Author: Msgr. Charles Pope

Posted on

What St. Paul’s example as both believer and Bishop can teach us about authority

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.

  1. 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.
  2. It spells out Paul’s relationship to authority within the Church.
  3. 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:

Posted on

A Thousand Miles Wide and two inches Thick. A meditation on the importance of depth and promixity in life

One of the dangers to avoid in life is that things become 1000 miles wide and only 2 inches thick. Sometimes, it is better to have a few things, and experience them in depth, than to have many things but experience only the surface of them.

One of the most obvious and glaring examples of this, is our experience today of community. It is surely at least a thousand miles wide, indeed, its expanse is  global. But how deep for rich is it?  As never before, we can communicate at the global level.  I am aware for example, that people who read this blog, read from all over the world, in every time zone, on every continent in many countries.  On Facebook, I have 5000 friends, my YouTube page is also well visited and my recorded sermons are on iTunes. I’m “out there” in the “virtual world” and thousands also connect with me through their sites and projects and videos. I “know” and “interact” with a lot of people. Worldwide, instant communication with large numbers.

And in speaking about myself, I am likely describing you as well. Take a few pictures and, shazam , they’re out there on Google+, Picasa and Facebook and 500 people might see them in moments. If you write an article or read one, quick, (or should I say “Tweet”) you send the link and hundreds or thousands get it. Talk about communication!

But in all this communication, how deep is the communion? As never before we are “connected” but where is the experience of connectedness, of true community, of communion? Consider:

1. Most families rarely sit down to dinner together.

2. Courtship and marriage are becoming difficult and even rare. I cannot tell you how often that young people tell me today how hard it is hard to “meet” anyone. Though the opportunities seem greater due to easy transportation and communication devices, the actual “in-depth” experience implied by the term “meet” someone, is harder to come by.

3. Promiscuity, “hooking up,” are destructive of the deeper summons to intimacy,  and casual dating, and/or the predominance of mere “group” gatherings, have tended to erode the older notion of “going out on a date” and dating steadily in preparation for marriage.

4. Indeed, 40% of women today have never been married, and if you poll only women age twenty-five to forty the number is closer to 60%. Most couples who do finally get married, postpone that now until the early to mid thirties. And smaller numbers of those who finally do get married struggle to stay married. Of all women married today, only 36% of them are in their first marriage. Thus, in summary, marriage is rarer, later, and less successful than ever before. [1]

5. Smaller families – I goes without saying, with marriage being in such crisis that birthrates have plummeted, and the internal community of the family is a smaller and less rich experience than the larger nuclear and extended families of the past.

6. Most people no longer attend community meetings and seldom interact with their neighbors. Church attendance is not the only form of community meeting that has declined, in terms of numbers attending.

7. Few roots – Most people do not live and die in the community they grew up in, or work for the same company the whole of their career, but are more constantly on the move from job to job and place to place.

8. Fewer anchor institutions – Increasing numbers of Americans do not attend a neighborhood school, but go to “magnet” schools, private schools, or other far flung schools.

9. Increasing numbers of Catholics do not go to their neighborhood parish. In fact only 25% of Catholics go to Church at all. And of those who still go, increasing numbers commute to specialized parishes featuring particular “mixes” of preaching, liturgy, ethnic factors etc. The parish a Catholic attends may often be no where near where they live.

And thus we have modern life, a thousand miles wide but often less than two inches thick, a life that is increasingly “virtual,” far flung, highly selective and insular, outwardly focused but inwardly impoverished, rich in diversity, but poor in depth, filled with acquaintances but short on intimacy.

There are innumerable factors that have given rise to this modern experience. But in this post, I’d just like to emphasize one, and that is simply, “contiguity” or proximity.

“Contiguity” is here understood as the condition of being physically close, (from the Latin Contingere meaning to touch, or border upon, con (with) + Tangere (touch)).

“Proximity” comes also from the Latin proxima meaning near or neighbor.

We human beings are “Body-persons” That is to say, we are persons whose substance includes (but is not limited to) the physical dimension of reality. Having a body locates us in space. And, since our bodies are tied to the physical order there are going to be some limits that pertain to our ability to relate to others. Though we are able to be very mobile today, working and living thirty miles apart is still a huge factor in our lives, especially if there is traffic. Where ever “there” is, it is still going to take us time to get there, and the further things are physically apart, the more difficult it is going to be for us to have deep relationships with people who are “there.”

There is an inverse proportion between physical distance and things like involvement, attachment, passion, and connectedness. And, as we widen the physical coverage of our lives, the depths of our relationships narrow and become more shallow.

