In the ideal world, everything goes off without a hitch. But in the real world there’s usually a glitch. To some extent Hollywood and TV exaggerate the perfection notion for us. We watch movies and TV shows where everything goes off like clockwork and there are no failures, except where that advances the plot.
But the perfect scene on TV or in the movies may have required dozens of “takes” to get it right. Even then, splicing of scenes may be required to make the whole thing seamless.
But in the real world things are not always perfect. People show up late, or don’t have the expected reaction. Things go awry, technologies fail, computers freeze, accidents happen.
Every now and then things seem to go perfectly only to discover that not everyone liked what went perfectly! We once had what I thought was a perfect parish event, only to find out that some thought it was too long, others thought it was too short. And yes, a few liked it just fine.
Alas, the human condition. I read a book some years ago called, “Spirituality of Imperfection.” In effect the book argues that God has placed the perfect in our heart to make us strive for and desire heaven. But he allows us to experience imperfection to teach us humility, without which we will never attain to heaven.
Imperfection is something to be accepted with humility. If we do this we are learning wisdom. It is the human condition to strive for that which is best and perfect and never give up on that quest. But the human condition is also to be able to accept with humility that which is ordinary, and imperfect; that which is our very selves and a seldom perfect world. Keep your feet on the ground and keep reaching for heaven!
One of the more common features of discussion and debate in the modern setting, often so polarized polemical, is the problem of “all or nothing thinking.”
All or nothing thinking is a kind of cognitive distortion which is forgetful that life often has subtlety, and that, between two positions, there may be middle ground which can and should be considered.
All or nothing thinking also has a strong influence the discussion of issues today. If the person articulates position, or point of view on some topic, they are often presumed by many to hold that position in an extreme sort of the way, without any distinction or qualifications.
I encounter a lot of this, writing on the blog, and in public speaking. If, for example, I say “A” is important, and we ought to consider “A” and give it some more attention, inevitably there will be some readers, and listeners who will say, “Oh yeah! Well what about B and C and D? Are you saying they’re not important at all?”
Of course I am saying no such thing. In the world of ideas, to hold “A” is not thereby to exclude other concepts that might actually balance and help distinguish. But those who engage in all or nothing thinking, and increasingly common problem today, interpret the upholding of “A” to be exclusive of other concepts. This makes them react either with extreme support (as in, “Tell it like it is!”), or extreme hostility.
To cite a recent example here on the blog, I recently wondered aloud if perhaps our life lacks some depth because, instead of living locally and more intensely in communities of more natural distance, we tend to live in more selective communities that are often far-flung, either by physical or virtual distance.
One instance of this tendency is the current practice by increasing numbers of Catholics to attend Mass, not in their neighborhood church, but in some distant community more to their liking, either liturgically or for some other reason.
While such a practice is certainly permitted, I simply proposed that those who engage in it, should consider that they are going to be less deeply involved in the parish that is 30 to 45 minutes away from where they live.
I was surprised at the strong reaction with this observation provoked. A lot of the reactions were rooted precisely in all or nothing thinking. Some of the reactions were strong enough that I did not post them, due to rather uncharitable descriptions of church life. But the general gist of them went something like this, “Oh! So you are saying I have to attend my local church with dancing girls, a crazy pastor, and all sorts of hideous practices, rather than go to a distant parish which is sound, with a good liturgy and teaching?!”
Of course I am not saying any such thing. For that would be all or nothing thinking. Rather what I am saying is that, among the things we should consider when we attend Mass, is physical distance. There my, in fact, be good reasons for us to attend not the neighboring church, but a more distant one. But other things being equal, physical proximity is a good thing, and should be part of our considerations.
While I would think that my proposition of proximity as one factor, among many, would be understood as such, I find increasingly, that many think that I am speaking absolutely. I am not, and find their presumption puzzling.
But I am finding that many today, more than in the past, do divert quickly to all or nothing thinking. This then often provokes strong negativity, even hostility.
I am not sure where this increase in all or nothing thinking comes from, but I suspect it has a lot to do with the increasingly polarized and polemical nature of our culture. This quality is in turn generated by the culture wars, and the “been in the storm too long syndrome.” The television new cycles, especially the 24 hour news channels, also tend to present life in a debate format. Indeed, presenting everything as a battle, and emphasizing hard edgy commentary sells. The quick shorthand of TV also simplifies things to soundbites and simple camp designations like “right wing” “Left wing” and extremist labels.
There is also simplification of people such that if the person opposes abortion, they must be Republican. If they oppose the death penalty they must be a Democrat.
Life, of course is not really quite so simply categorical, and people are little more complicated than that. Ideas are not always understood or advocated in undiluted ways either. But careful distinctions generally makes for “poor” TV. Categorical soundbites sell better. And the more usual and natural human experience of seeing a certain idea in a world of ideas, and balanced by a careful interaction of those ideas, is usually lost on TV debate formats and advocacy journalism.
Surely, as a man of faith, I will tell you but there are absolutes. But even absolute truths, often balance each other and require context to be properly understood. Jesus is fully divine. This is absolutely true. It is also absolutely true that Jesus is fully human.
