.”  Does that mean the answer is unsure? No. Lets say, 62% say the answer is actually – 6.25 and only 28% get the answer right and 20% remain unsure. Does this mean that -21/4 is no longer the right answer?

In other words, Catholics cannot “differ over doctrines” that are defined truth, any more than people can “differ” over the correct answer to this math problem. What is true remains true no matter how many people get it wrong.

Thus, the title of the article might more rightly have said, “Pope Francis faces a Church where many no longer hold the Catholic faith.” Or, “Pope Francis faces a Church wherein the faithful are confused about what the Church teaches and why.”

2. The concept of a poll also reflects a flawed ecclesiology. The implied premise of most secular reporting and commenting on polls like this is that the Church does not reflect the views of her members, and many consider this somehow a failure on the part of the Church. But of course it is not the role of the Church to reflect the views of her members. The job and role of the Church is to reflect the view of her founder and head Jesus Christ.

The real Jesus happen to get nailed to the cross for some of the things he taught. The crowds turned on him in a moment, not because he changed, or truth changed, but because the crowds were fickle and changed.

The Church cannot, and must not look to the views of  her members to determine doctrine. She must reflect her head and founder Jesus, who has given her the Deposit of Faith, to which she must be true.

Regarding the crowds, even including some of his own disciples, Jesus heard “Hosanna” on Palm Sunday, and “Crucify him” by Friday. And thus, the Church which is his body, shares the same lot; namely, that we must preach the gospel in season and out of season. Polls cannot and must not affect this, and those who claim they should have a mistaken ecclesiology

3. In a way, the whole numbers game also presents a false ecclesiology. In one sense, we would all like the Church to be big, it helps pay the bills, and more importantly gives us some sense that we are trying to fulfill the mandate to go and make disciples of all the nations. Of course disciples, means true disciples, not simply those who say they are Catholic etc.

While a big church may also be impressive looking, it is important to remember the Church was at her most powerful when she was smallest. I speak of Good Friday. Jesus is nailed to the cross. And every one of the bishops but one, St. John the Apostle, and all of the Lord’s disciples but about four women, all seemingly named Mary remained with him. There it was, the Church of four or five members, clergy and lay, with her head and founder Jesus. But that day, Satan was defeated and the gates of heaven swung open. And they even made two converts that day, the Good Thief, and the Centurion. Perhaps not a bad day for such a small Church.

The wayward bishops and disciples eventually returned, and the numbers grew. Down the centuries there has been fairly steady growth, marked with some tremendous setbacks: The loss of all North Africa, destroyed by Muslim invaders. The Eastern schism and the western revolt of Protestants. But even when the North African Church was destroyed, Europe lit up,  then as Europe divided among Protestants almost 10,000,000 people came into the Church in Mexico led by our Lady of Guadalupe. Today the Church in the decadent West is dying, Africa is lighting up again.

Numbers are strange thing. The small Church can do magnificent things and even a growing Church has its ups and downs. Polls capture a moment in time, but they are quite poor at seeing the great sweep of history.

Time will prove a wisdom lies, and when the decadence of these times has been buried by its own diseases,  The Church of Christ will still be here preaching the Gospel. Yes it will always be so.

Make what you want of this poll. It does speak of the depths of the modern disconnect from the ancient and venerable teaching of the Church, received from Jesus himself. Many prefer to substitute a fake Jesus who is compassion but without truth; who always says yes, but never no. The real Jesus of Scripture speaks the truth to us, and love and like any truly good doctor, offers healing because he knows there is disease,  and that to refuse to speak of the disease is malpractice

If anything, this poll simply reminds us of why we exist. It cannot tell us what we must do, for what we must do has never changed; we must continue to propose and repropose truth to the human  family of often obtuse heart and wayward spirit.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad. Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade others. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience.…If we are “out of our mind,” as some say, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. For Christ’s love compels us…We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God! (2 Cor 5:10-20 selected)

The Story of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11, is a memorable story for most. And yet it has a strange angularity to it.

On the one hand it seems to be a retelling of what is described in Genesis 10 of the table nations who spread forth from Noah’s sons, filled the earth and began to speak different languages. Chapter 11 seems to want to re-tell what we already know, supplying us with the inner details.

