Author: Msgr. Charles Pope

Posted on

A Simple Plan from God For Church Renewal

As we continue to read the letter of St. Paul to Titus in the reading at daily Mass, we see some important teachings about the “domestic Church,” otherwise known as the family. The insights are important, for if the domestic church is not strong, neither will the parish, diocesan or universal Church be strong. And while there is a tendency today on blogs like this, to often focus on the disrepair that some notice of the parish or diocesan Church, it remains a fact that many of our families are in far greater disrepair.

In effect God gives a simple insight for Church renewal in the reading from today’s (Tuesday of Week 32) Mass. So let’s take a brief look at what the Holy Spirit says through St. Paul says about the family, and its relationship to the Church.

St. Paul does begin with the parish priest, saying that the bishop, the priest, must say what is consistent with sound doctrine (Titus 2:1). Hence, it is the role of the clergy to set forth principles and to give, on a consistent and effective basis, the sound teachings of God revealed to us in the Scriptures, and the teachings and sacred Tradition of the Church.

There are many today who lament (often rightfully) the silence of many pulpits, and the ineffectiveness of the Clergy who are often content merely to speak in abstractions and generalities. This has often meant that many critical moral and social issues are going unaddressed. Frankly, too many of us clergy for play it safe. Yet in the world, the gospel is countercultural and the Church is a sign of contradiction. Thus playing it safe means that the gospel goes unproclaimed and the teachings of the Church are hidden from view.

But St. Paul makes it clear that the mouth of the priest is to speak, and to teach that which befits sound doctrine. He must give the teachings of the faith, and set forth principles which the people of God must then apply in their lives.

Therefore, the first step in having the domestic Church in good repair is for the parish church to be a place where sound doctrine is heard, is proclaimed with clarity and with charity, is articulated effectively and without ambiguity.

But this is only the beginning. For the Word of God cannot simply be proclaimed, it must be promulgated in the lives of those who hear. The Word of God cannot simply be announced, it must be applied. And the most essential place of this promulgation and application must take place is not only in the hearts and minds of individuals, but just as essentially, in the family.

It is not enough to say, as many do, “Father should say something from the pulpit.” For it also remains true, that the father of the domestic Church, the father of each family, must say something from the pulpit of his dinner table.

Therefore, in this letter to Titus, St. Paul goes on to describe how older men and women must be examples and models for younger people. Elders, and by extension mothers and fathers, must take their role of leadership.

And thus St. Paul directs:

Older women should be reverent in their behavior, not slanderers, not addicted to drink, teaching what is good, so that they may train younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, chaste, good homemakers, under the control of their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited. (Titus 2:3-5)

Likewise regarding the older men, including Titus St. Paul says:

Older men should be temperate, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, love, and endurance….Urge the younger men, similarly, to control themselves, showing yourself as a model of good deeds in every respect, with integrity in your teaching, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be criticized, so that the opponent will be put to shame without anything bad to say about us. (Titus 2:2,6-8)

Elsewhere St. Paul develops thought just a bit more when he says: Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord (Eph 6:4).

And thus it remains clear, that what should begin in the pulpit of the parish church, cannot end there.

And yet, what St. Paul teaches here is often sadly lacking in many (not all) families today. The family should be self-correcting, but many are not and the difficulties caused by this overflow into schools, churches and the public square. Beyond the family, it is also a sad fact that, in the wider culture, many elders have developed a “none of my business” attitude when it comes to teaching and correcting younger people.

I remember some years ago, in the early 1990s when in the certain parish we were struggling with many hard issues related to youth. Some of the teen girls had become pregnant, and there were many young men becoming involved with crime and drugs. I remember going to one of the large women’s groups in the parish and asking that they would consider undertaking a vigorous program of mentoring for the younger girls and women. I received a fairly flat no. Some indicated fear, others said they did not understand young women today and wouldn’t know how to talk to them. Still others spoke of these things as being “none of their business.”

I got a similar reaction when I spoke to the men of that parish about mentoring the teen boys and younger men.

And thus we see that the necessary fraternal correction and mentoring of the young by elders has fallen on the hard times in many communities, parishes, and the family. While the problem may vary from place to place, the problem remains a fairly general one in American culture.

Part of the reason for this is, that in the years following the Second World War, a youth centered culture began to set up in this country. Prior to that time, and still today in many parts of the world, elders were generally revered as being those who possessed experience and wisdom. Through the mid 50s and picking up pace in the 1960s, respect for elders steeply declined. Children and teenagers gradually came to see their parents as out of touch, old-fashioned, and often just plain stupid.

Popular music, especially rock ‘n roll, exulted youthful rebellion and generally presented portraits of adults as being confused, boorish, hypocritical, and undeserving privilege, honor, or respect. The presence of an unpopular war and a nihilistic rejection of the past also fueled this. As the exultation of youth culture began to expand many teenagers felt quite righteous in their overthrow of the parental culture.

Now, at least two generations into this loss of respect for elders, even those who are elders do not sense that they have much to offer, or even that they should be in the position correct youth. Perhaps they fear the push-back that many young people feel entitled to give. Perhaps these elders feel humbled by the fact of their own sins. Or perhaps some of simply bought in the whole youth culture mentality and have themselves never really grown up.