All or nothing thinking has a hard time negotiating the delicacies and distinctions of balanced truth, or the the complex interactions of the world of ideas. And many things in our culture fuel this unhealthy cognitive distortion.
What then is the remedy for all or nothing thinking? In a word, I would propose the remedy to be “discernment.” The root meaning of the word discern, in its Latin roots, means to sift, to sort, or to distinguish. Thoughtful discernment is an important remedy for the polarized, polemical, all or nothing thinking of our current cultural setting.
Respecting the context of an argument, and the intentions of someone who proposes that idea, are also important and helpful. While it is true that some do present ideas in an all or nothing way, most people present ideas or points of view in a way that holds other things equal, in a way that is presumes and respects that other factors must often be considered. As a general rule seems reasonable to assume that if a person is presuming idea “A”, they did not thereby exclude principles B,C or D, but only that “A” should be given due consideration.
In effect, we presume good will on their part and intelligence as well. Such attitudes go along way to avoiding misunderstanding and hostility. If we wonder how idea “A” interrelates with B,C or D we can always ask. But we need not presume that our interlocutor means what he says in an absolute sense. We can also engage in our own discernment, as we sift, and sort and distinguish ideas. By discernment, we can retain what is good, distinguish were necessary, and balance ideas against one another.
For the reasons stated, reasonable discourse is becoming less common today. All or nothing thinking is one of the reasons for this we do well to identify this cognitive distortion, know it’s moves and properly rebuke it, where necessary.
In the Gospel from this past Sunday the Lord spoke of us giving away all we had to come and follow him. TO many that sort of talk seems crazy and we wonder how we can ever do it. But in fact we WILL all do it, as we finally die to this world and have our only treasure in Heaven.
As a priest it has been my privilege to accompany many on their final journey as they prepare for death. Some have gone quickly, others have lingered for years in nursing homes. From a pure worldly perspective, death seems little less than a disaster and a cause for great sadness. But from a perspective of faith there is something “beautiful” going on.
I know you may think it bold that I describe it this way, but in the dying process something necessary and beautiful is taking place. It is born in pain but it brings forth gifts and glory if we are faithful.
In particular I see two scriptures essentially fulfilled in many who are dying.
I. And Jesus said, “Unless you change and become like little children you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 18:3). When I walk the halls of nursing homes I behold a rather astonishing thing: Men and women who raised families, ran businesses, protested bravely in the Civil Rights Movement, fought wars, gave sage advice to their children, commanded respect in their workplace and communities…, most of these have become like little children.
Some can no longer walk, some need to be fed, some cry and need consolation, some hold dolls, many wear diapers, some can no longer talk, many need constant care. “Ah, how tragic,” the world says. But an increasing part of me sees a beauty, for they are changing and becoming like little children. A kind of innocence is being restored, and a complete dependence, without which they may never make it to heaven. Now their status as little children is fully evident and they become humble enough for heaven.
Painful but beautiful, very beautiful.
A very dear friend of mine died a few years ago. Catherine had been the Pastoral Associate and business manger of the parish of my first pastorate. I depended on her for practically everything, and she knew just about everything, having been at the parish for over 50 years. Rather suddenly, she came down with a rare and aggressive form of Alzheimer’s disease. Within six months of diagnosis she no longer remembered anyone. And yet there was a childlike joy that came over her. She had a favorite doll she hugged close and when I would walk in the room she would light up. She no longer recognized me as far as I could tell but she loved company. And she would sing, without clearly understood words but it seemed a kind of childlike nursery song.
A remarkable thing to see. Here was a woman I had so thoroughly depended on now in such a state. But she was happier than I had ever seen her. She had become like a little child, and it was clear that God was preparing her for heaven. That was a gift, though a painful one.
And another great gift was this: Almost to her last day, she never failed to recognize Jesus in the Eucharist. Long after she had stopped recognizing anyone else, she still received communion with great devotion. She might be humming or looking around, but as soon as I reached in my pocket for the pyx, she stopped, looked and made the sign of the cross and folded her hands. That was years of training and faithfulness. It was a beautiful testimony of her undying faith in the Eucharist and her last lesson to all of us.
II. There is only one thing I ask of the Lord, this alone I seek, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life and gaze on the beauty of the Lord within his temple.(Psalm 27:4)
Now I suppose most of us who are still healthy and reasonably active would have a hard time really praying this prayer absolutely. The fact is we want a lot of things: a pay increase, creature comforts, good health, we want for the project we are working to go well, and yes, somewhere in all that, God too and heaven, but later. You understand, heaven can wait.
And yet how obtuse our desires can be. It’s really quite strange to want anything more than God and heaven, but, fact is, many struggle to want God more than the things of this earth. Somehow God has to gently purge us of earthly desires so that, little by little, all we want is Him.
And here too the dying process is so important and beautiful. Little by little in life we give back to God our abilities, our health, many of our loved ones. And finally we are led to that place in our dying days when we are given the grace to give everything back.