As a pastor, who knows the increasing concept of the “commuter parish” it is clear, in talking with my brother priests, that is much harder to engage people to enter more deeply into parish life through things like devotions, Bible study, religious ed for children, works of charity and community involvement.

Thus, while a parish may be blessed to have those who still attend due to things like historical ties, music and liturgical preferences, and other things like preaching and leadership skills by pastor or staff, the simple fact is, “commuter parishes” often go very silent in the mid-week.

Commuter parishioners also attend mass less often. That twenty to thirty minute commute, driving by five or six parishes on the way, is very easily disturbed by things like weather, getting up a little late, not being able to find one of the kid’s shoes etc. And though a parent might be devoted to a far flung parish, say  because it offers the traditional Latin Mass, their children my not be as connected, and they will not meet other children as easily, will probably not attend the parish school, or go to as many youth related events.

Why this lesser connection of commuters parishioners?  Because paved roads and sleek autos aside, thirty miles is still thirty miles. Even fifteen miles is going to take at least 30 minutes. It’s just a big factor for us “body-persons.”

There’s just something about contiguity, about being physically close to what matters in our life. Without a good amount of contiguity, and proximity, depth and quality suffer a LOT. Not being connected to the physical neighborhoods in which we live, and emphasizing far flung relationships or (worse) virtual ones, mean that a lot of depth and intimacy is lost. There’s just something about living close to the people we know that helps us know them better.

And while physical locale may limit the numbers and types of people we know, the depths of those relationships can be far better. In the “old days” so many spouses met simply by going to the local burger joint, or soda shop on a frequent basis, simply meeting by shopping at the same stores, or going to the same movie theaters. In the “old days” there was a lot more emphasis on the local high school dance, the football game, and other local things like parades, carnivals, etc. And when people were met at occasions like this, there was a stronger likelihood that they’d be able to follow up and meet again since “neighborhood” is just another way of saying, “the nearby hood”

There’s just something about being physically close. It’s part of the way we are made, as spiritual AND physical beings. And wandering too far afield, or casting our net too widely, has the cumulative effect of reducing the depths to which we experience life and people.

With all our mobility and far-flung interests, both actual and “virtual” we run the risk of a life that is a thousand miles wide and two inches thick.

Posted on

Working with the Preacher

We Catholic priests are not usually known for outstanding preaching. True, there are some among us who are gifted preachers, but as a group we compare poorly with Protestant Preachers at least insofar as delivery and creativity go.
 
I have commented elsewhere on the problem of poor preaching in our beloved Catholic Church(http://blog.adw.org/2009/07/uh-oh-catholic-preaching/) .
 
 
What I would like to do here is to note that the quality of preaching is not only dependent on the preacher but is also dependent upon the congregation. In our critique of Catholic preaching we tend to weigh in heavily on the priests’ shortcomings. But in this article I’d like to propose that our congregations in our parishes also have a role improving Catholic preaching.

My own experience as a priest powerfully underscores the role of congregation in helping to craft the preaching moment. I have served almost all of my 20 years in African American parishes. In these settings the congregation takes an active part in the preaching moment. Acclamations and affirmations such as “Amen!” “Go on!” “Make it plain preacher” “Hallelujah,” and the like are common. Hands are often raised in silent affirmation, nods of the head move through the congregation. Now all of this affects the preaching moment powerfully for me and helps it take shape and come to life.

There is also an air of expectation in the church as the Homily moment arrives. African American congregations want a good sermon and are eager to hear what the preacher will say. People expect to hear a word that will change them. I have heard some in the African American community refer to tangible energy in the room as “the hum.”

That there are high expectations of me is both encouraging and challenging. That I am expected to do well means I have to prepare, I have to pray, I have to summon my talent, memory for scripture and experience of culture and weave them into a homily that is from the heart but well prepared. High expectations encourage me to strive for sermons that are not just adequate but also aimed at the superlative. And the beauty is that it is not all up to me. The congregation knows its role and they pray and work with me when I preach and together we form a kind of partnership.

To be sure, I am the one who teaches with the authority that Holy Orders confers. But I am not alone, delivering a monologue of sorts to a largely passive audience. All this brings the preaching moment much more to life. There is an enthusiasm in the congregation that is contagious and leads me to enthusiasm for what I say.

A final observation here of mine would be the question of length. The usual length of a sermon in the African American Parishes is closer to a half an hour unlike the 10-12 minute lengths expected elsewhere. It is a great luxury to be able to spend a little more time preaching through the whole text of a gospel or epistle not just a thought or exhortation. Now I would never recommend to a priest that he preach a half an hour is he only has 10 minutes of material but my point is not that a sermon must be longer, but that congregations might relax a bit on the time concerns. Many of my brother priests feel very constrained by the expectation of a very brief sermon.