Whatever the causes in any particular case, we have come to a place in our culture where fraternal correction of the young is increasingly eroding. This in turn has led to grave problems in our families, in the schools, and most other social settings. Most tragically, the domestic Church, the family, has been severely impacted. This has also led to intensifying problems in the wider family of the Church. For if the domestic church is not strong, the parish Church will not be strong.

Into all of this disorder and confusion comes a simple plan from God. The priest, who is at the head of the parish family, is to speak teach sound doctrine to his people. And from his pulpit the Word must go forth to the pulpit of the domestic Church we call the family. At the pulpit of the dining room table, and the pulpit of the living room elders, having received the Word of God from their pastors, must hand this on to their children and to all the youngsters in their care.

Many indeed are the sorrows and difficulties that emerge from our failure to live this simple plan.

Here’s a song of rebellion sung by some parents of the boomers who threw the revolution. Many of the boomers are soon to be as old as the elders they once scorned:

Posted on

On Serenity and Severity in Church Discipline

The readings for today’s daily Mass (Monday Nov 12) largely deal with Church order and discipline. Paul in his letter to Titus tells him:

For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you (Titus 1:5).

He adds that among other things, the men he picks be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents. Later in the letter we learned that people Crete tended to be unruly people and that there were many things that had been left undone and needed to be accomplished. (Titus 1:12).

If we look at the Church down through the Centuries, we will find what may be we described as a human condition. There are good and wonderful aspects of Church life, and there are things that are painful and difficult. The Church also goes through periods which are better, relatively speaking. There have been times of grave difficulties disorder, as well as periods of relative order and tranquility. But to be clear, there is never been an ideal or perfect time.

Last week we pondered on the blog that, in the 16th Century St. Charles Borromeo had a huge mess on his hands. Twelve million had just left the Church in the Lutheran revolt, and more were to follow. Clergy were poorly trained and disorderly, and the faithful were poorly catechized. It took decades to perform to restore reasonable order.

Our own times, show forth both light and darkness. In some areas the Church is growing, even flourishing. In other areas there is great decline and the culture is in great disrepair.

Jesus takes up the theme of sin in the Church in today’s Gospel. He says,

Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the one through whom they occur. It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him (Lk 17:1-4).

But despite saying this, the Lord counsels great mercy among the members of the Church:

and if he repents, forgive him. And if he wrongs you seven times in one day and returns to you seven times saying, ‘I am sorry,’ you should forgive him. (Luke 17:5)

Thus, while speaking of the need to discipline the sinner, he also speaks to the need to forgive seven times a day, a Jewish way of speaking that does not mean literally seven, but an abundance of forgiveness.

If the “woe” to those who cause scandal and the counsel to be merciful and forgiving seem in some tension, they are. Putting it another way, the Lord is saying to us, as for those scandalize others or fall into repeated sin, they are going to have to answer to me one day. But as for you, pray and work for their conversion, show mercy where possible, and leave many things up the God.

The fact is, we are not going to resolve every problem in the Church or in our families. And were we to try, we might create twice his many more problems. Scandals and problems are inevitable. We should work to resolve them, and, as the Lord says, correct the sinner. But we should do it in a way in which we do not surrender our serenity or our love.

To be sure, there are texts in the Scripture that speak to us of disciplining in ways that bring an end to mercy and execute firm judgment, texts that speaks even in certain situations, excommunicating a troublesome brother. Jesus counsels of Matthew’s Gospel:

If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. (Matt 18:15-17)

In other words there maybe times when someone needs to be considered excommunicated. Paul says something similar 1 Corinthians 5 admonishes them to expel an incestuous brother in hopes that he may come to his senses to be restored to communion.

So there are times for strong discipline. But there are other times with the Lord counsels caution when it comes to severe discipline. Today’s gospel is one example. Another example of the Gospel of the wheat and the tares. The message seems similar to the gospel from today’s mass though it goes even further since there is not even evidence of theoretical repentance on the part of the sinner:

The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’” (Matt 13:24-30)

In other words, there is going to be a day of judgment, but not now. Repeated sinners, and those who cause difficulty in church life and mislead others are going to have to answer to the Lord. But some of that has to wait for the Day of Judgment.

Exactly when to use tough measures, or when to delay, and show mercy, is not always easy to know. These are matters for prudential judgment. Some of the scenarios above presume theoretical repentance. (I say theoretical since repeated sinners may often indicate regret or have “reasons” for their behavior, but not really have true repentance at any any authentic or meaningful level). And these sorts of judgements don’t simply engage bishops, but also pastors at the parish level, and parents and siblings at the level of the domestic Church.

At any rate, in today’s readings both Paul and Jesus seem to have the longer picture in mind. They seem to counsel an approach more akin to chipping away at the problem, through instructing and admonishing, teaching and putting things in place rather than to round up every erring brother and throw them into the ocean. Perhaps too, it is good to remember that in asking for all the scoundrels, the rascals to be rounded up and thrown out of the Church, we ourselves might not fair too well, for most of us are not unambiguously saintly. We too might just get taken out with the trash.