I remember my father saying to me in his final weeks, “I just want to be with God.” I heard my grandmother say that too, and many other I have accompanied on their final journey, “I just want to be with God.” And they meant it too. It wasn’t a slogan now. They had given everything back, their treasure was now in heaven. They had sold all they had for the “pearl of great price.” Now they could sing the words of the old spiritual: “You may have all this world, just give me Jesus.”Indeed, they had sold, given away, everything they had, and now they were ready to follow Jesus.
For just about all of us it will take the dying process to get us to the place where we too can say, “There is only one thing I ask of the Lord, this alone I seek, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life and gaze on the beauty of the Lord within his temple.”
And so there it is, the “beauty” of dying. It is a strange and painful beauty to be sure, but it is beautiful nonetheless. In an age of euthanasia that sees no purpose, no value in the dying process, we do well to behold and proclaim its strange but true beauty. We ought not fail to recognize the dignity of the dying who fulfill scripture as they make their final passage.
Surely we grieve, but through faith we also perceive a strange and wonderful beauty.
One of the finest hymns about dying was written by Henry F. Lyte in 1847. He wrote this as he approached his own death from tuberculosis:
Abide with me; fast falls the eventide;
The darkness deepens; Lord, with me abide;
When other helpers fail and comforts flee,
Help of the helpless, oh, abide with me.
Swift to its close ebbs out life’s little day;
Earth’s joys grow dim, its glories pass away;
Change and decay in all around I see—
O Thou who changest not, abide with me.
Hold Thou Thy cross before my closing eyes;
Shine through the gloom and point me to the skies;
Heav’n’s morning breaks, and earth’s vain shadows flee;
A couple months back, I wrote an article asking, what What was the Golden Age of the Liturgy? For it would seem, that every period has had its challenges, and also, it’s good points. The question of what is the golden year, the paradigm, is most pertinent among traditional Catholics, who largely regard the Golden age of the liturgy to be at some point in the past.
Though the Traditional Latin Mass is celebrated according to the form it had in 1962, most traditional Catholics would set the ideal year, the Golden age, long before that. Yet, there is great debate as to what that year should be. Informal inquiry among traditional friends of mine yielded various results. Many look back to the mid-1940s, still others set the date at the turn of the last century, with Pius X’s reforms. Still others, go back to the 16th century, just after Trent , still others all the way back the 5th century.
Recently however a priest friend of mine, a priest and friend I consider to be very solid and thoughtful, asked me to consider that this is the golden age of the liturgy. He is a priest, about 10 years older than I, but ordained later, a fine musician, classically trained, well read in Latin and Biblical Greek, and well acquainted with the history of the Church. His contention, that this is a golden age of the liturgy, is evidenced by his observation that, perhaps as never before, many are deeply engaged, and well aware of the critical questions of the liturgy, and have a highly developed sense of their own role in the worship of God.
He does not root his vision merely in modern notions of the liturgy. For indeed, there is all whole cadre of laypeople concerned for, and devoted to, the Traditional Latin Mass. Yet unlike many of their forbearers who attended the Latin Mass, say in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, they are passionately involved, and follow the liturgy carefully through the use of their missals, and their awareness of liturgical details, details of which their grandparents were either unaware, or uninterested.
It is also true that there are others engage in more modern forms of the liturgy, but who are also passionate, involved, and aware of their legitimate roles. There are lectors, who are well-trained, there are Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (I know, I know) who are needed, and aware of their role and the limits of their involvement. Servers, ushers, and choir members are also involved, active, and increasingly, well-trained.
Clergy too, especially younger clergy, are more aware of the rubrics, and the meaning of liturgical customs, and carefully observant of them. This goes for both the older, Traditional Latin Mass, and for the Ordinary Form. It is also far more common for the clergy to teach and draw the faithful into the deeper meaning in the liturgy.
Yes, both clergy and laity, are increasingly attentive and conscientious in terms of their role and the meaning of the liturgy. There is a greater flourishing of traditional forms of the liturgy as well as legitimate and diverse forms of the ordinary form of the Mass.
I know, some of you will say “But father, but Father! What about the dancing girls, what about too many Eucharistic ministers, what about… what about…” I will not deny that there are abuses, and excesses in modern expressions of the liturgy. But the dirty little secret is, there have always been such things.
Get in your time machine and go with the to the 1940s. Yes, even then, there were problems: mumbled Latin, rushed hurried gestures, half genuflections by the priest, poor sermons, and completely omitted sermons, 22 minute Masses, even on a Sunday morning, the rejection of Gregorian chant as “too complicated” and the replacing of it with poorly sung, even bellowed recto tono (usually 8th tone) chanting by Mrs. Murphy in the choir loft. The overall refusal of the sung liturgy in favor of low mass, to a fault. True, every mass could not be sung, but at least one, preferably several masses on Sunday should have been sung. But rarely were they, and up to a dozen masses were celebrated in the local parish all before noon (upper church and lower church – 6:00 am, 6:30, 7:00, 7:30, 8:00, 8:30, 9:00 (upper and lower church), 9:30 (upper and lower church), 10:00 (sung), 11:00, 11:30), often rather rushed, hurried and in a kind of mass production, factory sort of way. Some of the priest from that era tell me they’d go out and start distributing communion at the rail right after the homily while the priest went up to the altar and said the current Mass.