Two quotes to end with. One from recent times and one from antiquity. The first quote is from, the Scripture Scholar William Barclay who is commenting on how Jesus was expelled from the synagogue in Nazareth:

There can be no preaching in the wrong atmosphere. Our churches would be different places if congregations would only remember that they preach far more than half the sermon. In an atmosphere of expectancy the poorest effort can catch fire. In an atmosphere of critical coldness or bland indifference the most Spirit-packed utterance can fall lifeless to the ground. (The Gospel of Mark, p. 140)

The second quote is from Gregory the Great in his Homily on the Pastoral Office:

Pray then for us that we [preachers] may have strength to labor for you as we ought, that our tongue may not be slack to exhort, and that, having undertaken the office of preaching, our silence may not prove our condemnation at the tribunal of the just Judge. For oftentimes by reason of their own sins the tongue of preachers is tied, oftentimes on the other hand it is because of the sins of their people that the gift of eloquence is withheld from pastors. By reason of their own sins the tongue of preachers is tied, according to the words of the Psalmist, “ But to the sinner God hath said, Why dost thou declare My justices ? ” (Ps. xlix. 16.) And again, the voice of preachers is hindered because of the sins of the people, according to the words of the Lord to Ezekiel : “ I will make thy tongue stick fast to the roof of thy mouth, and thou shalt be dumb, and not as a man that reproveth, because they are an obstinate house ” (Ezec. iii. 26). As though He said expressly : The gift of eloquence is withdrawn from thee, because while the people offend Me by their sins they are not worthy to have the truth preached to them. Through whose fault it is that speech is withdrawn from the preacher is no easy matter to decide. But that the silence of the pastor is hurtful to himself sometimes, and to his flock at all times, is beyond all doubt. (Lib 2.4)

This video is an excerpt of a sermon of Dr. Martin Luther King “A Knock at Midnight.” Listen to the role that the congregations plays in the sermon. I realize that this sort of interaction with the preacher will not work in every congregation. Why in some suburban parishes if you started to “get happy” in Church the ushers might come to your side and give you the bum’s rush 🙂 But even if this sort of response isn’t available to you the priest will know when you’re engaged and praying with him. Work with the preacher!

Posted on

In Praise of the Holy Women, and Men, of the Mystical Tradition

In so many ways, I am relentlessly male. I am out there, I want to engage the issues of the day, I rejoice in the Church-militant, and looked to the Church-triumphant! This is appropriate, and proper, for I am a Christian man and God has gifted me to engage the battle! Men, in their maleness are a gift to the Church.

That said, I have come also to realize my need, and my indebtedness to the holy women of God’s Church, those living, and profoundly, those who have gone before, who have set forth a glorious testimony of the feminine genius and mystique of deep, mystical prayer.

Ah, the Holy Women! There are to be sure, men, such as St. John of the Cross, and St. Bernard of Clairvaux, just to mention two, who have set forth the great in mystical vision. But I must say, I am particularly indebted to the great women, to the mystics and Doctors of the Church, such as St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Rose of Lima, St. Therese of Lisieux, Sister Faustina, and other women, who ventured into deep, contemplative, and spousal union with the Lord.

How their deep love, and their intensity. Their union with God has inspired me in my own journey toward contemplative prayer. Though I cannot access their spousal love for the Lord, I am able to transpose their experiences to a deep spiritual experience of sonship with God the Father, for he is Abba, and I am the son!

Ah! The great Catherine of Sienna, her love for the Lord, her wisdom, rooted in both suffering and afflication, in  joy and ecstasy. She personally met the Lord! What a witness! What a glory, what a testimony that the mystics give us. St. Teresa of Avila.  she to who encountered the Lord, and yet suffered greatly! She was even suspected of heresy and her visions and experiences were  submitted to the Inquisition!

Alas, Lord! Spare us for our suspicious rejection of the normal Christian life! St. Rose of Lima, St. Mary Margaret Mary, and Sister Fuustina, considered by many of their contemporaries to be strange, excessive, even possessed! Yet, they knew Him whom they had encountered. They knew his love for them, and were willing to suffer with him, and for him!

Spare us O Lord for our obtuseness, our doubt, and our lack of faith in assigning to them, who experienced a normal Christian life, the label of insanity, of oddness, extremity, mental unbalance, and even possession!

They encountered you, they had met you, and experienced you! Yet so many of us thought them strange and unbalanced. Forgive us Lord. Too often we have substituted extreme rationalism, for the mystical vision of You, who go beyond mere words and mere human formulae.