This does not remove the need for the more strenuous measures that both Jesus and Paul counsel elsewhere, it simply balances them and shows, that in Church life, prudential judgments about such things are necessary.

Serenity – God himself leaves many things unresolved in both the Church and the created order. There is a kind of serenity in recognizing this, and taking it to heart. While we may wish for, and strive for the perfect family, the perfect Church, There is serenity in remembering that some things are going to have to be left to God.

And God often waits, for:  The patience of our Lord is directed to our salvation. Yes, He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:15,9)

Posted on

Some thoughts on the five stages of religious persecution.

It is rare that a respected segment of American life would become vilified and hated overnight. The usual transformation from respect to vilification goes in stages which grow in intensity. And hereby the Church, once a respected aspect of American life, along with the Protestant denominations has become increasingly marginalized and hated by many. It may help us to review these stages of persecution since it would seem that things are going to get more difficult for the Church in the years ahead. Generally there are distinguished five basic stages of persecution.

By way of giving due credit I want to say that these stages were recalled to me by Johnette Benkovic, of Women of Grace EWTN. She spoke at a recent fundraiser here in DC for WMET 1160 AM, Our Catholic Radio Station in the Guadalupe Radio Network. She gave a wonderful talk and a summons to courage. And among the things she set forth was a sober vision of how we have come to this current place where the culture is increasingly hostile to Christians and to Catholics particularly. The stages are from her talk, the commentary is my own.

Here then are the Five stages:

I. Stereotyping the targeted group – To stereotype means to repeat without variation, to take a quality or observation of a limited number, and generalize it of the whole group. It involves a simplified and standardized conception or view of a group based on observation of a limited sample.

And thus as the 1960s and 70s progressed Catholics and Bible-believing Christians were often caricatured in the media as Bible thumpers, simpletons, as backwards, mentally simple, haters of science, hypocrites, self-righteous, old-fashioned and so forth.

Catholics in particular were also accused of having neurotic guilt, hatred or aversion of sexuality, of being in a sexist institution. of it being stuck in the past, with too many rules, being authoritarian, of having clergy who were sexually repressed, homosexuals or pedophiles.

Basically as the stereotype goes, Catholics and Bible believing Christians are a sad, angry, boring, backward and repressed lot. To many who accept the stereotyping we are a laughable, even tragic group, caught in a superstitious past, incapable of throwing off the shackles of faith.

To be sure, not everyone engages in this stereotyping to the same degree, but here are the basic refrains of it. And the general climate of this sort of stereotyping sets the foundation for the next stage.

II. Vilifying the targeted Group for alleged crimes or misconduct, – As the stereotyping grows in intensity, Catholics and Christians,  who did not toe the line in the cultural revolution were described as, close-minded, harmful to human dignity and freedom, intolerant, hateful, bigoted, unfair, homophobic, reactionary and just plain mean and basically bad people.

The History of the Church is also described myopically as little more than bad and repressive behavior as we conducted crusades, inquisitions, and hated Galileo and all of science. Never mind that there might be a little more to the story, or that the Church founded universities, and hospitals, was the patron of the arts, and preached a Gospel that brought order and civilization to divided and barbarous time in the aftermath of the Roman Empire. Stereotyping will hear little of that, or, if it does, it will give the credit to anything or anyone but the Church and the faith.

In writing this, I fully expect to get a bevy of comments saying in effect that this is exactly what we are. And not only will they feel justified in saying this, but even righteous as they say so, so ingrained has this vilifying become in the wider culture.

As with any large group, individual Christians and Catholics will manifest some negative traits, but stereotyping and vilifying, and crudely and indiscriminately presuming the negative traits of a few to be common to all in unjust.

Yet all of this has the effect of creating a self-righteous indignation toward believers and of making anti-Catholic and anti-Christian attitudes a permissible bigotry for many today.

III. Marginalizing the targeted group’s role in society – Having established the (untrue) premise that the Church and the faith is very bad, and even harmful to human dignity and freedom, the next stage seeks to relegate the role of the Church to the margins.

To many in secularized culture, religion must go. They will perhaps let us have our hymns etc. in the four walls of our churches, but the faith must be banished from the public square.

In this stage it becomes increasingly unacceptable and intolerable that anyone should mention God, pray publicly or in any way bring their Christian faith to bear on matters of public policy. Nativity sets must go, out with Christmas trees, even the colors green and red at “holiday time” are banished from many public schools.

Do not even think of mentioning Jesus or of publicly thanking him in your valedictorian address, you could very well have a Circuit Court judge forbid you under penalty of law. You can thank the Madonna, but only if you mean the singer.

The LGBT club is welcome to set up shop and pass out rainbow colored condoms at the high school, but Christians better hit the road, no Bibles or pamphlets better see the light of day anywhere in the school building…separation of Church and state you know.

IV. Criminalizing the targeted group or its works – Can someone say HHS mandate?

But prior to this egregious attempt to violate our religious liberty there have been many other times we have had to go to court to fight for our rights to openly practice our faith. Increasing litigation is being directed against the Church and other Christians for daring to live out our faith.