Further, the reaction of God seems a bit strange, almost human. What God does was seems antithetical to God, he divides the human family. We are more familiar with God wanting to unite us!

Let’s take a look at this odd little text and see what we can learn.

Now the whole earth had one language and few words. And as men migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.” And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the sons of men had built. And the LORD said, If now, while they are one people, all speaking the same language, they have started to do this, nothing will later stop them from doing whatever they presume to do. Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth. (Gen 11:1-9)

One Language? Note that the text indicates that the human family originally spoke one language. Other ancient texts seem also to affirm this. For example a Sumerian tablet tells from an extra-biblical perspective the story of a time when all language were one on the earth. (cf, Samuel Noah Kramer, “The Babel of Tongues: A Sumerian Version,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 88, 108-111).

The Story takes place in Shinar – That is Sumer, the land of the Sumerians, The area later called Babylon, modern day Iraq.

They build a tower with its top in the heavens – Such towers or Ziggurats are a common archeological feature of this part of the world. They look like tall, stepped pyramids.

The Problem – The tower itself was not the problem. Thinking it could reach to God in Heaven was the sin involved. (St Augustine sees the pride in that they thought they could avoid a future flood (as if anything was too high for God! – Tractates on John 6.10.2). The later verse calling this place Babel is significant. Babel is the Hebrew word meaning “gate of God” or by extension – “gate of (to) heaven.” Hence what they really think to do is to try and ascend to heaven, and God, by their own strength. Bad idea here!

Remember Adam and Eve had been barred from paradise because they could no longer endure the presence of God. NEVER think you can walk into God’s presence by your own unaided power. Only grace can do this. We cannot achieve heaven on our power. We do not have a ladder tall enough or a rocket ship powerful enough. They are committing a serious sin of pride here.

To make matters worse – they do this saying let us make a name for ourselves. So, they are not even seeking to enter heaven to be with God but, rather, to “make a name” for themselves. Now that’s pride with a capital P and that rhymes with T and that stands for Trouble. Yes, (to quote the Music Man) we’ve got trouble right here in river city (Mesopotamia = the land between the rivers).

A further insight into the pride comes from the concept of naming. Recall that, in Genesis 2, Adam named all the animals and decided what to call them. But God named man (Gen 5:1). To name something or someone is to know something of its essence. Parents name their children. In the ancient world this was very significant. Today this is less so. But ultimately, it is God who names us. In so doing it is he who declares our essence. It is pride, in this ancient sense, for man to try and “make a name” for himself.

Why did they do it? The stated purpose for this prideful act is that is must be done lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. Hence they act in this way to build the tower and make for themselves a name to preserve unity among themselves.

But wait! Isn’t this good? Yes, but, though unity is precious to God, it is not a work of Man but must be based on God and his truth. Without God, unity can merely become a despotic source power that is abused. Consider atheistic Communism and secular socialism. Concentrated, centralized power can be a serious problem indeed, if God is not its center and source. Praying for unity is not wrong, but God alone must be its source. Otherwise you can be sure that despotism is on the way.

Comical! And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the sons of men had built – a humorous description. The great tower, so high as to reach to heaven, was really so puny that God had to come down to see what it was!

What is God Worried about? The text says, This is only the beginning of what they will do; and nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. – God almost seems worried that man will become too powerful. It is true; as the text demonstrates, man thinks he has become godlike in his power. Had not Satan said, to tempt him, you will become like gods! (Gen 3:5).

But what God seems to be getting at is even more negative. In effect God says, if He does not intervene, the depths of our depravity will know no limits. Thus he intervenes and puts limits on us lest wickedness know no bounds. So God does two things: He confuses their speech and He scatters them abroad.

Conclusion – Unity is good and to be sought for. But unity is not an absolute or shall we say, detached good. The greatest virtue in terms of our salvation is humility. Unity is a great good, but if it fuels our pride we’ll all just go to hell together. Hence, in this case God saw fit to humble us by scattering us and confusing our language. Unity in wickedness is best scattered. Only unity for good is praiseworthy. Of this St Jerome says,

Just as when holy men live together, it is a great grace and blessing; so likewise, that congregation is the worse kind when sinners dwell together. The more sinners there are at one time, the worse they are! Indeed, when the tower was being built up against God, those who were building it were disbanded for their own welfare. The conspiracy was evil. The dispersion was of true benefit even to those who were dispersed. (Homilies 21).