Forgive us Lord, for while our intellect is our crowning glory, sometimes we forget that you cannot be reduced to the limits of human concepts.

The mystics remind us of God’s transcendence, and we have often made them suffer for this.

Yes Lord, while it is surely our obligation to submit all things to your holy Magisterium, forgive, Lord,  us for the times when we have been too slow or too skeptical to accept the bold testimony that the mystics give us, that you are Other and that you draw us beyond what is simply and comfortably understood by us.

Thank you Lord for the mystical tradition, for the holy women, and men too, starting with John the Apostle, who have testified to us of you, who may have encountered You in ways more deep than words, too difficult to define. They suffered much, often at our hands, for the visions ABC, but they knew and would not deny you, whom they encountered.

Yes, pardon dear reader, a brief departure to prayer, and gratitude. As you know, the Pope has recently declared two new doctors of the Church. Among them is St. Hildegard von Bingen, and St. John of Avila.

I must say to you, with some embarrassment, that I know little of their, of her wisdom, and their experience of the Lord. But I will now, go and sit at their feet, encouraged by the Holy Father and I will listen and learn. For I have  learned that the many holy women, and the men too,  the mystics, have much to teach me. Their teachings go beyond words, and into vision, into the deep experience of the heart, into the deeper things of God, things not easily reduced to words. Therefore much is learned not only from their written teachings, but also of their lives and their experience, their sufferings and joys.

The intellectual tradition of the Church, his magnificent and necessary. But so is the mystical tradition, a tradition not opposed to, or really even distinct from, the intellectual tradition. For the same God is experienced and speaks in both ways. And while all things must be submitted to the sacred Magisterium of the Church, the intellectual and the mystical tradition should both be appreciated, and respected.

And thus, my next journey should well be to explore and carefully listen to the teachings of St. Hildegard von Bingen and St. John of Avila. Today the Pope has said listen to them, learn from them, sit and their feet, study and carefully consider what they teach.

Here are new Doctors of the Church.

And, in particular I must say, that I as a man, so relentlessly male, must, despite my gifts as a man, be balanced and completed by the holy women of the Church. Indeed, they have been my teachers, especially in the ways of prayer. Thanks be to God. Here is a video I have compiled in gratitude to some very important women in my life:

Posted on

The Miracle of Marriage – A Reflection on the Gospel for the 27th Sunday of the Year

Today’s first reading and Gospel speak to us of the miracle of marriage. If your marriage is even reasonably working, it is a miracle! We live in an age that is poisonous to marriage. Many people look for marriage to be ideal, and if there is any ordeal, they want a new deal. Our culture says if it doesn’t work out, bail out. Thus, successful marriages today are a miracle. Likewise, marriages are also a miracle since they are ultimately, a work of God.

Today’s readings bring before us, some fundamental teachings on marriage. Lets look at the Gospel, in five stages.

I. Rejection–the Gospel opens with the Pharisees approaching Jesus and they asked, somewhat rhetorically, “Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?” Jesus, aware of their hypocrisy, that they do not really want an answer from him on which to base their lives, asks them in turn, “What did Moses command you?” They gleefully respond that Moses permitted a husband to divorce his wife so long as he filled out the paperwork.

But Jesus will have none of it and tells them that Moses only permitted this very regrettable thing called divorce because of their hard hearts.

There was a tradition among the Rabbis of Jesus time that this seemingly lax provision permitting divorce resulted from the fact that Moses reasoned,  that if he were to say to the men of his day that marriage was until death, that the men of his day might very well arrange for the death of their wives. Thus in order to prevent homicide, Moses permitted the lesser evil of divorce. But it was still an evil, and still something deeply regrettable. Thus God himself says in the book of Malachi:

And this again you do. You cover the Lord’ altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering…You ask, “why does he not?” Because the Lord is witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Has not the one God made and sustained for us the spirit of life? And what does he desire? Godly offspring. So take heed to yourselves, and let none be faithless to the wife of his youth. “For I hate divorce says the Lord, the God of Israel, and covering one’s garment with violence, says the Lord of host. Yes…take heed to yourselves, and do not be faithless.” (Malachi 2:13–16)

Thus, in these opening lines of the gospel, Jesus spends time highlighting how the Pharisees, and many other men of his time, have rejected God’s fundamental teaching on marriage. Jesus is about to reiterate that teaching, but for now, note first, the rejection evidenced in the question of the Pharisees, a rejection which Jesus roots in hearts that have become hardened by sin, unforgiveness, and a rejection of God’s plan.