Some jurisdictions have sought to compel Catholic hospitals and pro-life clinics to provide information or referrals for abortion, to provide “emergency contraception” (i.e. the abortifacient known as the morning after pill), Several branches of Catholic Charities have been de-certified from doing adoption work because they will not adopt children to gay couples. The State of Connecticut sought regulate the structure, organization and running of Catholic parishes in 2009. And recently a number of Christian valedictorians in various states have suffered legal injunctions when it was discovered that they would dare to mention God, and Jesus in their talk. (More HERE)

Many of these attempts to criminalize the faith have been successfully rebuffed in the courts, but the frequency of lawsuits, and the time and cost involved with fighting them is a huge burden. It is clear that attempts to criminalize Christian behavior is a growth sector in this culture and signals the beginnings and steady erosion of religious liberty.

Many indeed feel quite righteous, quite politically correct in their work to legally separate the practice of the faith from the public square.

V. Persecuting the targeted group outright – If current trends continue, Christians, especially religious leaders, may not be far from enduring heavy fines and jail.

Already in Canada and parts of Europe Catholic clergy have been arrested and charged with “hate crimes” for preaching Catholic Doctrine on homosexual activity.

In this country there are greater provisions for free speech but, as we have seen, there is a steady erosion in religious liberty and many Catholic dioceses are well familiar with having to spend long periods in courts defending basic religious liberty. The trajectory points to suffering, lawsuits, fines, desertification, and ultimately jail.

Unlikely you say? Alarmist? Well, stages one through four are pretty well in place. One may wish to whistle past the graveyard but it looks like we’re pretty well set for Stage V. You decide.

Maybe a heavy post requires a light video. Paul and Silas land in jail. It’s so bad its good: 🙂

Posted on

The Paradox of Poverty – A Meditation on the Readings for the 32nd Sunday of the Year

The first reading in today’s Mass, from 1st Kings, speaks to us of the paradox of poverty. And the paradox is this, that it is often our poverty, our neediness, which provides a doorway for God to bless us with true riches. It is our emptiness that provides room for God to go to work.

Yes, in our riches we have “too much to lose,” and to the rich and worldly minded, the Gospel seems too demanding. But in our poverty, our emptiness and detachment from this world, there comes a strange and unexpected freedom that makes it easier to step out in faith. And stepping out in faith is the only thing that can save us.

Yes, poverty brings freedom. You can’t steal from a man who owns nothing, you can’t threaten a woman who has nothing to lose, and you can’t kill someone who has already died to this world.

Are you poor enough to be free? There’s a strange blessing in poverty. Let’s look at the first reading to see how poverty can usher in strange blessings.

I. The Desire Portrayed – In the first reading, the prophet Elijah encounters a widow at a city named Zarephath, a name which means “refining fire.” In those days, Elijah the prophet went to Zarephath. As he arrived at the entrance of the city, a widow was gathering sticks there; he called out to her

Both of them are hungry, for there is famine in the land. But Elijah, as God’s prophet, speaks not only for himself, but for God when he asks this very poor woman to share her meager food. For, truth be told, God has a desire, a hunger for us. The woman too as many desires, but her desire needs to be purified in this place called “refining fire.”

For her hunger for earthly food must be seen as a mere symbol for a deeper hunger, a hunger for communion with God. At some point out hunger must meet God’s hunger. And that point we call Holy Communion. It is a place where our hunger for God and God’s hunger for us meet and we find serenity. Every other hunger but points to this hunger, and every other “food” is but a cruel and temporary morsel until this hunger is satisfied.

Thus, two people meet at a place called “refining fire.” It is desire that has drawn them, a desire that is ultimately satisfied only in God.

II. The Dimensions  of Poverty. The woman articulates her poverty as he makes his request: Please bring me a small cupful of water to drink.” She left to get it, and he called out after her, “Please bring along a bit of bread.” She answered, “As the LORD, your God, lives, I have nothing baked; there is only a handful of flour in my jar and a little oil in my jug. Just now I was collecting a couple of sticks, to go in and prepare something for myself and my son; when we have eaten it, we shall die.

We may wonder why God allows poverty and suffering. The quick answer is because there is such a grave risk in riches and comfort. The Lord is well aware of how hard it is for the wealthy and comfortable to enter the Kingdom of God. In riches we trust in ourselves, in poverty we can only trust God.

And it is only by trusting faith that we can ever be saved. And, as we have noted there is a kind of freedom in poverty. The poor have less to lose. They can operate in wider dimensions and have a kind of freedom that the wealthy often lack.

Not only is it hard to steal from a poor man, but it also takes little to enrich him. A man who has known a great palace with high cathedral ceilings and marble wainscoting will be little more than discouraged with a humble domicile. Whereas, a poor man may be satisfied with a mere 8 x 12 room to call his own. A man who has had no food may appreciate sardines, whereas a man who is satiated may need caviar to be grateful. The rich miss many of life’s little blessings and suffer boredom whereas the poor never miss the color purple and delight in even small pleasures. The rich man’s world gets ever smaller and unsatisfying, the poor are more likely to have wide appreciation of even the humblest things.