Bringing it close to home – I’d like to conclude with the rather remarkable words of St. John Chrysostom who makes this story a little more personal for us:

There are many people even today who in imitation of [the builders at Babel] want to be remembered for such achievements, by building splendid homes, baths, porches and drives. I mean, if you were to ask each one of them why they toil and labor and lay out such great expense to no good purpose, you would hear nothing but these very words [Let us make a name for ourselves]. They would be seeking to ensure that their memory survives in perpetuity and to have it said, “this house belonged to so-and-so,” “This is the property of so-and-so.” This, on the contrary, is worthy not of commemoration but of condemnation. For hard upon those words come other remarks equivalent to countless accusations – “belonging to so-and-so, the grasping miser and despoiler of widows and orphans.” [Such behavior will] incite the tongues of on-lookers to calumny and condemnation of the person who amassed these goods. But if you are anxious to for undying reputation, I will show you the way to succeed in being remembered…along with an excellent name…in the age to come…If you give away these goods of yours into the hands of the poor, letting go of precious stones, magnificent homes, properties and baths. (Homilies on Genesis 30.7)

What are you and I building? Careful. Babel might not be a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, after all.

In the article above I mentioned the song from music man “Trouble in River City” Just for fun, here it is:

In the gospel today the Lord describes metaphorically (i.e. figuratively) what a Christian is and what He expects of us. Note five things about what He says.

I. The Definitiveness of his Proclamation – The Text says You are the Salt of the earth….You are the light of the World…..But if salt goes flat it is good for nothing…..No one lights a lamp and puts it under a basket.

The Lord is definitive in two ways. First he says, “You.” He is not talking to people long ago, or someone next to you. He is not merely talking to your pastor, or only to the Saints. He is talking to you, “YOU are salt, YOU are light.” You. It’s too easy to say, “Look what the Lord is saying to them, long ago, near the lakeside.” It’s not long ago, It’s now, it’s you.

The second way the Lord is definitive is that both images depend on us, and if we are not salt and light then no one else is around to be this and we have utterly voided our worth.

1. Look at the metaphor of salt:You are either salt, or you are nothing, in fact, good for NOTHING. As Christians we have signed up to be specialists. We have signed up to be Christians. What this means is that if we go off and do anything else, we are nothing, and good for nothing. It’s a very all or nothing scenario. Jesus says, if you have decided to be my disciple your are either going to do that or be nothing. You may go on to be a doctor, lawyer, teacher, laborer, or social worker. But the Lord’s got plenty of those, (and so does the devil). Your first and only mission is to be a true and uncompromised Christian and everything else is commentary. You may be a great doctor, but if you don’t do it as a clear and visible Christian you are nothing. You may be a skilled social worker, but if you don’t do it as a Christian, you are good for nothing. Any non-believer can be socially useful as a doctor, sports hero, actor, lawyer, or social worker. But only a Christian can be a Christian. If you don’t do “job one” you are nothing. If you get your kids every good thing, send them off to college, paid in full, but do not bring them to Christ and be a Christian witness to them, you are good for nothing. Any parent can give their kids material things, but only a Christian can give them Christ. Got it? You’re either salt (a true Christian) or you are nothing.
2. As for the light we can note something similar of this second definitiveness. The Lord says, you are THE light of the World, not merely A light. What this means is that if we do not shine, the world is darker. No one can take our place. If we don’t shine by living our faith and proclaiming it, the world is in darkness. Buddha can’t help, Mohamed can’t pull it off, science and humanism can’t substitute. Either we are light, or there is none. Some may call this arrogant, but I just call it Scripture. The Lord said it, not us. We are either light or the world is dark. And if the world is getting darker, whose fault is that? We need not go far. Too many Christians fulfill Isaiah 56:10 which says, Israel’s watchmen are blind, they all lack knowledge; they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; they lie around and dream, they love to sleep. You may be an exception, too many Christians are not.

Therefore notice the definitive pronouncement the Lord makes here. We Christians are either with the Lord or we’re nothing. We’re either light or the world is in darkness.