Few Catholics in those days were aware of many of the abuses and short cuts. Much was hidden, under poorly pronounced and mumbled Latin, rushed and hurried low masses etc. But the older priests assure me, priests that I trust, (not haters of the “bad old days,”) that things were often not beautiful in those days.
Neither today are things always beautiful. But now, as then, there are good things, and many are in fact engaged quite deeply in the celebration of the sacred liturgy. It is a sad truth that attendance is low, perhaps as low as 20% of Catholics on a given Sunday. But among those who do attend there is increasing awareness of what we do and why. We can only ask that this will grow. Abuses in liturgical practice must continue to be addressed in loving, but clear ways.
But I wonder, if perhaps my priest friend isn’t right. Perhaps we are in a golden age today.
I was privileged today to celebrate the novus ordo (ordinary form) on two occasions, and then, in the evening, to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass. All three congregations were engaged, aware, and excited about the liturgy that was celebrated. There was fine music, though from different traditions, at all three masses. There was traditional hymnody, a youth choir, gospel music, a Latin Gregorian schola, and a choir that sang Renaissance Polyphony.
I cannot tell you how blessed I feel, how it enriched, how excited I am to celebrate the sacred liturgy in all these different ways. I walk in a wider, and more diverse church then perhaps my brethren from the 40s and 50s would ever have imagined. But I wonder too how many of them would have heard a full Gregorian Schola singing from an unabridged Liber Usualis, and a full setting Renaissance Polyphonic Mass by Lassus by a 30-voice choir, back in 1946, as I did today.
Yes, I have the best of the old and the best of the new. I am a man most blessed. The people I love, all from very different traditions, love the liturgy, they love the Lord, and they encounter him in every Mass in ways quite rich and wonderful.
Maybe this is the golden age of the liturgy. Before you shake your head and wonder, “Is he insane!?” I ask you to consider if per chance you might know of an era of greater engagement and diversity. Perhaps you do not care for “diversity,” and would like the Mass to be in only one form. But be careful! For the form that might prevail might not be the exact form you prefer. Maybe diversity is okay, maybe it is what God knows is best for his Church now.
Maybe this is a golden age. Think about it…
The follow video I put together a couple of years ago wherein I pondered that maybe the TLM and more modern “charismatic” forms of the liturgy are not so far apart after all.
Photo credit; Bishop Slattery celebrating Novus Ordo, ad orientem in Tulsa Cathedral.
The Gospel today invites us to wrestle with fundamental, essential, and focal questions, What does heaven cost? And, Am I willing to pay it?
I. Problematic Pondering. A man asks Jesus, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
Now, his question is a good one, but it is problematic, because he couches it in terms of his own personal power and achievement. For, he wonders what he, himself, must do to attain eternal life.
The problem is, none of us have the holiness or the spiritual wealth or power to attain heaven based merely on what we do. The kind of righteousness we need can come only from God. The misguided question of the rich man betrays two common misunderstandings that we bring to the question of salvation and our need for redemption.
The first misunderstanding is rooted in a minimizing of how serious our condition is. We tend to think we’re basically in good shape, perhaps we have a few flaws, but basically we mean well and are decent people. We suspect that a few sacraments occasional prayers, and a few spiritual push-ups will be sufficient. But any look to the crucifix will belie our tendency to minimize. If it took the death of the Son of God, and a death that horrible to rescue me, then my condition must be worse than I commonly think with my darkened intellect.
Jesus once told the parable of a man who owed a huge debt, a debt of 10,000 talents (cf Mt 18:24). This man is us, and the amount is so huge as to be almost unimaginable. No man with such a debt is going to be able to work a little overtime, or get a part-time job to pay it off. 10,000 talents is beyond the national debt. You get the point? We’re in trouble, we have absolutely no ability to rescue ourselves.
A second misunderstanding is that we tend to intellectualize, and minimize what the law of God actually requires. “Okay, so I’m not supposed to kill anyone, no problem! I don’t like the sight of blood anyway! I’ve got this commandment down.” But this thinking minimizes the commandment and what it is wholeheartedly asking of us. This point will be developed more fully below, so here we mention it only in passing.
These two misunderstandings seem to under-gird the problematic nature of the rich man’s question. Jesus, in order to engage the man further, besides, in effect, to play along with the premise. And this leads us to the 2nd point.
II. Playful Prescription – Jesus decides to engage the man’s premise and says to him, You know the commandments: You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.”
Jesus is being playful here in the sense that he draws out the flawed premise of the man, that somehow he can attain to heaven by something he does.
It is interesting to ponder why Jesus only quotes the Second Table of the Law, the part pertaining to our love of neighbor, but he omits to draw from the First Table of the Law, the Commandments pertaining to the love of God. Perhaps we may see in this a premise by the Lord that the man does love God, for he is seeking the Kingdom of Heaven, and how to enter into it. Thus, the Lord focuses on the Second Table of the Law, which is in evidence in this man’s life, at least in this interaction with the Lord. Further, as Scripture says elsewhere, “How can you say you love God whom you do not see, if you do not love your neighbor whom you do see.” (1 John 4:20). Hence, the Second table of the Law, fleshes out the First table.