God hates divorce not only because it intrinsically rejects what he has set forth, but because it is also symptomatic of human hardness, and sinfulness.

II. Restoration–Jesus, having encountered their hard hearts, announces a restoration, a return to God’s original plan for marriage. The Lord quotes the book of Genesis saying,

But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. And for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife,  and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.

Note that the line begins with the phrase, “but from the beginning of creation…” In other words, Jesus signals that, whatever may have happened in the aftermath of Original Sin, whatever compromises or arrangements, that may have emerged in the reign of sin,  are now to be done away with in the reign of grace that will come as the result of Jesus’ saving death and resurrection.

On account of the grace that will be bestowed we are now able, and expected to return to God’s original plan for marriage, that is, one man for one woman in a lifelong, stable relationship, which is fruitful, bringing forth godly children for God and his kingdom. This is God’s plan, a plan which has no room for divorce, contraception, and anything other than fruitful, stable love.

We live in a time, in Western culture, when there have been many attempts to redefine God’s plan for marriage, and substitute something erroneous, something human, for God’s original and perfect plan. And while current attempts to redefine marriage as including same-sex unions are a particularly egregious attempt at redefining marriage, this is not the first or only way that many in our culture have sought to redefine God’s plan for marriage.

The first attempts began in the 1950s, when the first celebrity divorces began to happen in Hollywood, beginning with Ingrid Bergman and many others to follow. Many Americans, who love their Hollywood stars, began to justify divorce. “Don’t people deserved to be happy?” became the refrain. And thus marriage, which had its essential focus as what was good and best for children, began, subtly but clearly, to be redefined in terms of what was best for adults. The happiness of the adults, rather than the well-being of the children, began to take pride of place in most people’s thinking about marriage.

Pressure began to build to the 1950s and into the 1960s that sought to make divorce easier. Until the late 1960s, divorces had been legally difficult to obtain in America. Wealthier people, and celebrities, often went to Mexico to get divorces. But now, pressure began to build to make divorce in this country easier. In 1969 Gov. Ronald Reagan of California, signed the 1st “no-fault divorce law.” This legislation made divorce a very easy thing to obtain. Within ten years most of the 50 states had similar laws. Divorce rates skyrocketed, as we well know.

And this amounts to the 1st redefinition of marriage. No longer was a man to leave his father and mother, and “cling to his wife.” Now, at the sign of trouble men and women could easily sever their marriage vows. But this in direct contradiction to God’s plan which tells them to cling.  Thus, we engaged in what amounts to a redefinition of marriage.

The second redefinition of marriage came when the contraceptive mentality seized America in its grip beginning in the late 1950s and continuing apace to current times. Though God had said to the first couple, Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth… (Genesis 1:28), Now children become more of a way of “accessorizing” the marriage, then an integral and expected fruit of marriage. Thus, children, were no longer an essential purpose of marriage, only an optional outcome, based on the wishes of the adults. And this too, is a redefinition of marriage in direct contradiction to God’s instruction to be fruitful and multiply. The happiness and will of the adults in question now attained to preeminence, children, rather than being an essential fruit, are only a possible outcome.

The current, and third redefinition of marriage is the proposal by many in our culture that people of the same sex can now enter into “marriage.” The utter absurdity of this proposal flows from the sinful conclusions of the first two redefinitions, which in effect state that, marriage is simply about two adults being happy, and doing what pleases them.

If that be the case, then there seems little basis in most people’s mind to protest “Gay” people getting married or, frankly, 3 or 4 or 5 adults getting married (polygamy is surely coming next).

We, in the heterosexual community, have misbehaved, and redefined essential aspects of marriage for over fifty years now. And the latest absurdity, (and it is absurd), of gay marriage flows from the flawed and sinful redefinition of marriage in the heterosexual community. We have sown in the wind, now we are reaping the whirlwind.

In the end, Jesus will have none of this. He rejects the attempts of the men of his age to redefine marriage, and he, through his Church, his living voice in the world today, also rejects the sinful and absurd redefinitions that we in our culture, propose, be it divorce, contraception or homosexual “marriage.”

God has set forth that a man leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and that the two of them become one flesh. In making a suitable partner for Adam, God created Eve, not Steve. And hence homosexual unions are excluded, a man is not a suitable partner for a man, a woman is not a suitable partner for a woman. Further, God did not, in making a suitable partner for Adam, make Eve, Ellen, Jane, Sue, Mary and Beth. Hence, polygamy, though mentioned, and tolerated for a time in the Bible (but always a source of trouble), is also not part of God’s plan.

God intends one man, for one woman, in a relationship of clinging, i.e., stable relationship, that bears the fruit of godly offspring.