II. The Dynamics of Salt – When Jesus says You are the salt of the earth, what are some of the lessons we can learn from salt? Consider four things:

1. Salt Seasons – Christians are called to add spice to life, to bring beauty, joy and hope to the world. Joy is the surest sign of a Christian. Even our keeping of the Commandments is a source of joy as we experience God’s power to put sin to death in us and bring forth order, self-discipline and holiness. Hope too ought to distinguish us from a world that is often cynical and thinks sin is inevitable. To this world we are not only to declare that the Commandments are possible and bring joy, but to demonstrate it in our very lives. We are to be zesty, passionate, alive and free from sin in Christ. Yet sadly, we Christians are more known merely for what we are against. Too many Christians are not spicy, do not really add flavor, but are more like bored believers, depressed disciples, fearful faithful, and the frozen chosen. In our best moments though look what spicy things the faith has contributed: Art, music, churches, hospitals, universities, the scholastic and scientific methods, holidays (just a mispronunciation of Holy Days). Note how our tradition and Scriptural teaching of justice mercy, love, and the dignity of the human person has blessed the world. Do you bring spice to other’s lives? Hope and joy? Scripture says, Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you. (1 Peter 3:15). Well that means that people notice a hope in you! Do they? How?
2. Salt Preserves – Before refrigeration, people often used salt to cure or persevere meat. The salt killed the bacteria and other microorganisms that caused rot and decay. We as Christians are called to prevent further decay in this sin soaked world. The truth that we proclaim is meant to preserve people from the decay of sin and over-indulgence. Chastity, justice, generosity, the proclamation of the truth, and so forth, are like a salt that preserves this world from decay. We must be salt, if we are not, nothing else is. YOU are the salt.
3. Salt heals – In the ancient world salt was used on wounds. It helped stop bleeding, it killed bacteria and prevented further infection. So too the Christian faith. Through our doctrinal and moral teaching, and our living of it, we are called to bring healing to this world wounded by sin, strife, war, jealousy, anger, bitterness, retribution, promiscuity, unfaithfulness, greed, and countless errors. The Word of God and his plan is a healing medicine for what ails this world.
4. Salt burns – Yes, salt stings when applied to wounds. We Christians aren’t just sugar and spice and everything nice. When salt is applied to wounds it burns and often causes loud protest. The truth stings, and the truth of the Gospel can be irritating to a world that is wounded by sin. But, despite the protests of our world, the sting is a healing sting. It is driving out the bacteria and disease of the world and preventing further infection. Just because people protest the Church and howl in complaint at the truth of the Gospel, does not mean we have done anything wrong. The protests often mean we are doing exactly what we must.

III. The Destination of Salt – Note that the Lord says you are the salt of the EARTH. He did not say you the salt of the Church. For salt to be effective it has to get out of the shaker! Too many Christians are bold in the pew but cowards in the world. They will speak of the faith in the relative security of the Church and among certain friends. But don’t ask them to preach to their spouse, co-worker, even children. That’s too scary. And don’t even think to ask them to knock on doors or to go to the local mall and witness, or stand in front of an abortion clinic.

But salt in the shaker is useless. It has to come out of the shaker to make any difference. You don’t salt salt. Witnessing to fellow Christians may have a limited benefit, but it is not really the true destination of salt. The salt has to go forth. When the priest or deacon says the Mass is ended go in peace, he might as well be holding up a salt shaker and shaking it.

It’s long past time for the salt (you and me) to go forth. Consider:

• In the last fifty years there has been a 560% increase in violent crime. It’s time for the salt to work.
• There are 1.7 million abortions each year in this nation.
• Since 1970 there has been a quadrupling of divorce rates. And if the overall number of divorces has declined recently it is due more to people not getting married in the first place. It’s time for the salt to work.
• 43% of children today are no longer living with both their biological parents. That’s a tripling in the number of children living in single-parent homes since the 70s. It’s time for the salt to work.
• As the family breaks down what happens to our young:
  • A quadrupling in juvenile arrests,
  • 400% increase in births outside of wedlock,
  • 1 million Teenage pregnancies annually,
  • three million teenagers are treated annually for sexually transmitted diseases.
  • 200% increase in the teenage suicide rate,
  • dropping in the average SAT scores,
  • 2/3rds of high school students have experimented with illegal drugs.
  • It’s time for the salt to work.
• In the schools you cannot pray or mention religion, but condoms are freely available and all sorts of aberrant and alternative lifestyles and philosophies are openly promoted.
• Parental consent is required for a child to go to the zoo or get an aspirin but in many states abortion referrals are made without parental consent.
• Our neighborhoods are devastated by poverty, injustice, crime and despair.
• All this has happened on our watch. It’s time for the salt to work.
• This world needs for the salt to get out of the shaker and do it’s work of seasoning, purifying, and preserving.