Now, mind you, the Lord is not affirming here that the keeping of the Commandments can save or justify us. For his even if we consider ourselves blameless, Scripture affirms, the just man sins seven times a day (Prov 24:16). Indeed we can affirm with Isaiah I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips (Is 6:5). And we must say with Paul, I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died for no purpose. (Gal 2:21).
While it is true, that the law gives us a necessary and clear frame of reference for what pleases God, in the end, its summons, “Be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy” (Lev 19:22), is not attainable through mere human effort, unaided by grace. Jesus makes it clear that when God says “be holy” he does not have in mind any mere human holiness, for Jesus says, “Be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48).
Thus Jesus is drawing out the problematic premise, of the man. But as we next see, the rich man does not take the hint.
III. Perceived Perfection – Strangely, and humorously to our mind, the man boldly says, Teacher, all of these I have observed from my youth.
Notice, that his perfection is a perceived perfection, for simply noting it in himself does not mean he actually has it in himself. Having heard Jesus quote the second table of the Law, he announces that he has observed all of these from his youth!
To be fair, his self-analysis was not uncommon for a Jewish man of his time. The Jewish people, had a great reverence for the Law, a beautiful thing in itself. But, the law tended to be understood by them in a fairly minimalist, legalistic, and perfunctory manner.
For example, a conversation with a scribe of the law about the duty to love one’s neighbor, the Scribe asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor.” (LK 10:29) As if to say, “If I have to love my neighbor, and I acknowledge my duty to do so, how can I so define neighbor as to be something manageable?” In other words, if justice comes to the law, and I honestly recognize that I have limits, then the law must have limits, and I need to define those limits in such a way that the keeping of the law remains within my power.
Jesus sets aside such thinking in the sermon on the Mount, (Matt 5-7), where he calls for the law to be observed, not in a minimalist sense, but in the sense that fulfills it, that is to say, fills it full. Thus He says it is not enough, not to kill, but that commandment requires of us that we reject everything that leads ultimately to killing, or wishing people were dead. Thus, the commandment not to kill requires not only that we not take life, but that we also banish from our heart and mind, by God’s grace, hateful anger, retribution, and revenge. The commandment not to commit adultery requires, not merely that we avoid breaking our marriages vows, but that, by God’s grace, we see banished from our heart and mind lustful, impure, and unrighteous sexual thoughts.
Hence, the Commandments, and precepts of the law cannot, and should not, be understood in a minimalist way. Thus, Jesus sets aside the usual manner of the people of his time to reduce the law to something manageable and then declare they have kept it. God seeks more than perfunctory observance, his grace desires to accomplish within us wholehearted observance. Hence, we need grace, in order to be saved, in order to qualify for anything that God calls holy.
So Jesus sets aside the rich man’s claims of righteousness, and now is ready to called question, “what does heaven cost?”
IV. Pricey Prescription – Yes, what does heaven cost? And the answer is, everything! Jesus, looking at him with love, says to him You are lacking in one thing. Go, sell what you have, and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.
Ultimately, what heaven costs, is to leave this world and everything in it, to go and possess God, and heaven. To have heaven, we must set aside this world, not only its life, but its pomp, its ephemeral glories, itss passing pleasures. You want heaven? Gotta leave here!
And though we know this, we often live in a way that seeks to postpone the inevitable and to ignore the joke that this world is ultimately playing on us. The world says, “You can have it all!” Yes, and then you die and lose everything. But we like to postpone facing that , we like to pretend that, perhaps, it ain’t necessarily so. We’re like the gambler who goes to the casino, thinking we will be the exception. But in the end, the house always wins. You can’t cheat life, and in the end, whatever we have, whatever we claim to have won, we lose.
In the end, there is only one way to attain the things of lasting value. Only what you do for Christ will last. The Lord says “Store up for yourselves treasure in heaven, that neither rust or moths can corrode, nor thieves break in and steal.” (Lk 12:33).
Notice that the Lord says that being generous to the needy and poor is a way of storing up treasure in heaven. Sadly, most of us aren’t buying it, thinking that clinging to it here is a way of keeping it. It isn’t. Whatever we have here, is slipping through our fingers like so much sand. The only way to keep it unto life internal is to give it away, to the needy, the poor, and to allow it to advance the kingdom of heaven and its values.
Otherwise, wealth is not only not helpful is harmful. There are many text in the Scriptures that speak of the danger and the harm of wealth, how it compromises our souls and endangers our salvation:
1. Mk 10:23-25 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
2. 1 Tim 6:7 for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world; 8 but if we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs.
3. Luke 16:13 “No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.“
4. Luke 6:24-25 “But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.
5. Mat 19:30 But many that are first will be last, and the last first.
6. James 2:5 Listen, my beloved brethren. Has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him?
Thus, while the Lord’s claim that heaven costs everything bewilders us, we cannot fail to see that it is true and that the world’s claims on us are rooted in a lie, in fake and passing declarations that somehow we can be secure in the passing glories the world. Yes, and then you die, end of glory. But we like the lie, and so we entertain it. But in the end, we give everything back, because it was never ours, it only seemed that way.