This is the Lord’s plan and the Lord Jesus does not entertain any notion from the people of his day that will alter, or compromise God’s original design for marriage. He thus announces a restoration of God’s original plan for marriage as set forth in the book of Genesis.

III. Reality. As has become the case today, Jesus’ reassertion of traditional, and biblical marriage, was not without controversy. In Matthew’s account of this moment, many of the disciples react with disdain, saying, If that is a case of a man and his wife, it is better never to marry! (Matt 19:10)

In this gospel we see that the disciples are somewhat troubled by what Jesus says, and that they asked him about it again later, in the house. But Jesus does not back down, and even intensifies his language saying, Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.

There will be no apology from Jesus, divorce and remarriage is adultery. There may have been some in Jesus time, and today, who hold up their divorce papers and say that they have a divorced decree. But in effect, Jesus more than implies, that he is not impressed with some papers signed by a human judge, and he is not bound by the decision of some secular authority. What God has joined together, no man must separate. In other words, once again be establishes, that once God has in fact joined a couple in holy matrimony, the bond which God has affected is to be respected by all, including the couple themselves.

In other words, marriage has a reality beyond what mere humans bring to or say of it. Marriage is a work of God, a work that has a reality, and an existence the flows from God’s work, not man’s. All of our attempts to redefine, obfuscate, or alter marriage as God has set it forth, is both sinful and something which God does not recognize as a reality.

IV. Reemphasis–now comes an interesting twist, which includes with itself a reminder of one of the most essential purposes of marriage. The gospel text says,

And people were bringing their little children to Jesus that he might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he became indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”

This is not a new element to the story, neither have we gone into a separate pericope . Rather, Jesus’ remarks about children remind us of the essential reason why marriage is structured as it is. Why should marriage be heterosexual, why should it be stable, why should include a father and a mother, rather than two fathers, or two mothers, or one mother or one father?

The fundamental answer, is it the essential work of marriage is to procreate, and raise children! Since children remain marriage’s most fundamental fruit, it makes sense that marriage should be structured based on what is best for children. And the fact is, that children are best raised in a stable, lasting environment, where their parents have committed to one another in mutual support, and partnership in raising the children. Further, it makes sense psychologically that a child should be receiving influence from both a father and a mother, a male and a female parent. There are things that a father can teach a child that a mother, or another woman alone cannot. Further, there are things that a mother and a woman can teach a child that a father alone or two fathers cannot. Psycho-social development is best achieved in what God and nature have set forth, namely, that every child should have a father, and a mother; a male and female influence, growing up.

Anything else, amounts to something which is less than ideal. To the degree that we intentionally impose the less than ideal on children, we are guilty of an injustice. Bringing children into the world prior to marriage or apart from it, wherein a child will be raised in a single-parent home, is an injustice. It is an even greater injustice that children conceived under the promiscuous circumstances are far more likely to be aborted. To kill a child through abortion is a horrific injustice, it is also an injustice to raise a child apart from a marriage situation.

This preference for stable lasting heterosexual unions, clearly excludes homosexual unions. For same-sex “parents” are far from ideal for a child. To raise a child in such circumstances intentionally is an injustice, for it is to subject the child to that which is unnatural, and far from ideal.

Catholics have every obligation, to both uphold and to insist upon traditional marriage as what is right and just, not only because it is God’s plan, but because it is clearly what is best for children, and marriage is fundamentally about children. It is not simply a religious sensibility that should lead us to our position, but a position deeply rooted in natural law, common sense, and what is best for children.

Traditional marriage should be encouraged in every way, and becoming more fuzzy about what marriage is, or defining it down does not help our culture esteem traditional marriage. Traditional marriage has pride of place since it is focused on raising the next generation and is critical to that essential function of our society.

There is much talk today about the rights of people to do as they please, and so-called gay “marriage” is presented in this framework. But sadly, many who discuss rights, only refer to adults and seem to care less about what is really best for children. What is good, and right for children, needs to have a much higher priority in our culture today than it currently does.

Jesus reemphasizes the teaching on marriage by bringing a young child before them and telling them not to hinder the children. One of the clearest ways we hinder children from finding their way to God and to his kingdom, is with our own bad behavior. Bad behavior such as: promiscuous sexual acts that endanger children through abortion and single parenthood, bad behavior such as divorce which leaves children in divided predicaments and confused loyalties, bad behaviors such as homosexual insistence on adult rights above what is best for children. To all of this bad behavior Jesus presents a young child to us and says, “do not hinder them.” And our bad behavior hinders them.