IV. The Designation of Pure light – You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house. – Here too, much that is similar can be said. You don’t light light. It is the darkness that needs the light. Light is meant to be seen. But there are too many undercover Christians, secret agent saints, and hidden holy ones. Jesus didn’t light our light to have it hidden under a basket out of fear or secrecy. He wants the Church, he wants you and me, to shine. He wants every Christian to be a light so that it’s like a city on a hill! He wants us to shine so that we can’t be hid.

V. The Details of light: Jesus goes on to say, Let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father.”Notice four things about this light:

1. The CAUSE of the Light – See that little word: “Let.” We are to yield to Christ, to allow him to shine through us. He is the cause of our light. Let your light shine. There’s an old Gospel song that says, When you see me trying to do good, trying to live as a Christian should, It’s just Jesus, Jesus in me.
2. The COST of the light – The light is to shine, but there is no shining without burning. To shine costs us something. It may be Christ’s light but he shines through us. This means sacrifice. It means letting him use you. It means not always sleeping when you want to, it means not just sitting at home and saying “Ain’t it awful.” It means getting out and getting involved. It means being “out there” and risking a few things. It means being targeted, visible, and identified with someone (Jesus) who is hated by many. And in a world that prefers the darkness to light (cf John 3:19-21) it means being called harsh, out of touch, hateful, etc. There is no shining without burning.
3. The CONCRETENESS of the light – Letting our light shine is no mere abstract thing. Jesus speaks of deeds. It involves concrete behavior. Your light shines by the way you live, the choices you make, the behavior you exhibit. It’s when Christians get married and stay married, stay faithful to their commitments and are people of their word. It’s when we tell the truth instead of lie, live chastely instead of fornicating, are courteous, and respectful. It’s when we respect life, stop reckless driving and all other reckless and risky behavior. Our light shines when we clean up our language, give to the poor and work for justice. Our Light shines when we refuse to purchase pornographic, violent or degrading materials. Our light shines when we love instead of hate, seek reconciliation, and pray for our enemies instead of seek vengeance. Our light shines when we walk uprightly and speak the truth in love, without compromise. That’s when the light begins to shine.
4. The CONSEQUENCE of the Light– God is glorified when our light shine. We do not act or get involved merely to satisfy our own anger, or to fight for our own sake. We are light to glorify God. It is not about our winning, it is about God shining and being glorified. Too often when we do get involved we can get confused and merely seek to win an argument, rather than glorify God. We can seek for our own priase rather than to have God glorified. We need to pray for good intentions for it is possible to do the right things for the wrong reason. The desire result is God’s glory not our glory.

OK, Pass the salt and put on the lights!

Here’s another video from Fr. Francis Martin here in DC. As he spoke, I was shoutin a few Amens and saying “Make it plain preacher!”

There are different ways to look at life. One saying goes: “The good is the enemy of the best.” Meaning, that we sometimes settle for second best when we should aim higher. This statement is not without its place, for excellence is something for which to strive.

And yet, there is another saying that goes: “The Best is the enemy of the good.” For it sometimes happens that, in striving for the perfect thing, we miss the truly good in other things. Frankly this world is in a fallen state, and less the fully perfect. Likewise you and I are incomplete, unfinished, imperfect. Yet this does not mean that we lack anything good, or that this imperfect world has nothing to offer.

I suppose that, being more than midway through my expected life, I have moved from the perfectionist world of the first saying to the contented world of the second saying, though both have their place. But I have come to learn that contentedness is a very great gift, and that true perfection waits till heaven.

There is yet another saying that goes: “Unrealistic expectations are premeditated resentments.” For it frequently happens that many, having an insistence that life should be a peach, are resentful to discover that, even a peach has a pit. And expecting everything to be just peachy is a sure-fire recipe for resentment, discouragement and depression.

I think this is one problem with marriage today. Despite our current tendency to be cynical regarding just about everything, I have noticed that many still have very high ideals about marriage: that it will be romantic, joyful, fulfilling, and that love will solve every problem.

But this not realistic. Marriage is life. And life has ups and downs, things we like, and things we wish were different. There is no perfect spouse, and there is no perfect marriage. There are many good marriages that are far from perfect. Many decent spouses who do not live or act perfectly.

And when one enters a marriage with high expectations, they may be tempted to seize on the negative things, and magnify them, because they are not perfect, and resentments begin to build. And its sad really, but the marriage may not actually be that bad, and the less than ideal spouse not really so awful.

But the best becomes the enemy of the good, and decent things are trampled underfoot in an illusive search for the perfect, the best, the ideal.

Indeed, there is yet another saying that goes: “Many people want their marriage to be ideal, and if there is any ordeal, they want a new deal.”

We do a lot of this, discarding the good in an illusive search for the best or the perfect. There is always a better parish, a better Church, a better job, a better boss, a better house, a better car, a better neighborhood, a better deal.

But there is something about being able to accept the good, even the imperfect, and to be content with it. There’s something freeing and serene about not letting the best become the enemy of the good. The perfect will come, but probably not before heaven. In the meantime the good will suffice. And sometimes we don’t see it as good until we accept that the best and the perfect will have to wait.

And all this occurred to me as I watched this video about a “man” who creates a work of art. And he loves it. But then notices an imperfection and goes on a reckless errand to make it perfect. In the end he learns to love what is. To some extent this has been my journey, and I pray yours too.

In yesterday’s blog post, I sought to explore the details Original Sin and to convey that there are subtleties and stages to the sin that have something to teach us. The sin was more than eating a piece of fruit, there were things that led up to it, both externally and internally, which the text reveals.

In yesterday’s post I also mentioned that it was worth exploring how the sacred text speaks of the Sin of Adam, and differentiates it to some extent from the sin that Eve commits. In fact, Original Sin, biblically, is properly denoted as the sin of Adam. It is Adam’ Sin not Eve’s that we denote as Original Sin (cf Rom 5:12 inter al).

It is not that Eve did not sin, or that her actions have no interest for us. Yesterday’s post focused a lot on the stages she goes through. But Rather, as the head of his household, and the human family it is Adam who bore the responsibility, and thereby incurs the sin that we call “Original Sin” or the “Sin of Adam” which comes down to all of us.

As you might be able to see, this blog post isn’t going to be very politically correct, and it is just going to get worse from here. For, in striving to differentiate Eve’s sin from Adam’s I would like to take up a very controversial text from St. Paul. While the specific text comports poorly with modern notions, two cautions are in order for those of us who read the text:

First, we ought to remember that it is a sacred text, and even if St. Paul may draw some of his reflections on the cultural experience of the time, he gives theological reason for what he rights, not just the practices of the time.

Secondly however we also remember that one verse from St. Paul is not all of St. Paul, and certainly not all of Scripture. What Paul says rather absolutely in the verse that follows, he qualifies to some extent and other places as we shall see.

With this in mind, let’s examine the controversial text and strive to see the distinctiveness of Adam’s sin from Eve’s. St. Paul writes:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner (1 Tim 2:11b-14)

Many, upon reading the text like this, so astonishingly out of step with modern thinking, are prone simply dismiss it as a disciplinary relic of some past dark age. It is debatable whether the edict that women should be silent, and have no teaching authority over a man are in fact mere disciplinary norms that we are not required to observe today. It is also debatable how absolute Paul’s words are. For Paul speaks elsewhere the women as catechists (e.g. Phoebe Rom 16:1) spiritual leaders and benefactors (eg. Lydia) in the early church communities. Elsewhere too he makes provisions for when a woman is to speak in the assembly and that if she does she is to cover her head (1 Cor 11:5) etc. So what St. Paul says here he distinguishes elsewhere in a way that allows for some provision that women both speak and teach the faith as Catechists etc.