How foolish we are, how blind. And speaking of blindness, not that the Lord looked at the man with love. But somehow the man went away sad. That look of love from the Lord never reached his soul. If it had, the result would surely have been different.
And this leads us to the final point:
V. Powerful Possibility – So starting in shocking is this teaching, that even the apostles, who had in fact left everything to follow the Lord, are shocked by it. There they see, and are in touch with how deep this wound is in the human heart, how deep our delusion that the world and its goods can satisfy us. They see and know how strong and numerous are the hooks that this world has in us. Thus, they cry out “Then who can be saved!?” And Jesus responds “For man it is impossible, but not for God. All things are possible for God.”
Thus, in the end, salvation must be God’s work. He alone can take these tortured hearts of ours, so rooted in passing things, and make them willing to forsake all things for the kingdom of heaven. Only God can take our disordered love and directed to its proper end, the love rooted in God, and the things waiting for us in heaven. Only God can remove our obsession with the Titanic and place us squarely in the Noah’s Ark that is the Church, Peter’s barque.
Yes, God can give us a new heart, a properly ordered heart, our heart that desires first and foremost God’s love, a heart that can say You O Lord are enough, a heart that can say I gratefully receive Lord what you give me, and I covet nothing more. Thank you Lord, it is enough, you are enough.
Don’t miss the look of love that Jesus gave the young man, that he gives you. In the end, only a greater love, God’s love received, can replace the disordered love we have for this world.
St. Augustine says Such, O my soul, are the miseries that attend on riches. They are gained with toil and kept with fear. They are enjoyed with danger, and lost with grief. It is hard to be saved if we have them; and impossible if we love them; and scarcely can we have them, but that we shall love them inordinately. Teach us, O Lord, this difficult lesson: to manage conscientiously the goods we possess and not covetously desire more than you give to us. (Letter 203)
I prayed, and prudence was given me;
I pleaded, and the spirit of wisdom came to me.
I preferred her to scepter and throne,
and deemed riches nothing in comparison with her,
nor did I liken any priceless gem to her;
because all gold, in view of her, is a little sand,
and before her, silver is to be accounted mire.
Beyond health and comeliness I loved her,
and I chose to have her rather than the light,
because the splendor of her never yields to sleep.
Yet all good things together came to me in her company,
and countless riches at her hands. (Wisdom 7:7-11)
I dunno why, It just looks funny to see the Pope on the Phone:
Suggested caption: “No! Really this is the Pope! I really mean it! Please deliver three pizzas, extra cheese and Italian Sausage… No really! I am not kidding. This is me!”
Anyway here’s a little video I put together a few years back, some humorous pictures of the Pope. He is a very photogenic man. The music starts a little late on the video, but it does come.
One of the more plaintive cries in the Bible is found in Psalm 13. When I read it in the Latin Breviary, somehow its impact is stronger, more sorrowful:
Usquequo Domine?! Oblivisceris me in finem, usquequo avertis faciem tuam a me? Quamdiu ponam consilia in anima mea, dolorem in corde meo per diem? Usquequo…! (How long O Lord! Will you forget me unto the end?! How long will you turn your face away from me? How long must I take counsel in my soul, and sorrow in my heart all the day? How long!?) Psalm 13:1-2
There are just those times in our life when things don’t make sense, and we wonder why, and seeing no end in sight, we wonder how long. It is not just the suffering, it is not knowing why or how long, that intensifies the agony and makes up most of its content.
The theologian Jacques Philippe well describes the experience of this way:
In situations of trial, not knowing why we are being tested is often harder to bear than the testing itself. “What is the meaning?” People ask. “Why?” and they get no answer. When, by contrast, reason is satisfied, suffering is much easier to accept. It is like the doctor who hurts us–we don’t get angry with him because we understand that he does it to make us better. (Interior Freedom – Kindle Edition, 547-69)
Yes, it’s not knowing why or how long that is often the worst part. Our questions are not without merit, and God even seems to sanctify them by including them in the prayer book he inspired, the Book of Psalms. Yes, asking “Why,” & “How much longer!?” is part of our dignity, and our fundamental makeup. Again as Jacques Philippe notes:
Man has a thirst for truth, a need to understand, that is part of human dignity and greatness. To despise intelligence, its capacities, and its role in the human spiritual life would be unjust. Faith cannot do without reason; and nothing is more beautiful than the possibility given man of cooperating in the work of God…when our minds grasp what God is doing, what he is calling us to, how he is teaching us to grow, enable us to cooperate fully with the work of grace.… It is therefore good and right that we want to understand the meaning of everything in our lives. (ibid).
And so yes, our questions “why,” and “how long,” are understandable, even sanctified.
That said, even though our questions are valid, it does not mean that we will always get an answer. Indeed, our need to know everything requires some purification, some understanding of the limits of our ability to know.