Here again is the paradox of poverty wherein less is more, gratitude is easier to find, and losses are less painful. And, as we shall see, it is her poverty that opens this woman to lasting blessings. Having little to lose, she is free enough to accept the next stage of our story.

III. The Demand that is Prescribed. God’s prophet, Elijah, summons her to trusting faith: “Do not be afraid. Go and do as you propose. But first make me a little cake and bring it to me. Then you can prepare something for yourself and your son. For the LORD, the God of Israel, says, ‘The jar of flour shall not go empty, nor the jug of oil run dry, until the day when the LORD sends rain upon the earth.'”

He tells her not to be afraid to share, and in effect, teaches her that the Lord will not be outdone in generosity. At a merely human level, Elijah’s request may seem almost cruel. But from a spiritual perspective, Elijah is summoning her to the faith that alone can truly save her.

And note, that though she expresses a fear, her fear is easily overcome. Why? Again, she has little to lose. So many of our fears are rooted in a fear of loss. And, have more, we are anxious about more. As we have grown quite wealthy in recent decades what are our chief problems? Fear and anxiety about loss, maintenance and proper securing of our “stuff.” Scripture says, The sleep of a laborer is sweet, whether he eats little or much, but the abundance of a rich man permits him no sleep (Eccl 5:12). And this is true. The wealthier we have become the more we spend on psychotherapy and psychotropic drugs. We are anxious about many things and sleepiness and stress are common problems.

Too much stuff. Too much to lose. Most of us, hearing Elijah’s request would call him crazy or cruel or both. Funny thing though, this woman is free enough to take him up on his offer. How about you? How about me?

We too must come to realize that merely looking to our own self-interest will only feed us for one extra day. Only in openness to God and to others can we procure a superabundant food, that which will draw us to life eternal.

IV. The Deliverance Produced. Having little to lose, she trusts in God’s word through Elijah and shares her food. She was able to eat for a year, and he and her son as well; the jar of flour did not go empty, nor the jug of oil run dry, as the LORD had foretold through Elijah.

If we learn to trust God, we come to discover that God never fails. Of course it takes faith, and faith involves risk. And here is where poverty can have its advantages. She takes the risk and shares what little she has. For her the risk is immediate but ultimately less since she has less to lose.

And so the woman is free enough to risk it all. He only gamble is to trust God. And God does not fail. Scripture says,

Cast your bread upon the waters, for you will find it after many days. (Eccles 11:1)

Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” (Luke 6:38)

And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward.” (Matt 10:42)

Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. (2 Cor 9:6)

Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. (Deut 15:10)

He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward him for what he has done. (Prov 19:17)

A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor. (Prov 22:9)

He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses. (Prov 28:27)

Do you believe all this? Or are these just slogans for somebody else? Well, you don’t know until you try. And if you don’t think you can try, maybe you have too much to lose.

Consider this woman who was poor enough to be free, and free enough to try the Lord. And God did not fail. God never fails. I am a witness, how about you?

This songs says, “God never fails. He abides in me, gives me the victory, God never fails.”

Bonus Track: Too Much Stuff by Delbert McClinton:

Posted on

On humility and our hidden faults, as seen in a commercial

The video below humorously illustrates a biblical principle of our hidden faults. Indeed we all have sins and behaviors that are often clear to others but of which we are unaware. Indeed there are even deeper faults of which no one is aware except God himself who sees our innermost heart. Consider some of the following quotes:

By [your ordinances] your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward. But who can discern his errors? From my hidden faults acquit me, O Lord. Keep your servant also from willful sins; may they not rule over me. (Psalm 19:11-13)

You have set our iniquities before you, our secret sins in the light of your presence. (Psalm 90:8)

For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil. (Eccl 12:14)

Mind you, I have nothing on my conscience, but I do not stand thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. (1 Cor 4:4).

The sins of some men are conspicuous, going before them to judgment, but the sins of others appear only later. (1 Tim 5:24)

Call no man happy before he dies, for by how he ends, a man is known. (Sirach 11:28)

Yes, some of our sins are obvious to us and we may rightfully work upon them. But lest we sin through pride, we ought always recall that we have sins and faults that are often hidden from us. Others may see them, or perhaps only God.

At the end of the day we’re all going to need a lot of grace and mercy!

Enjoy this commercial that well illustrates this fact. And enjoy a little humor, it’s been a tough week on the blog!

Posted on

Getting the Marriage Conversation Right.

One of the most common and quickest traps and which most of us fall in the marriage debate about recognizing same-sex couples is that we allow the conversation to center around the couple themselves, that is, to center on the adults. But intrinsically marriage as an institution is not fundamentally about adults, it is about children.

William May recently wrote a short book on this matter: Getting the Marriage Question Right: a guide for effective dialogue. I want to summarize one of the key points he makes.

Marriage unites a man and a woman with each other, and any children born from the union. Marriage takes its fundamental structure and moral imperatives based on what is just and right for children. Hence, marriage must be heterosexual, in order that children may be conceived and born. Marriage must also be a stable and lasting union between those parents because this is what is right and just for children, namely that they have a right to be raised, formed, and influenced by their father and a mother.