V. Reassurance–to be sure, this teaching about marriage is, to a certain degree, “heavy weather.” Indeed, many in our culture have tried, and failed to attain to the vision of marriage which the Lord teaches today. There are complicated reasons, too many to note here, as to why people struggle to live this teaching today.

But whatever our own failures have been, we need to go to the Lord with a childlike trust, a trust that cries out for help. Thus, Jesus says at the conclusion of today’s gospel, Amen and I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God, like a child, will not enter it.

It pertains to children, often to feel overwhelmed, but in the midst of that, to run to their parents and seek help. It is in this spirit, that the Lord asked us to receive this teaching. Indeed, many of us may well have to run, and say “Abba, God, I don’t know how to live this teaching. My marriage is in ruins, and I don’t know how to save it. I’ve tried, but my spouse is unwilling. I can’t go back and undo what I did years ago.”

But note, how the Lord embraces the child in this gospel, and he is willing to embrace us as well, in our failures, and our difficulties. If we have failed, we should be like a young child and run to the Father. What we should most avoid is to be relentlessly adult, dig in our heels and say, “God is unreasonable, the gospel is unreasonable!”

In the end, only God can accomplish strong marriages and strong families for us. We must run to him as a Father, and seek his help. If we have failed, we must not fail to tell the next generation what God teaches, even if we have not been able to live it perfectly.

God’s plan still remains his plan for everyone, whatever our personal failings. We have every obligation to run to him and trust, and to ask his help, but even in the midst of personal failures, we can and must announce and celebrate the truth for others. In the end, God does not give us his teaching to burden us, or accuse us, but rather, to bless us. Our assurance must be, in his mercy and his capacity to write straight, even with the crooked lines of our lives.

If we in this generation have failed, and many of us have failed in this generation, we must still announce God’s plan for marriage to the next generation, we must not cease to hand on God’s perfect plan.

In the end, it takes a miracle, but God is still in the miracle working business, the miracle of marriage.

Photo Credit: Spiering Photography www.spieringphotography.com The couple pictured here are the Archduke Imre and Archduchess Kathleen of Austria who recently wed here in DC. A fine Catholic couple who seriously prepared for the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and are possessed of devout faith which will surely help them embrace the miracle of marriage.

Posted on

In Praise of Books – A Commentary on a Recent Award-winning Video

There is something about books, something wonderful, something mysterious. We have somehow symbolized reality by a miracle we call language. And one of the most precious and enduring form of language is the written word. Where did we ever think to denote our sounds with the lines and angles and curves we call letters. And where did we think to combine them endlessly into words, phrases a sentences, paragraphs, chapters, books, and libraries. Yet here you and I are now, mysteriously connected through this medium called language and the written word. Somehow these shapes on the screen symbolize reality and light up our mind.

There is an old saying, “Paper has perfect recall.” And thus, even as language and culture change, our books have held a kind of lasting memory of human thought and creativity. Even when living humans forget, books can remain on a shelf, only to be rediscovered many years later. People are forgetful, but paper has perfect recall.

Thank God the Jewish people and the early apostles and disciples carefully recorded what Jesus said and did, indeed, what God had done for thousands of years. Their paper and parchments have perfect recall and left us a careful accounting of what God said and did more lasting than mere human memory.

In this electronic age, I fear one day a terrible magnetic event or nuclear pulse will wipe clean the cyber space in which we currently write. I have sought to treasure what I write by making physical copies of it on CD and even printouts, for too frequently today, we write on what amounts to thin air. What of our electronic and virtual age will remain if (and when) that terrible magnetic event sweeps away most of what we generate today in the virtual (i.e. not quite real) word of cyber space (i.e. thin air)?? Much could well vanish if the event is global.

But our books may well remain. Yes, paper has perfect recall.

I thought of all this when seeing the video below. A young man sits writing and reading, quite enchanted. And suddenly a great storm sweeps everything away. Even the page he is looking at goes blank; all swept away in an instant.

In the aftermath of the storm he beholds a barren landscape, ruined and gray, all color gone.

But suddenly on the wind comes a beautiful woman, borne aloft by books, like so many balloons. She has vivid color and smiles and she tosses him a book. Yes, though most is gone, there are still the books.

And as he takes up the book, he regains his color and is led to a library of books. The world is once again enchanted, musical, colorful and creative. And he sets to preserving the books and dispensing them to sad souls, gray and dull, who come by the library. Taking the books, they regain their color.

Yes, there is just something about books. Paper has perfect recall. Be careful about converting too many things to electronic form. At least keep the important stuff physically etched to a CD-R or other physical format. The thrilling book One Second After details how our virtual world could collapse in an instant by way of a pulse bomb.

Enjoy this video which has a similar message, and reminds that books are wonderful things and that paper has perfect recall.

Posted on

Things we can learn from Dogs

Today for the feast of St. Francis of Assisi and, like many parishes, we conducted a blessing of the animals. Over 80 neighbors brought their pets (mostly dogs) by for a blessing this evening. To each of them I passed out a little list of things we can learn from dogs. The list that appears below.

Scripture says little about dogs and when it does it is never flattering. Most of the references make one think of wild dogs who ran in packs. Psalm 22:16 says, “Many dogs have surrounded me, a pack of evildoers closes in upon me. Or again from Philippians 3:2, Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers. No, strangely, I cannot find one Scripture that speaks well of dogs.

And yet, they have been a great gift to me. Such loyalty, such unconditional “love.” There may have been times in my life when everyone was disgusted with me, even I was disgusted with me. But even on days like that my dog would still run to great me, and curl up next to me; such wonderful, “forgiving” and uncomplicated creatures.

Dogs, generally speaking, have a great outlook on life. This list is an oldie on the internet but, if you haven’t read it, it is really rather instructive. Dogs DO have a lot to teach us. God teaches us not only out of the Bible but in creation. In that spirit here are

Fifteen Things We can Learn from Dogs:

  • 1. Never pass up the opportunity to go for a joy ride.
  • 2. Allow the experience of fresh air and the wind in your face to be pure ecstasy.
  • 3. When loved ones come home, always run to greet them.
  • 4. Let others know when they’ve invaded your territory.
  • 5. Take naps and stretch before rising.
  • 6. Run, romp, and play daily.
  • 7. Eat with gusto and enthusiasm.
  • 8. Be loyal.
  • 9. If what you want lies buried, dig until you find it.
  • 10. When someone is having a bad day, be silent. Sit close by and nuzzle them gently.
  • 11. Thrive on attention and let people touch you.
  • 12. Avoid biting when a simple growl will do.
  • 13. When you’re happy, dance around and wag your entire body.
  • 14. No matter how often you’re scolded, don’t buy into the guilt thing and pout…. run right back and make friends
  • 15. Delight in the simple joys of a long walk.

And here is one of the most amazing videos I have ever seen. It’s about “Faith the two legged dog”:

Posted on

People need People, as seen at the Beach

I spent a few days at the beach this week with five other priests, thanks to the loan of a house from some very generous lay people. In Washington we speak of going to the beach. But in nearby Baltimore they “We’re goin’ down-e-ocean.” In think in Jersey they speak of going to the shore, as in Jersey shore. At any rate, thank God for a restful time, lots of long walks along the shoreline, interesting discussions and good food. In fact, according to the Scripture story of the Road to Emmaus, Walking, talking and dining, is an image for the Kingdom.

Just a brief thought that occurred to me today as I walked, along the water, this time alone. I began my walk, right in the center of Bethany Beach Delaware, just down from the center of the boardwalk. The beach we rather crowded, lots of people, chairs, umbrellas, kids running back and forth into the water.

As I headed north walking right on the littoral (where water meets land), I noticed the crowd thinned out quite quickly, so that, within a hundred yards of where the boardwalk ended the beach became quite empty, just a few folks here and there.

Why, I wondered did people huddle together so? It would seem that people would prefer to spread out a little, would want privacy, and might be willing to walk a little to get that space and privacy. Instead, they huddled together in a crowded eight block area of beach along the Bethany Boardwalk.

It occurred to me, that despite out often expressed need for spaciousness and privacy, this image of people huddling together had important lessons to teach.

The chief and uniting lesson is that ultimately people need people. Huddling close together meant that there were others to provide not only company but also safety. There were plenty of life guards, and if any trouble arose, plenty of people nearby to help. Where there are people, there are also many conveniences near at hand. There were food vendors up on the nearby boardwalk and also those selling beach gear. There was a free town Internet signal in the air. Public Bathrooms were also nearby as were as was a safety station and police presence. A lot of kids, who had just met that day, were also playing together and teaching each other to surf, ride boogie boards or build sand castles.

A simple lesson really but somehow beautifully painted for me at Bethany Beach, people need people. People benefit from other people. People take care of people and provide necessary services, protection and company. Space and solitude have their place, but it really is more our instinct, even in this wide open country to huddle together in cities. For all our complaints about crowds, in the end it’s good to have other people in good numbers close at hand.

It was all a painting of what Scripture says: Woe to the solitary man! For if he should fall, he has no one to lift him up. (Ecclesiastes 4:11).

Beach Baby from Tom Stillwell on Vimeo.