On the one hand, there are some things that are not for us to know. For example if someone offends or harms us, we may call out for God and ask why. And yet, it is not God’s role, and might even be inappropriate for God, to reveal to us the secrets of another’s heart, their motives, and what the personal histories and hurts were that may have led them to act in a certain way. Frankly, there are some things that are simply not for us to know, that are none of our business.
Then too, there are other things, that are beyond our ability to know, such that, even if God did tell us why, all we would hear would be thunder. To some extent this is the answer that God gave Job, when Job asked “why” in reference to his sufferings. God reminded Job of all the magnificent things that He, the Lord, had done. He told Job, in effect, that if Job could understand all these things, then perhaps He, the Lord, would answer Job why things were going bad for Job and why the Lord had permitted it. And thus, Job realized that the answer to the question “why” was beyond him.
Strangely enough, I have often had this truth illustrated for me in the interactions that I have had with my pets. Recently, it was time for me to take my cat, Daniel, to the vet, something he dreads. Suddenly, in an instant, I appeared to him as an enemy, swooping down upon him, and placing him in a carrying cage. He cried with protest, meowing and caterwauling with such volume that the neighbors looked out their windows as I brought him to the car. All the way to the vet he bellowed, he cried, meowed, moaned and, caterwauled. I tried to explain to him,
“Daniel, it will be just fine, we’re just going to the vet to get a few shots that you need, and to get a quick checkup. You’ll be home in an hour!”
But Daniel is just a cat, he does not speaking English, and thus, all he heard from me was thunder. Nothing I would say could satisfy him. Indeed, I could not satisfy him with an answer, I could not console him, for he has only a cat brain which cannot understand the larger concepts like health, like the notion “temporary.” No, for him it was two hours of sheer terror, terror he did not understand or know when it would end. And, until we returned to the rectory and I opened the cage door in the familiar living room, he would not, he could not, understand or be consoled.
I think it is like this was God and us. Though our minds are certainly more rational than that of a cat, when it comes to comparing our puny minds to God, and the cat’s puny mind to God, I’m not sure the difference is that great. There are many things that God knows that we can not hope to know, things that he sees that we cannot hope to see. And were He to say, “I am doing thus and so, and this is why,” we would have no greater understanding of what he was saying than my cat does of me as I try to explain the terrifying car ride.
So, it is not wrong for us to ask why, and how long. Again, it is part of our dignity. But in the end, there is only so much we can know. Some things are just not of our business. Other things, are way above our pay grade. And God cannot reduce to mere human words what he is doing and whereof he acts.
In cases such as these serenity can only be found in finally acknowledging, and accepting that there are some things we cannot know, and that is enough that God knows what He is doing, and whereof he acts.
Jesus once told the apostles What I am doing, you do not understand now, but afterward he will understand (Jn 13:7). He also spoke to them of the day that they would see him again, and said, On that day, you will have no more questions to ask me (Jn 16:23). For now, there are plenty of questions, and only some answers. It is enough Lord, it is sufficient that you know.
In the readings for daily Mass the past few days we have been reviewing the faith journey of St. Paul who describes his personal history and also his authority in the second chapter of the Letter to the Galatians. The story is interesting for three reasons.
It can help correct notions that some have of Paul’s rapid assent to the office of apostle (Bishop) and affirm that he was not a lone-ranger apostle. He was a man who was formed in the community of the Church for some length of time, and did not go on Mission until he was sent.
It spells out Paul’s relationship to authority within the Church.
It shows forth an important aspect of being under authority and the prevailing need for fraternal correction in hierarchical structures.
Let’s take a look at each of these matters in turn.
1. On Paul’s conversion, formation and ascent to the office of Apostle (Bishop). Many have oversimplified notions of Paul’s conversion, and subsequent missionary activity. Many who have not carefully studied the texts of Acts, Galatians, and other references assume that Paul went right to work after his conversion as a missionary. But this was not the case.
At the time near his conversion Paul was described as “a young man” (neanias). Sometime after the death of Stephen he had his conversion, encountering the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. Immediately following his encounter with Christ he was blinded for three days and eventually healed by a Christian named Ananias who also baptized him (Acts 9:9-19).
Hereafter, according to Galatians, Paul went into the Desert of Arabia (Gal 1:17). Why he went, and for how long is not known. It is probably not wrong to presume that he went there to reflect and possibly be further formed in the Christian faith to which he had come so suddenly and unexpectedly. Was he there for several years as some scholars propose or just a brief time as others do? It is not possible to say with certainty but it would seem that some amount of time would be necessary to pray, reflect and experience formation in the Christian way, possibly with other Christians. A period of at least a year seems tenable and perhaps as many as three years. We can only speculate.
Paul then returned to Damascus and joined the Christian community there for a period of almost three years (Gal 1:18). While there he took to debating in the synagogues and was so effective in demonstrating that Jesus was the hoped for Messiah that some of the Jews there conspired to kill him.