In the quote from first Timothy above, the context seems rather clearly to be that of the family and marriage, wherein Paul affirms the headship of the husband, as he does elsewhere in Ephesians 5:22, Colossians 3:18, and also as does Peter (1 Peter 3:1-6)

There is another text where Paul speaks of women being silent in the Church. In 1 Corinthians 14. The context there seems to be liturgical, thus we read:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Cor 14:34-35)

Here again, there are legitimate debates about how strictly the silence is to be interpreted. Generally, Church practice has understood this to mean that women are not to give the official teaching in the liturgy that we refer to as the sermon or homily. And this stricture has been observed from antiquity down to the present day by reserving the homily to the bishop, priest or deacon. In more recent times there have been allowances for women to serve as  lectors, cantors, singers etc. But the official teaching moment of the homilies still reserved to the male clergy and the Magisterium still consists of Bishops and the Pope.

Prescinding from legitimate debates about how absolutely or strictly to interpret St. Paul’s restrictions, or whether or not some of these things are cultural artifacts that can be adjusted, what I really wish to focus on the theological reasoning regarding the difference between Adam and Eve’s sin of which St. Paul speaks. Again, he says

For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner (1 Tim 2:13-14)

So, St Paul begins by saying that Adam was formed first, then Eve. And thus here he teaches that the husband has headship, authority, as he says elsewhere, The husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the the Church (Eph 5:22).

But in terms of Original Sin, which concerns us more here, Paul says that Adam was not the one deceived, it was the Eve who was deceived. Thus St. Paul speaks of Eve’s sin as different than Adam’s. She was deceived and so sinned, But Adam was not not deceived.  His sin lay elsewhere.

Of the fact of her deception, Eve or self as a witness, for she says, “The serpent tricked me and so I ate it.” (Gen 3:13) But of Adam’s sin, God says “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it…” (Gen 3:17).  Thus, Adam’s sin lay in his willingness to allow his wife to tempt him.

Now course, dear reader, you were warned that this was not going to be a politically correct blog post. These sorts of teachings grate on modern ears. But of course this does not make them untrue.

Perhaps a little additional reflection may help to avoid knee-jerk reactions to either gloat or become angry. Adam and Eve’s sins are described differently and can also be understood as a kind of weakness that each of them was particularly susceptible to: she to deception, he to being swayed by Eve’s feminine mystique and beauty.

St. Paul does not simply locate these two weaknesses in Adam and Eve as individuals, but also as male and female. Hence St. Paul seems to teach that a woman ought not have a solemn teaching authority in the Church because of a woman’s tendency to be deceived.

Why might this be, that a woman could be more easily deceived? Perhaps it is rooted paradoxically in a woman’s strength. Among the strenghts that women more generally manifest is to be more naturally spiritual, and also to be more naturally prone to be a source of unity and peace in the heart of the family. And while these are wonderful strengths, they can, in certain circumstances, also open the person to deception. For if one seeks to easily to make peace, they may compromise with error and sin. And though being open to spiritual things is of itself good, there can be spiritual concepts that are erroneous, and to these one ought not be open.

Not only is a woman possibly more prone to these, but should she cede to them, she can also have undue power over her husband and men who may well be drawn by her beauty to set aside their better judgment.

And this is, to my mind what St. Paul is getting at here in saying even was deceived and Adam was not, therefore a woman cannot have teaching authority in the Church. There was also a warning in ancient Israel that men should not take foreign wives since they might confuse a man’s heart into the worship of their foreign gods. A man’s heart can easily be swayed by a beautiful and influential woman.

And thus, addressing a double threat, St. Paul forbids women to have teaching authority in the Church and ties it back to the archetypal incident of Adam and Eve. Eve was deceived, and then was able to turn and seduce her husband to sin.

In modern times it may well be that St. Paul’s caution is affirmed by the modern problem of Liberal Protestant denomination that have a large number of women leaders. It is these very denominations which have moved in this direction who also have departed significantly from the orthodox Christian faith, deny basic tenets of the Trinity, of moral teaching and biblical interpretation. It is not only women, but there is a high correlation between denominations that embraced women leaders and a departure from orthodox Christian belief.

Have I been politically incorrect enough for you? The combox is open. But recall that the chief focus I am interested here is on the different descriptions of the Sin of Adam and the Eve’s sin.