But the problem with most understandings of marriage today is that they are adult-centric. That is to say, they focus only on the rights and happiness of the adults involved. Most people have little concept of marriage today as anything other than two adults being happy for as long as they please. And if they do have any children it isn’t because that is what marriage is about, it’s only because that makes the adults happy. Or so the thinking goes. And thus, because adults have a right to be happy, they have a right to get married, and if they are unhappy, they have a right to divorce. Basically, the modern concept of marriage is that it’s all about the adults.

Now, to be clear, this “all about the adults” mentality has been a problem in the heterosexual community long before the homosexual community stepped forward to demand recognition of their unions, as a “marriage.” And that is why it is so hard for heterosexuals to answer the demands of the homosexual community, and why so many heterosexuals are themselves confused. After all, what, really, is one to say to the homosexual community if all that marriage is, is two adults being happy for as long as they please?

And that is why we have to get the marriage conversation right.

The central point must remain this, that marriage, its structure, and how we understand it, must be seen from the standpoint of was is fundamentally just and and right for children. Any divergence from this central insight, leads us down dead ends and endless arguments about the rights and feelings of adults, and their need for recognition.

Actions which served to deprive children of their right to live in a married, stable, two parent family, with their own father and mother, are acts of injustice. Fornication which places children in danger of being killed by abortion, or of being raised in single-parent settings is a potential act of injustice toward children, and actual injustice if they are conceived. Adultery which violates and endangers the sacred bond of marriage and weakens it, is also an injustice toward children as well as adults. Divorce which intentionally destroys the marriage bond, also deprives children of what they justly deserve, a father and a mother who have made commitments, stick to those commitments, and work out their differences.

Other philosophies and lifestyles which weaken the institution of marriage are also injustices toward children, philosophies such as cohabitation, no-fault divorce, and giving legal recognition to same-sex unions. These philosophies and practices, because they weaken the institution of marriage, or to lose its meaning, are harmful to children, and an injustice toward them.

Children are not served by being born into a society where marriage is anything adults say it should be. A fundamental and intrinsic meaning of marriage is the raising of children and what is best for them.

We must do everything in our culture to regain this starting point when we consider marriage. To fail to do this at any level remains an ongoing social injustice, as well as personal injustice to children.

How is it unjust, you may ask? Because not being raised in a traditional marriage dramatically increases a child’s likelihood of suffering many social ills.

The chief cause of poverty in this country, is the single motherhood, absent fatherhood.
71% of poor families are not married.
Children of single parent homes are 2 times more likely to be arrested for juvenile crime,
2 times more likely be treated for emotional and behavioral problems,
Twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from school,
33% more likely to drop out of school,
3 times more likely to end up in jail by age 30.
50% more likely to live in poverty as adults,
And twice as likely to have a child outside of marriage themselves. [*]

The subject a child to these odds is a social injustice, whether intentionally as some proudly do by having children outside of marriage on purpose, or unintentionally through unchaste behavior committed in weakness.

Further it is clear that heterosexual complementarity is what nature provides and what we should justly provide our children for their psychological and sociological development. A father and mother have unique and essential things to supply to the rearing of their children that a single parent or same sex parents cannot give. To intentionally deprive children of this is unjust. To weaken traditional marriage by the “anything is marriage or family” mentality is also an injustice since it makes our future children more likely to be raised in irregular situation.

In the marriage conversation, stay on message! Do not be drawn into long discussions about the rights of adults, or long discussions about homosexual activity. When it comes to marriage, marriage is about children. It takes a structure and its obligations based on what is just and proper for children.

Staying focused on this aspect of marriage, which gives it its fundamental structure and purpose, is intrinsic meaning, also makes it plain that this understanding binds heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.

We all have a lot to answer for with the kind of terrible situations the majority of our children are being raised in today. And even if someone wants to argue that a certain situation isn’t so bad, it still remains an injustice to deprive a child of his or her right to live in a stable married family with father and mother. Anything short of this or anything which weakens the institution of marriage must be seen for the social and personal injustice that it is.

Get the marriage conversation right, stay focused on children, and what is just and right for them.

I remember being at a Yolanda Adams concert, and before she sang this song she warned the audience to shun illicit sexual union and to remember how it hurts children, along with many other bad things we adults do.

Posted on

A Post Mortem on the Maryland Same Sex”Marriage”Referendum

Among the unsurprising but very disappointing results from yesterday’s elections was the approval of Same Sex “Marriage” by Maryland residents 52 to 48%. Maryland is one of the most liberal states in the union, and it is been known for at least several weeks now, through polling, that the bill was likely to pass.

Here again it is a time for a kind of post mortem analysis of how the Church could have more effectively taught the faithful, and have opposed the referendum more successfully. A reader from yesterday’s blog reflecting on this very matter wrote the following:

I was very disappointed at the lame, almost non-existent reaction of the Catholic Church to the same-sex marriage vote in Maryland. Where were the commercials? Where were the road signs? Where were the interviews and lectures and public forums? Where were the homilies?

While I’m not sure that all these reflections are fair, it does remain true that the work we did in opposing the bill was unevenly experienced and, given that we lost quite soundly, our work could well have been more effective.

Perhaps a brief review of what we did do is in order.

Beginning, almost four years ago, when gay “marriage” was being forced on the residents of the District of Columbia by a mere City Council vote, the Church joined with many other Christian denominations in seeking at that time to have the matter brought to a vote for the citizens of the District of Columbia. This attempt was denied by the DC Board of Elections who claimed that “human rights” could not be a matter for referendum.

In the midst of that battle we began a campaign to teach on marriage entitled Marriage Matters. The goal here was, through sermons, published materials, and Internet sites, that we could lead to the people of God to back to a better understanding of the roots of traditional marriage in Natural Law, as well as Scripture and Church teaching. In the context of this wider teaching, we also sought to demonstrate why Gay “marriage” was not an acceptable understanding of marriage that Americans ought to adopt.

More recently, these materials were re-presented in a more focused way to the citizens of Maryland. Pastors were instructed to read several letters from the Archbishop, were asked to preach one Sunday on the topic of Marriage and why Catholics should vote against the recognition of Same-sex “Marriage.” We were also to provide written materials and other references to parishioners. This was to have been done on one of the Sundays back in September.

It is unclear to me whether the reader who commented on the blog yesterday attends a parish where, for some reason, this was not done. But the fact is, it was something that was expected of every pastor by the Archdiocese. Although I, have a parish in the District, not Maryland, since many of my parishioners live and vote in Maryland, I took part in this campaign. I read the letters, preached the sermon and presented written material to the congregation.

There was also an advertising campaign, in which the Archdiocese joined with others to purchase radio spots, and some TV spots as well. Initial funding for this advertising was good, but there was donor fatigue which set in when it became increasingly clear that the polls showed that gay “marriage” was likely to pass in Maryland. I received an urgent call from the Archdiocese three weeks before the election seeking to help identify donors who might make last-minute donations. I am also aware that some of the bishops personally sought donors as well. So, there were strong efforts made to raise the money and increase the advertising, but the money was generally not forthcoming in large enough numbers to afford major P.R. and advertising especially into October as the polls indicated we were unlikely to prevail.

Could we have done more? Certainly. Without simply excusing our less than adequate efforts, I would like to make a few observations however, about some things which make our efforts difficult.

In the first place, the Archdiocese of Washington is not a professional or full-time PR firm. Nor do we have endless monies to hire such firms. It is clear that, as we move forward, more monies, and fundraising are going to have to be done. We just have to get better at doing what is frankly, costly, complex, and requires great sophistication.

Secondly, there is also the problem of there being numerous fronts in which the Church must currently fight. There is Gay “marriage,” but there is also the HHS mandate, abortion and other life issues. Every year, the Archdiocese spends an enormous amount of money on the pro-life march. The Verizon Center is rented at great expense, as are other sites. There is also extensive time and money spent by the staff of the Archdiocese to coordinate with police and get marching permits etc. All the sophistication, fundraising, and coordination has taken decades to emerge. As we go forward other topics will require similar sorts of attention.

This brings a third point which is the pace of change. Many of the cultural issues have come upon us quite rapidly. Gay “marriage” has emerged as a credible threat, really only in the last five or six years. The HHS mandate, and the question of religious liberty, emerged only last year, though we have been fighting legal battles for many years over the attempts to exclude religious voices in the public square.

Fourthly we struggled to maintain a coalition with other denominations when it came to the gay marriage bill. While we are deeply appreciative of and respectful of the hard work done by many of the Protestant denominations, there remain some differences between us in the way in which we articulate and understand the problem of homosexual activity. The Catholic approach is to make careful distinctions between orientation and behavior. Many Protestant denominations do not speak with these distinctions, and sometimes consider the orientation itself to be sinful, not just the behavior. These differences have made it somewhat difficult, and or awkward for us at times to speak with a common voice and to stand together easily. The Catholic position on homosexual activity, and so-called homosexual “marriage” is clear but our pastoral practice is to maintain important distinctions, as a matter of pastoral practice and out reach to those who struggle with a homosexual orientation. All of this makes building coalitions, while not impossible, more delicate and difficult.

Fifth – teaching on this matter at the homily moment, as pastors were instructed to do can be effective, but also depends upon the capacity of preachers whose skills are often very uneven. It is a sad truth, that over the last decades, most Catholic priest instinctively avoid speaking about controversial issues, and as a body, have a poor skill set in addressing matters of controversy forthrightly and with charity. This is beginning to change with younger clergy, but the fact remains that when too much depends on the individual priest, the overall effect is very uneven.

Six – Another problem in using the homily moment, is a matter of time. Most Catholics have an expectation that the homily should be 7 to 12 minutes, no more. Setting forth the Catholic teaching on marriage, and why we oppose so-called gay “marriage” does not easily fit into such a brief format.

Of course then, if it is not the Homily moment, when can such information be given the people of God? Would they attend special seminars, would they come to a parish meeting? Not likely in large numbers.

Surely then we should use the Internet, and we have. But it remains a fact that most religious people, especially Catholics, do not get most of their religious information from the Internet. There are also email outreaches, flyers, bulletin inserts, etc., but frankly, most people no longer read much.

Yard signs etc. could have been more ubiquitous, as could have bus ads etc.

In the end however the greatest challenge, it would seem, is simply to get our own house in order.

Most Priests are well aware that increasing numbers of Catholics, especially younger ones, have no idea why we oppose so call gay marriage. Further, marriage has been in such disrepair in the Church for over fifty years now that almost no one even knows what marriages is at all. Contraception, has shredded the meaning of sex and marriage and severed their intrinsic relationship to bearing children. Divorce has also shredded the meaning of marriage. Pornography has destroyed innocence and, after over fifty years of heterosexual misbehavior, most people think of marriage as little less than two adults being happy with or without kids, whatever they choose, for only as long as they please.

Yes, we have sown in the wind and we are reaping the whirlwind. If most people merely think of marriage as two adults being happy for as long as they please, of course it is difficult for them to understand why to Gay people can’t get married. If marriage is not intrinsically about children in its fundamental meaning, why should it either be stable or heterosexual, necessarily?

Increasing numbers of Catholics, especially younger ones just don’t get it. Marriage of course is fundamentally about children, and takes it structure as heterosexual and stable because they are Integral to the meaning of marriage.

That is why marriages should be stable, lasting unions, and why divorce is wrong and why a child should have a father and a mother, because this is what is best for children. This is why contraception is wrong, why marriage must be heterosexual. But a lot of this doesn’t make sense to modern people who reject many if not all of these premises.

We have a lot of work to do to restore a biblical understanding of marriage.

Yes, even more than publicity issues, here is where the Church needs to do some very deep soul-searching. Too many of us clergy have said little over fifty years of heterosexual miss behavior, and deep misunderstanding about marriage has gone largely unaddressed.

When no-fault divorce railroaded through this country in 1969, it is hard to note that the Church said much of anything We were inwardly focused at the time, turning around altars, tuning up guitars, debating liturgy and authority etc. Yes, for over 40 years we have been inwardly focused and we lost the culture.

More than yard signs, or PR in this latest go-round, we have some serious repenting to do. We have not done in maintain the family or preserving marriage in the Church. We have been sleepy and distracted. It will be a long hard journey back to sanity in our culture, and to a good degree we must accept our responsibility for the mess we’re in.

This has happened on our watch.

Posted on

Difficult Days Ahead for the Church?

My remarks will be brief, since this is not a political blog, and I am not a political prognosticator. The American people and process have spoken. But a few remarks based on the election results, things I think of as undeniable facts for the Church, though you are free to offer any rebuttals.

1. The strained relationship between the Catholic Church in the Democratic party will continue and the strain will likely grow. The reasons for this are that the Democratic Party is increasingly aligning itself with positions that are in direct conflict with Catholic teaching. More of this in the following points.

2. Largely unrestricted abortion will continue unabated, as will funding for organizations such as Planned Parenthood, the chief provider of abortion in this country. Possible Supreme Court nominations will also feature pro-choice jurists. Likewise many Circuit and other Federal District Court judges will continue to be appointed who favor largely unrestricted abortion.

3. The homosexual agenda will continue to grow and receive increasing legal recognition and protection. This includes not only gay “marriage” but also, other issues in the Gay agenda such as adoption, and the general insistence that the Gay lifestyle be promoted in schools and other public settings. This will require Church opposition and generally embroil us in many public disputes. This may have continued even with a Romney win, but there will be fewer political hurdles for such agendas and the pace will be quicker.

4. The HHS mandate moves forward, untouched. Our religious liberty is in greater jeopardy. We’ll have to meet the administration in court. And while the legal basis for our grievance seems strong, recent experience in the courts has demonstrated that nothing is certain. Civil disobedience may be in our future.

5. Extreme debt seems likely to pile up. Well this may not be a specific issue the Catholic Church has spoken to, it remains a fact that we spend money we do not have, and this has moral implications. Little change in a very divided Congress, means there will be likely little progress in arresting a runaway debt. This will become an increasing moral problem that the Church will likely have to address at some level. This too draws us into the morass of debates about spending priorities etc. and may divide us as a Church between fiscal conservatives and those who emphasize the Social Doctrine.

Thus, the next years ahead, will likely draw the Church into increasing conflict with the political scene in general, and the Democratic Party specifically.

And while it is not the instinct to the Church to be drawn into one side of the political debate, moral issues are increasingly demanding from us an unambiguous stance, one which draws us into increasing conflict with the Democratic Party on issues which we consider non-negotiable. At the same time, issues that we may share with the Democratic Party, are less doctrinal or certain for us. We face difficult days ahead, and difficult decisions about strategy and how to engage a party in power that is increasingly at odds with our most central tenants.

The Central question for us is, How will the Church be able to articulate her positions, increasingly at odds with the platform of the Democratic party and be able to resist the (unfair) charge that we are merely the Republican Party at prayer. There are difficult days ahead for the Church.

Let us pray for great courage and prudence.