He fled the city and went to Jerusalem (Acts 9:20-25). Paul states that he went there to confer with Cephas (Peter) (Gal 1:18). Paul seems to imply that he thought it was time to confer with Peter since he had begun to teach and even now was gaining disciples. Later he would describe the purpose of another visit to Peter and the other leaders: to present the Gospel that I preach to the Gentiles…so that I might not be running, or have run in vain (Gal 2:2). While there on this first visit he stayed for 15 days and also met James.
After this consultation he went home to Tarsus for a period of about three years. What he did during this time is unknown.
Barnabas then arrived and asked him to come to Antioch and help him evangelize there (Acts 11:25-26). He stayed there about a year.
He made another brief visit to Jerusalem to deliver a collection for the poor.
Upon his return to Antioch we finally see his ordination as a Bishop. The leaders of the Church at Antioch were praying and received instruction from the Holy Spirit to Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them (Acts 13:3). Thus, the leaders of the Church there laid hands on Barnabas and Saul and send them forth on Mission. Here we have an ordination and the source of Paul’s status as Apostle (bishop).
Notice however, this sending happens years after Paul’s conversion. Depending on how long we account his time in the desert we are talking about 7-10 years wherein Paul lived in community with other members of the Church and also conferred with Peter. He was not a self appointed missionary and his conversion required completion before the Church sent him forth. This going-forth he undertook only after being sent.
2. On Paul’s submission to authority – We can see therefore, that Paul was not a lone ranger. He did submit what he taught to Peter and later to others apostles and leaders (Acts 11 & 15). He states that to have preached something other than what the Church proposed would be to run “in vain” (Gal 2:2).
Here was a man who was formed by the community of the Church and who submitted his teachings to scrutiny by lawful authority.
Sent – Here was man who went forth on his missions only after he was ordained and sent.
Appointed other leaders – Further, Paul and Barnabas, as they went through the towns and villages on their missionary journeys, also established authority in each church community they founded by appointing presbyters in each town (Acts 14:23).
Upon completion of their first missionary journey they reported back to the leaders at Antioch who had sent them (Acts 14:27) and later to the apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 15). Hence we have an accountability structure in the early Church and a line of authority. Paul was no independent operator, or self appointed, self ordained leader. He both respected authority and established authority in the churches he established. He also makes it clear to the Galatians and others that he has authority and that he expects them to respect it.
3. But here is where we also see a fascinating and somewhat refreshing portrait of what true respect for authority includes. It is clear, from what we have seen, that Paul respected the authority of Peter and had both conferred with him early on and later set forth the gospel that he preached. However, there is also a description of Paul offering fraternal correction to Peter:
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (Gal 2:11-14)
There is something refreshing about this understanding of authority. It understands that having authority does not mean one is above reproof. Too many people shy away from speaking honestly to those in authority. There is an old saying about bishops: When a man becomes a bishop he will never again have a bad meal and he will never again hear the truth. Too many of us flatter those who have authority. In so doing we tend to isolate them. They do not have all the information and feedback they need to make good decisions. And then, we they do make questionable decisions we criticize them. Of course we seldom do this to their face. Rather we speak ill of them behind their back and continue to remain largely silent and flattering to their face. The cycle continues, and everyone suffers.
But here Paul stands face to face (κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην) with Peter and accuses him of a moral fault. Peter had taught rightly of the equality of the Gentiles but drew back from keeping company with them. We as Catholics teach of the infallibility of the pope but we do not teach that he is impeccable (sinless). Even those who teach rightly (as Peter did) sometimes struggle to fully live the truth they preach.
Accountability in the Church demands that we learn to speak the truth to one another in love, even if the one we must speak to has authority. People are often reticent to speak frankly to their Pastors. Bishops too are often isolated in this way. Even their priests often refrain from frank discussion of issues. In this Archdiocese I know that Archbishop Wuerl is very serious about consultation and he enjoys a vigorous airing of issues at the priest council, and other consultative bodies.
Clearly correction and/or frank discussion should be done charitably, but it should be done. Now Paul here is a little bolder than I would be, but he also lived in a different culture than I. As we can see from the Gospels and other writings Jesus and the Apostles really “mixed it up” with others. The ancient Jewish setting was famous for frank and vivid discussion of issues that included a lot of hyperbole. Our own culture prefers a more gentle approach. Perhaps the modern rule is best stated: Clarity with Charity.
Clarity – In the end, we show a far greater respect for authority by speaking clearly and directly to those in authority. False flattery is unhelpful, inappropriate silence does not serve, and speaking scornfully behind the backs of others is just plain sinful.
Charity – Again, this does not exclude the need for charity and proper respect both for age and for office. I have sadly found that those who have wished to correct priests and bishops in our current setting often go to the other extreme, using bold, disrespectful, even insulting language, name calling and impugning of motives. This is not necessary, and especially in our our culture is also ineffective.
So Paul demonstrates a sort of refreshing honesty with Peter here. He acknowledges Peter’s authority as we have seen but also respects Peter enough as a man to speak with him directly and clearly, to his face, and not behind his back.
This video is a brief summary of St. Paul’s life. Most scholars don’t agree with the concluding remark that Paul made it out of Roman prison and went to Spain. But there are two traditions in this regard:
