Author: Msgr. Charles Pope

Posted on

Some Healthcare Questions to Ponder

I have waited a bit till the dust settled on the Supreme Court decision of last month to ask some questions of about healthcare, and more specifically Health Insurance. I waited because this is neither a political blog, nor a legal blog. I want to leave the political commentary and questions to others, and let the legal types parse the Constitutional questions.

My questions are more personal and directed to us who are consumers of health care, especially about Insurance and how we pay for healthcare than healthcare itself. It is also about the high costs of healthcare.

While we may all wish to blame others (HMOs, hospitals, doctors, government et al.) is it not also possible that we all share some of the blame for the “off the hook” costs of medical care and for the Insurance debacle we in?

I would like to state a few questions and ask your feedback because a lot of the Health Insurance landscape is puzzling to me.

1. Let’s start with the concept of insurance. Most of us have several kinds of insurance: Car insurance, homeowners insurance and medical insurance. And yet the word “insurance” with reference to healthcare has taken on a vastly different meaning than any other kind of insurance.

Insurance is normally used to cover catastrophic, or at least significant costs. When I need new tires, I do not call my car insurance company. When I need an oil change or a 30,ooo mile checkup I pay for these things out of pocket. Same with homeowners insurance. We do not ask or demand our insurer to pay for new light bulbs, or even more expensive things like a new roof or HVAC system. No, Insurance is for catastrophic losses.

So why, when it comes to medical “Insurance” do we demand that every little pill, every doctor’s visit, every medical device be almost wholly paid by “insurers?” How did this system evolve? Is it necessarily reasonable for us to expect third parties to pay for everything when it comes to healthcare?

2. You may say, “But Father, if money were a consideration, many might neglect their health.” And this may be true. Although many do that now. But this leads to my next question.

3. Are Medical prices artificially high because third parties pay the bills? On the patient side there is inelastic demand. We run to the doctor with almost no thought to the cost. But on the supplier side why should an x-ray cost $1,100? Why should a night in the hospital cost thousands? Why should a 15 minute office visit to the doctor or specialist be $90-180? I wonder if market forces had predominated all along, would prices would be this high?

4. When did prices start going out of range? I vaguely remember as a child in the early 1960s that my mother paid the doctor cash when we visited. Only later did insurance start picking up the tab. At one time a doctor visit was considered affordable. My Grandfather, who was a doctor, surely did have some patients who could not pay, and I know he still saw them, but most could afford a visit a few times a year.

5. What role does technology play in costs? I realize that in the old days there was far less expensive equipment either available or used. Technology is expensive to be sure, but in other areas where market forces predominate, technology is still affordable. Very sophisticated computers, TVs and electronic devices that start out expensive, become affordable to the average person quickly, when market forces kick in. Is medical technology really all that different? Has the lack of a natural market due to third party payers meant that things have remained overpriced?

6. Malpractice Insurance is surely a huge factor. Is there anything we can do to limit frivolous lawsuits or limit the damages that must be paid? Can we stop suing each other so much?

7. What part has insisting that employers and government (more third parties) cover healthcare insurance played in driving up costs? Would insurance be more affordable if we all had to personally write the check every month? Would insurance companies compete more for our business? Would they have more incentive to help keep costs low?

8. I am personally happy to see “urgent care centers” beginning to spring up. So many these days run to hospital emergency rooms for what is not really an emergency, it is just urgent. They are not bleeding out, having a heart attack, or trouble breathing. They are not unconscious. They just have a headache that won’t quit, or have turned their ankle and fear it may be broken, or have a severe cold. Perhaps their doctor is away or it is a weekend or holiday. Urgent care centers perhaps with a doctor and several trained nurses may be a less expensive alternative. Can we develop more creative solutions like this?

Please understand these are real questions I am asking, not rhetorical points.

At the moral level I do think it is important for all of us to ask if we have not personally contributed to the high cost and increasingly unmanageable nature of the healthcare system. We don’t care what it costs, we don’t even ask what it costs. Our demand for unlimited care seems itself to be unlimited. We are part of the forces that have driven costs up.

I realize that healthcare decisions can get complicated. How long should I wait before I see the doctor? Is my ankle just twisted or is it broken and do I risk permanent injury if I don’t attend to it? These are not always easy things to answer, and most of us err on the side of caution. Maybe we should. But is cost never to be a factor?

Our even recent ancestors suffered through things we barely tolerate for a minute. In the old days when you went to the doctor with bad knees he’d hand you a cane and say “No more tennis for you.” We on the other hand demand knee replacement surgery and that others pay for it. Perhaps that is OK, but are there no limits? What part have we played in driving up costs by insisting that everything has to be fixed with no share in the cost other than our premium? And when the premium or co-pay goes up, we nearly hit the roof and scoff at the high price of medical care.

I want to say that decent healthcare available for all is certainly a pillar of Catholic Social teaching.  But are there no limits to be accepted? Is it never legitimate to try and reign in the costs? Are there any limits of what others owe me in terms of medical care or at least in what I expect them to pay?

And a final bevy of questions:

  • – Why do people demand that  contraceptives and things like Viagra be paid for by me or others.
  • – And why is Viagra $15 a pill?
  • – What is truly urgent care that must be extended, and what can wait and be diverted to non-emergency settings?
  • – Is there anything that can be done to walk back the medical system from an entirely third-party payer system and reintroduce market forces such as competition to drive down the cost?
  • – Is there anything that can be done to make ordinary medical care affordable again and keep insurance for the catastrophic and big stuff?

Again, I am interested in your thoughts. I am not writing this post as an expert of any sort. I am asking questions as I try to formulate a moral point of view on the need to provide healthcare coverage to all  but also to recognize necessary and reasonable limits.

I am also trying to start a discussion around the idea that we may have ALL had a role to play in driving up costs, and thus may have a role to play in bringing those costs down.

This video illustrates how third-party payments relate to escalating costs:

Posted on

A Meditation on the Virtue of Acceptance

On the great virtues to cultivate in life is acceptance. And while it is true that not everything ought to be accepted, it is often a virtue and a step toward serenity to understand that not everything can be changed, and that unrealistic expectations are premeditated resentments.

Acceptance, which is not the same as approval, is a person’s assent to the reality of a situation, wherein we come to recognize a situation (often a negative or uncomfortable) for what it is, without attempting to change it, protest, or leave it.  The word is derived from the Latin roots ac (to) + ceptus (take or receive). The concept is also close in meaning to ‘acquiescence’, which is derived from the Latin ‘acquiēscere‘ (to find rest in). [1]

Again, note that acceptance does not connote approval. In fact it usually connotes that there is something in the situation that is less than appealing, less than ideal. Yet, for wider reasons, such as the overall value of a relationship, or situation, we tolerate or assent to the imperfection.

While perfection and improvement are surely ideals for which to strive, inordinately demanding them in every situation or instantly is usually a recipe for resentment, frustration, disappointment, and even strife.

Last week on the blog we meditated on the value and virtue of stability, one of the four vows taken by the Benedictines. We do well to recall the following insights from the manual of a Benedictine community:

We give up the temptation to move from place to place in search of an ideal situation. Ultimately there is no escape from oneself, and the idea that things would be better someplace else is usually an illusion. And when interpersonal conflicts arise, we have a great incentive to work things out and restore peace. This means learning the practices of love: acknowledging one’s own offensive behavior, giving up one’s preferences, forgiving [2].

For it frequently happens that when one seeks that which is ideal, if there is any ordeal, they seek for a new deal. And the process tends to repeat and repeat, such that a person like this never attains true and deeper relations with real people in a real world, but is ever off seeking that which is unreal, which does not exist. In effect they miss real life, in search of fantasy.

In the Gospel from this past Sunday Jesus counsels:

Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town. (Mk 6:10)

In other words, stay put, don’t looking for a better meal, better lodgings, better company. Work with what you’ve got rather than waste time constantly looking for a better deal.

Acceptance is the capacity, to work with what is, and thereby make modest improvements. It is the resourcefulness to discover gifts in the present, and imperfect moment, and use them lovingly and skillfully. It is   the ability to rejoice and delight in the quirkiness, even the inconsistency of the people we know, and to realize that many of the struggles they have are strongly related to their strengths.

For, yes, competent and organized people are often anxious and controlling, artistic people are often moody, intellectual people are overly analytical, and kind people may make too many compromises. But acceptance rests in the insight that we are all mixed bags and that strength and struggles are often intertwined. Thus, search and destroy missions regarding negative traits are usually less effective than identifying the nearby gift and helping to refine and clarify it.

Acceptance also means working your own stuff. For while we often demand perfection or the ideal outside of ourselves, we easily forget how difficult we can be to live with. Too easily we fulfill the old saying: Faults in others I can see, but praise the Lord, there are none in me.

Beyond this we also go to the other end of the spectrum and unrealistically demand perfection of our selves. We can be our own worst critic. It’s all just a strange twist on pride wherein we implicitly presume to be above imperfection. The fact is we’re a mixed bag just like everyone else.

I can hear some of the objectors now: “Are you saying we should just settle for the mediocre?!” No, there is an important place and time in life to strive for improvement and increasing perfection. But along the way, accepting what is, right here and now, is a very important virtue. For if I cannot bear to live in what is now, I cannot ultimately inherit what could be better. If I will not stay put to improve and grow what is how can I reap what might be better? What can be better later, must be built on what is now. Acceptance helps me stay put and work with what is, rather than endlessly wait for something better to come, something which almost never comes.

A couple of sayings from the Desert Fathers (I know not who) :

To a disciple who was forever complaining about others the Master said, “If it is peace you want, seek to change yourself, not other people. It is easier to protect your feet with slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth.”

(For acceptance and serenity are deeply interior gifts. And when I get better, other people get better too).

A disciple once said to the Master, “How can I be a great man like you?” “Why be a great man?” said the Master. “Being a man is a great enough achievement.”

(For it sometimes happens that, in seeking what is great, we neglect what is most real and essential, our very selves. Greatness is not so much achieved as it is received when we come to accept ourselves as we really are, from the hand of God. Simply becoming the man or woman God made us to be is great enough. To compare is to despair and no matter how tall your father is, you have to do your own growing).

Here is a silly video that illustrates a woman who simply cannot accept her family as it is, so she creates a virtual family instead.

Posted on

To be lighthouse, we have to be light, even when the world prefers darkness. An Answer to an Anti-Catholic Blogger

Like many of you I often use Google Alerts to stay in touch with what’s going out out there. One of my search parameters is “Catholic” as you might expect. But what I get back from Google would really be described more as “anti-Catholic.” Well over 80% of the articles and posts that are highlighted are not only hostile to Catholic teaching, but downright hateful.

This suggests two possibilities. First that the Google search algorithm is “off” and that it fails to really search for what I want, and that somehow Google likes or prioritizes the anti-Catholic stuff. Perhaps. It IS odd to me that most of the blogs I regularly read NEVER make the Google cut.

The second possibility is that there simply is a lot more anti-Catholic stuff out there than I’d like to think, and though we Catholics like to think we’ve really got it going on in the blogosphere etc., perhaps those who hate or oppose us just have a bigger footprint.

I don’t know, you decide. CARA recently did a study (HERE) that concludes that we faithful Catholics have a LONG way to go in really making an impact on the Internet, and that most of the faithful do not really frequent Catholic sites for Catholic info.

All that said, (as a challenge to us all to grow the footprint of faithful Catholicism), I want to comment on a typical article that Google alerts generates and make some comments on how the author of the article fundamentally misunderstands the Church and yet exemplifies even what many in our pews think the Church should do and be.

The author identifies himself as “the Friendly Atheist.” Frankly he doesn’t seem all that friendly, given what he writes, but lets take a look, and also at a comment. As usual the original article is in bold, black, italic text, and my remarks are in plain red text. The full article is HERE, these are excerpts.

Friendly Atheist writes:

The Catholic Church is Now Pissing Off the People Who Actually Like Them

Sorry, those are his vulgar words, not mine. Refined language does not seem to be the forte of our Friendly Atheist.

But note the premise of his statement seems to be that anger is an argument. In other words if I make you angry, somehow I must be in the wrong. The argument seems to be  that anger has the upper hand. Yes, if I am angry, somehow I must be “right,”  and if you caused me to be angry somehow you must be wrong.

It is, perhaps, a specific version of the more general trend of our culture to exult feelings over reason. Thus if a person is crying, or if there is anger, somehow they gain authenticity over someone who is more sanguine. If the mother of, say, a crime victim is crying, the cameras roll and she makes the opening of the TV news. If one is more measured and “logical” they get moved to page B2 of the paper, and don’t even make the evening news.

But again, note, anger is not, per se, an argument. Just because you are angry at me does not mean that I necessarily did anything wrong. In fact, it may be that I did something right, that I struck a necessary nerve. Jesus made a lot of people angry, so angry they killed him; the prophets and martyrs too. Anger is not a argument, it’s just a feeling.

We know Catholic leaders are mostly a bunch of men who don’t want to hear any legitimate arguments as to why they’re wrong on issues like contraception usage and gay marriage.

Note that he says we “know” this. I do not cede this point as a premise. Frankly, most Catholics I know, think the Bishops far less decisive than our “friendly atheist” presumes. They experience them, as a group, to be far more open the the “spirit of the age,” to collegiality and to “dialogue” than they would wish.  I personally disagree with either extreme (i.e. too open vs. too closed), but the point here is that what our friendly atheist stipulates as a fact we “know,” is far more disputable than he presumes.

Further he speaks of them not being open to “legitimate” arguments as to why they are wrong on contraception and Gay “marriage.”

Again note the logical fallacy: we are first supposed to stipulate that they are “wrong” on the said issues. No, Mr. “Friendly Atheist,” you are supposed to demonstrate that.

He further implies that the arguments against the Bishops are “legitimate,” which presupposes that arguments for these positions are “illegitimate.” Here too, a logical fallacy since he has failed to demonstrate the presupposition of “legitimacy.”

Now the word “legitimacy” comes from the Latin legis, meaning “law.” In the Catholic realm we find the sources of our law in Scripture and Tradition. Now, if there are “legitimate” arguments that the “friendly atheist” wants to advance, let him attempt to do so. But, frankly, the attempts to advance any argument from Scripture or Tradition that Gay “marriage” or contraception are good, and of God, will be hard to come by, since, at every stage of Scripture and Tradition these practices are consistently condemned.

Some argue that Scripture is largely silent on contraception (but remember, NO ONE wanted small families in those days, contraception was unthinkable except perhaps in relation to prostitution), but Tradition is not silent. And as for Gay “marriage” any attempt to validate homosexual activity of any sort is fanciful. Scripture unambiguously and at every stage, condemns homosexual activity, as well as illicit heterosexual activity. Hence it is unclear what “legitimate” (i.e. based in Law) arguments the bishops should be listening to on either topic

Perhaps our friendly atheist thinks that arguments from the world are the legitimate arguments. But “the world” is not a “legitimate” (i.e. “legal”) source of the moral Law for the Church. We draw from sources of Scripture, Tradition and appeal to the Natural Law both to confirm the rectitude of our beliefs and to demonstrate to unbelievers the rectitude of our positions.

We also know that most Catholics who are not part of the hierarchy don’t buy into what their “superiors” tell them. Catholic women use birth control. Many Catholics support gay marriage. The list goes on.

Here too there are a list of misunderstandings as to the nature of the Church. We are not a body politic that determines what is right based on polls or how conforming people are. It is a tragic truth that the faithful, down through the centuries, have not always lived or upheld what is taught. That goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden.

And even to this day, it is not merely the “conservative” sexual morals of the Church that the faithful often ignore or dispute, it is also more “liberal” notions. For example, we are to love our enemies and not seek to retaliate against those who assail us. But most Catholics, most Christians, liberal or conservative, do not live this very well and even openly live contrary to it. Should the Church simply jettison this call to love our enemies and now sanction, approve and encourage hating enemies? Should we recognize “covenants of hatred” and seek to supply encouragement and provision and rituals for retaliation? Should we affirm those who have a “right” to hate since, after all, God gave them the capacity to hate? Is the mere fact that people don’t live the moral law reason to jettison it?

Well, let these absurdities illustrate the truth that the Church cannot allow sinful human behavior, no matter how widespread and “celebrated” be the norm for our teaching. Taking votes and simply observing human attitudes is not a good source for moral norms. We must look to reveled truth for a more sure source, a source that does not merely pander to what we want.

And note that what the “friendly atheist” calls “Most Catholics” may be statistically true, but it fails to distinguish between church-going Catholics and merely nominal Catholics. It remains a sad fact that most people who call themselves Catholics are not really practicing Catholics in any sense of the word. Perhaps they will return, but non-practicing Catholics cannot set the norm for what it means to be a believing and practicing Catholic.

So when the Arlington Catholic Diocese sent Sunday School teachers a “Profession of Faith” they needed to sign, some of them balked at the idea that they have to “firmly accept” anything the Church teaches about faith and morals.

Ditto with being forced to adhere to the “will and intellect to the teachings” of Catholic leaders.

It is not clear to me how many of the teachers actually balked at the idea. But, not having been born yesterday, and knowing the secular media’s usual approach, lets say 97% say fine, and 3% say “Hmm…” Just guess where the cameras and mics will be found. The dissenters get the attention, the faithful are either ignored or get a little line at the end of the piece.

Here too, our Friendly Atheist misunderstands the nature of the Church which is not a human club wherein the members get to vote on by-laws and determine what seems right according to their thinking. We are a community of believers who gather around a revealed doctrine that we do not get to determine, but are required to give assent to.

It is not so extreme to ask those who do not merely sit in the pews but actually take positions as catechists and who claim to teach in the name of the Church to publicly attest that they actually believe what they are teaching and to promise not to teach anything contrary to it.

No one is required to be a catechist, and thus, if one is struggling to assent to some teaching, they are not required to make a promise of any sort. Perhaps they can discuss their struggle with a member of the clergy or another believer and clarify or come to some understanding. Perhaps not. But that is a personal matter.

When, however, one steps forth to teach the faith in  a formal way and to take the office of catechist, it makes sense that they be asked to certify that they assent to Church teaching and are striving to live it.

Every employee of the Federal and most State governments are asked to assert under oath that they will respect and uphold civil law in these or similar words:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

If even secular governments and businesses expect their employees to affirm loyalty and allegiance to a basic set of norms, how much more the Church which proposes not only passing human norms, but what we believe to be eternal and divine norms?

The “Friendly Atheist” then goes on to quote outraged catechist (four of them) an then concludes:

I’m loving this implosion from the sidelines. The Church isn’t going to back down from their awful ideas and the decent people who actually like the Church are finding more and more reasons to get the hell out of there.

I am sure he is loving it but he doesn’t seem very “friendly” when he says this 🙂 .

He’s right that we are not going to back down, not with the Holy Spirit in charge any way. For God is not “no” yesterday and “yes” today and the moral law does not morph with our wishes. The truth does not change just because the world rejects it or even if most people choose to violate it.

So again, the “Friendly Atheist” fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the Church which is not a clubhouse, but is a lighthouse. And to be lighthouse we have to be a light, even when the world prefers darkness.

And as for those who are “getting the Hell out of there,” it is fairly problematic to argue that the Catholic Church would have greater numbers if we were towing the line of what the modern world expects and demands. For, the Mainline Protestant denominations have largely taken this path and their numbers are far worse, indeed one can only marvel at the mass exodus from the denominations who have embraced the spirit of the age. And, the Evangelical denominations who have resisted such modern notions are growing.

In the end, Catholicism is holding her own, and even growing on a worldwide basis. We do not grow by defining ourselves. Our only hope and prayer is to remain faith to the gospel in season and out of season.

One of his commenters  named “Moctavius” says, Nothing says, “I’m on the wrong side of history,” quite like a loyalty oath.

Well Mactavius may have pronounced an end to the Church, or to her influence, but he will do well to consider that the Church has outlived all her opponents and confounded the predictions of all who have announced her demise. Where is Caesar, where is Napoleon, where is the Soviet Socialist Republic? Movements too have come and gone, some remain and recast themselves as “something new” but are really just the same old tired heresies. You think you have a new idea, go back and see how the Greeks put it.

But through it all the Church has remained. She has outlived every enemy and every movement. And though her numbers may rise and fall, she is, by God’s promise, indefectible.

So pronounce away Mactavius, but the Church is not on the wrong side of history, she IS history.

And to the “Friendly Atheist,” and to all who think the Church should learn to “tow the line” and come into conformity with “modern” (actually old, rehashed) thinking, I am mindful of a saying of Jesus:

Jesus Said, “To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others: “‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.’ For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.”’ But time will prove where wisdom is” (Matt 11:17-19)

Yes, wisdom is proved true by her works and by her lasting vindication in the parade of erroneous or foolish ideas.

Posted on

Five Fundamental Freedoms for the Christian Evangelizer: A Meditation on the Gospel of the 15th Sunday of the Year

One of the great obstacles to effectively evangelizing is that most Christians lack the requisite freedom and simplicity of life to carry forth the task consistently and coherently. In today’s Gospel the Lord offers some counsel on what is required to effectively evangelize.

As we read a gospel like this, it is tempting to think it speaks only of specialists such as missionaries, religious, priests or deacons, or others with specialized calls. But such a presumption forgets that everyone is called to evangelize: clergy to people, parents to children, elders to youngsters, sibling to sibling, friend to friend, neighbor to neighbor.

Thus this gospel is for all of us, and it summons us to a greater freedom that will equip, empower and enable us to more effectively evangelize. Let’s look at the Lord’s counsels:

I. The Freedom of SUMMONS – The text says Jesus summoned the Twelve and began to send them out two by two and gave them authority over unclean spirits.

It may not seem immediately obvious how a summons is freeing, but consider that, to the degree that we know we are called to do something by someone in authority, we are often more courageous and diligent in doing it, even if it is hard. A commanding officer may have to ask the troops under him to engage in a difficult battle, but to the degree that he knows his own commanders have ordered it and that it is part of a wider strategy, he goes to his troops and rallies the troops. He speaks not only with his own authority but that of others, and thus he is courageous and his words have weight. And even if his troops protest or seem unenthusiastic, he remains strong because he knows his duty and is doing what is right.

Yes, being under a summons is freeing and empowering. And so for us, if we know that the Lord has summoned and sent us to evangelize, and he surely has (cf Matt 28:19) we can go forth with courage to muster and rally God’s people and summon them to the Lord’s team. And even when people react poorly we need not be discouraged, for we know we are under orders of God himself and that what we speak is right.

As a priest I am often called to speak on topics that some do not want to hear. And yet, to the degree that I know I have called to speak it, I do so with courage, knowing that, when the Lord and his Church bid me to address it I speak not only with my own authority but that of God. Some may grumble that they don’t want to hear me speak of money, or abortion, or religious liberty, or homosexual sin or heterosexual sin…. Yet to the degree that I know I AM called to speak on these things I still do them and do them with courage. Yes, I am summoned: I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! …for God has given me this sacred trust. (1 Cor 9:17).

Do you know you have been summoned? Have you experienced this call? Do you see it as a mandate, as something you have been summoned to do? Priests and deacons need to recognize our call to preach the Word of God unambiguously. We are under orders from the Lord. As Scripture says, In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage–with great patience and careful instruction. (2 Tim 4:1-2) But honestly, can any of you who are parents and grandparents not see that you are called to the same for your children? And who of us here can say any but perhaps the youngest are exempt from the summons to preach, to declare the word of God.

Knowing and experiencing that you have been summoned is freeing!

II. The Freedom of SIMPLICITY – The text says:  He instructed them to take nothing for the journey but a walking stick— no food, no sack, no money in their belts. They were, however, to wear sandals but not a second tunic.

One the most fundamental reason that people do not evangelize is that we have way too much baggage. What kind of baggage?  Consider that our lives are:

1. CLUTTERED – Too much stuff. And stuff needs attention, maintenance, money, it takes up space and ties us down. We also have the baggage and clutter of too many commitments. We’re over scheduled, over booked, and have many wrongful priorities where we spend too much time worrying about things that don’t matter all that much in the end. And what does matter gets put on hold. Reading Bible stories to your kids?? No time for that we’ve got to get to soccer practice!  Yes, our lives are cluttered with the excess baggage of too many distractions. And what is a “dis-traction?” It is something that gets you off track and makes you loose traction in what really matters.

2. COMPLEX – Most of our lives are so cluttered and choked with excess baggage we don’t even know where to begin to simply it. We don’t know how to break the cycle, how to say no, So we end up carrying all this baggage, all this stuff and are quite enslaved to its demands.

3. COMPROMISED – and all this extra baggage weighs us down and entangles us with the world. Thus, our values are not the values of the gospel. Instead, we are tied down to the world, loyal to it, and invested in its thinking and ways.

We need to be free to preach the Gospel and evangelize. So the Lord says, simplify! Too much obsession with money, food, clothes and boxes of stuff, popularity, and fitting in, will hinder you.

Think of a runner in a race. He does one thing and carries nothing extra that would weigh him down. Travelers too do not take their whole house with them, only what is necessary. And, in terms of this world, we are just traveling through.

Most of  just have too much stuff, and because of this we are tied to this world lack the kind of freedom necessary to prophetically witness to what is beyond this passing world. Ask the Lord to help you gently but persistently simplify your life so that it increasingly becomes about the one thing necessary.

III. The Freedom of STABILITY – The text says,  He said to them, “Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave.

Stability is the freedom to accept what is and work with it rather than to be constantly looking for something better. It is the freedom to bloom where you are planted and use what God actually gives, rather than to wait for something better.

There’s a real freedom to staying put and developing the deeper relationships that are usually necessary for evangelization to be effective and lasting.

One of the bigger problems with handing on the faith today is that there is very little stability in families, communities, and parishes. When things and people are passing and ephemeral, how can values rooted in lasting things be inculcated?

Preaching the gospel often depends on deep, well founded relationships, patience, perseverance, and taking the long view of life. Running here and there and living life only on the surface will not cut it. Shallow soil does not sustain taller growth. Only deep roots can do that.

Ask for the freedom to stay put and to be less anxious about the possibility that there may be a better job, a better community, a better deal out there somewhere. There is a value in being grateful for what you have and working with that, setting down deep roots and lasting relationship. This is the deeper and richer soil where evangelization can happen.

IV. The Freedom of SURETY – The text says – Whatever place does not welcome you or listen to you, leave there and shake the dust off your feet in testimony against them.

Here is one of the greatest freedoms of all, the gift to be free of our obsession with being liked, approved and popular. Too often we are overly concerned with being popular. We care too much about what others think, at the expense of the truth of the gospel.

In effect Jesus implies here that rejection will surely happen and when it does, shake it off, let it pass over you. Speak the truth and don’t worry about rejection. Expect it! This is a very great freedom.

Too many parents are too desperate to have their children like them and accept them. They avoid the difficult teachings and discipline. It is necessary to be free of this “need” and the Lord can give that to you.

It is true that we are not speaking here of becoming sociopaths caring not one wit what others think. This is not an invitation to be rude or impolite, or to fail to groom ourselves and be presentable. Rather it is an invitation to be free of our obsession with popularity so that we can shake off the rejection of the gospel we will inevitably experience. And again, the Lord can give that to us.

V. The Freedom of SUBSTANCE – The text says –  So they went off and preached repentance. The Twelve drove out many demons, and they anointed with oil many who were sick and cured them.

There is a freedom in knowing what to say and what to do. And this freedom flows from the first one about, that of SUMMONS. For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Crucified and this is freeing, for we cannot be compelled to change or adapt the message that has already been set for us. There is a freedom in sticking to the message proclaimed once and for all. The world demands compromise, and that certain passages of scripture be modified. But we, who in no way can do this, are free of such compulsion.

Only those who are enslaved to the times and mentality of this world can be so compelled. But to the degree that we know we are summoned, sent and given the substance of what to preach, we are free to announce, and free from coercion to compromise.

And substance was “repentance.” As we have noted before, the Greek word here: μετανοῶσιν (metanoosin) means more than simply to clean up ones behavior. It means, most literally “to come to a new mind,” or “to change your thinking.” Hence the evangelizer seeks to appeal to the whole person. It is not only important how a person behaves, it is also important how they think, and what is taking place in the deepest part of their soul.

Therefore the Lord seeks to heal the whole person from the inside out. Thus the Apostles and those of us free enough to be true evangelizes are not merely seeking to inform but to transform.

And note how the text describes them as driving out demons and curing the sick. Is this merely some exotic ability of the early apostles? No. We too, by this proclamation, drive out the demons of sadness, meaninglessness, ignorance, misplaced priorities, atheism, agnosticism, worldliness, materialism and so forth. We also bring healing and peace for those accept the power of the word of God in to their life. These healings are very real. I know them in my own life and have seen them in others.

Are you free enough to evangelize, to preach the gospel, to bring healing and peace to others? Are you free enough to be a means of God’s transformative Word?

Posted on

Not Everything is as it first appears: on discernment and avoiding rash judgment

The video at the bottom of this page is a humorous and also stunning illustration that things in life are not always what they first appear to be. Life can have its little surprises that make us say, “Wow!” It can also have its shocking and deeply disappointing moments that rock us back on our heals and cause up deep hurt. Some of these hurts and shocks can be prevented or lessened by prayerful and careful discernment as we go through life.

Discernment is a spiritual discipline that is important for us to develop in our Christian walk. The word “discern” is derived from the Medieval Latin word cernere, meaning to sift, separate, or distinguish. Hence, as we can see, discernment is a discipline that counsels us to make careful distinctions and to avoid rash conclusions. While most people tend to place discernment in the realm of spiritual issues, spiritual direction, and vocations only, discernment has a wider application in how we understand the people and situations in our life. (It is this second area that I want to emphasize in this post).

It is an often troublesome human tendency to “size things up” too quickly, before we really have all the information and can carefully sift, separate and distinguish. There is also the human tendency to make conclusions that are too sweeping nor simplistic, given the limited information we have.We do this regarding both people and situations.

Regarding people, too often, we like to assess them quickly and put them into one category or another. Thus, we may conclude that “Jane is a really wonderful person!” based on very few interactions with her or very limited information. We do this a great deal with the famous personalities and “heroes” of our culture, seeing them in broad and simplistic ways. In fact we usually know very little of them, other than what we see in a rather cursory and public way. In lionizing and idealizing people, we are often setting ourselves up for deep disappointment. And this disappointment is rooted in our rushed and simplistic judgments about people. The fact is, people are generally a mixed bag, often possessed of great gifts, and also afflicted by human weakness and personal flaws. Scripture says, No one is good but God alone. (Mk 10:18 inter al). It also says, For God regards all men as sinners, that he may have mercy on all (Rom 11:23). This the human condition, gifted but flawed.

Hence we do well to carefully discern, that is to sift, sort and distinguish, when we assess one another. Not all things are as they first appear. And no one should be regarded simplistically. We are usually a complicated mix of gifts and struggles.

In the Scriptures there is the story of Samuel who was sent by God to find and anoint a King among Jesse’s sons. Arriving and seeing the eldest and strongest of the sons, Samuel was quick to conclude he must be the one: But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.” (1 Sam 16:6). Samuel was eventually led to anoint the youngest and least likely of the brothers, David.

Scripture also says:

  1. Call no one blessed before his death, for by his end shall a man be known. (Sir 11:28)
  2. And Paul cautions Timothy: Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure…Remember, the sins of some men are obvious, leading them to certain judgment. But there are others whose sins will not be revealed until later. (1 Tim 5:22,24)
  3. Sometimes too, we fail to note the gifts of others. Here too Scripture says, So we have stopped evaluating others from a human point of view. At one time we thought of Christ merely from a human point of view. How differently we know him now! (2 Cor 5:16)

Discernment regarding people therefore ought to proceed with careful deliberation wherein we resist the urge to quickly size up and categorize people, and exercise careful discernment that is on-going, charitable and sober.

Regarding situations, here too, the rush to judgment is to be avoided. I have, in the past, been prone to criticize some of the judgments and decisions of the Church, and in particular, my diocesan leadership and religious superiors. Yet, in some of the matters about which I was most critical, I have come to discover that I did not have all the facts, and that my judgment was both rash and wrong. We often think we know the whole story. And often we do not.

Likewise it is often easy to take sides quickly in disputes and to assess blame in simplistic ways. In marriage counseling for example, I have learned to resist the urge to be too sympathetic to one or the other. In the past I would tend to be sympathetic to one who had called to make the appointment and whose side I had heard the most of already. But, a one sided pancake is pretty thin, and there is always another side. Very few marriages are in trouble because one is a saint and the other is the devil. There are usually issues on both sides, bad and good.

Thus, again, regarding situations, discernment, the careful sorting, sifting and distinguishing of things, must take place.

Disclaimer – Discernment should be seen as a middle ground between quickly claiming we know too much, and claiming we can know nothing at all. Discernment is not an affirmation that there is no truth to be found, or that we are locked away in a purely subjective and relativistic world where no judgments can be made at all. Rather it is a caution from making sweeping, simplistic or rash judgments that are not based on things we really know. It is a call to sobriety, for people and situations are often more complicated than we first grasp, and it takes time to make proper assessments.

Some (including me) have often criticized the Church for not operating in the fast speed zone of the modern world. We often want quick and bold statements to be issued. We desire rapid responses and bold initiatives made to every issue and crisis that emerges. Of themselves, these desires are not wrong. But they need to be balanced with an appreciation that discernment is often accomplished at slower speeds than we demand or wish. A more rapid response may sometimes be desired and even necessary. But there is something to be said about following the priority of the important rather than, merely, the priority of the urgent. And careful consideration and discernment is important and has its place.

To discern: to sift, separate, or distinguish.

Photo Credit: St Ildefonso (in prayerful discernment) by El Greco

Consider this video. I pray you won’t take offense at it and maintain a certain “sense of humor.” For while it may seem to make light of a serious spiritual matter, I am making use of it merely to illustrate that not all things are as they first appear. Even in the matter illustrated, the Church demands long investigation before concluding the worst and proceeding with the rites.

Posted on

The Cross is a Kind of Tuning Fork Signaling the True Faith

A Cross, not a cushion – Some argue that religion, faith, is a man made fiction, meant to soothe our difficult life with stories about ultimate victory in a heaven somewhere. I believe is was Karl Marx who thought of religion as an opiate of the masses in that it blunted the difficult reality of life in the same way that opium dulled the minds of drug users. But a charge like this cannot apply to the true Christian and Catholic Faith. There are consolations, to be sure, from faith. Yet at the center of the true faith is a cross, not a cushion and this is an important corrective to those who think of religion merely as something to soothe us.

The cross also goes a long way to speak to the Divine origin of our Holy Faith. If the faith were an invention of man what is the cross doing there? I don’t just mean Jesus’ cross, I mean ours. Jesus did not just carry his own cross, he told us we’d have to carry ours. And this teaching on the cross is not just an incidental sidebar, the cross is absolutely central. Now it seems to me that if our Holy Faith were man-made, there would not be a cross as the central tenant, but rather a pillow, a giant fluffy pillow.

Man made religion would exult pleasure, prosperity, consolation, affirmation and so forth. But true religion, God’s Holy Faith, holds up the cross, the cross of repentance, self-denial, self-discipline, sacrifice, living for others, and so on. This hardly seems to be something that we human beings would devise, given as we are to selfishness. And what’s even more amazing, and surely something no human being would think up on his own, is that the cross truly brings life. It is in losing our life that we find it and gain it (cf Matt 6:25). No human wisdom is this….it must be from God!

The Cross is like a tuning fork – It’s what you use to be sure that the preacher is “in tune” with the true faith of God or to discover that he is just preaching a false version of the faith, one not of God. There are false preachers out there today and one way to tell that they are false is that they seldom or never mention the cross. They talk about prosperity and blessings, rewards and gain. Nothing intrinsically wrong with those to be sure. But do they mention the cross? Do they mention self-denial, self-discipline, repentance and the fact that we are all called to share in the sufferings of Christ? If they do not, they are not of God. Beware the preachers of the “prosperity gospel.” Beware of a cross-less Christianity. There is joy in faith to be sure, but there must also be the cross. God does not only affirm, He also disciplines, matures and quickens the Christian, always with love.

St. Augustine rebuked the false shepherds of his day in these words:

“The Apostle says, ‘All who desire to live a holy life in Christ will suffer persecution.’ But you say instead…’All things will be yours in abundance!’ Is this the way you build up the believer? Take note of what you are doing and where you are placing him. You have built him on sand. [But] The rains will come….! [Rather,] put him on the rock. Let him be in Christ. Let him consider Scripture which says to him: God chastises every son who he acknowledges. Let him prepare to be chastised or else not seek to be acknowledged as a son. (sermo 46:10-11)

The video below from a very strange little comedy called “Dogma.” The scene here depicts a mixed up bishop who wants to refashion the Catholic Faith and make it a more “pleasant affair.” It’s a pretty silly scene but there is a serious point: The cross is like a tuning fork. Without the “A 440” of the Cross the whole symphony is out of tune. With that in mind, watch this video of a false teacher (comically portrayed) who wants to substitute a pillow for the cross, a false Jesus for the real one a false teacher who exults affirmation in the place of transformation.

Posted on

A Reflection On the Benedictine Vow of Stability

Most Catholics are familiar with the three vows taken by most religious of poverty, chastity and obedience. To these three, St. Benedict (whose feast we celebrated Wednesday), added a fourth for the Benedictine order, the vow of stability. Our summer seminarian who had considered joining the Benedictines at one time spoke to us today after Mass about this vow of stability and I have taken his observations and adopted them here.

Stability for Benedictines involves the promise to remain and live out the rest of one’s life in the monastery community which they enter, not moving about from Monastery to monastery, or place to place. One Benedictine community describes their vow this way:

We vow to remain all our life with our local community. We live together, pray together, work together, relax together. We give up the temptation to move from place to place in search of an ideal situation. Ultimately there is no escape from oneself, and the idea that things would be better someplace else is usually an illusion. And when interpersonal conflicts arise, we have a great incentive to work things out and restore peace. This means learning the practices of love: acknowledging one’s own offensive behavior, giving up one’s preferences, forgiving. [1].

It is a very profound insight to describe our constant search for a more ideal situation as a temptation and an illusion.

Instability is pandemic in our culture and it has harmed our families, our communities, our parishes, and likely our nation. Almost no one stays anywhere for long. The idea of a “hometown” is more of an abstraction or a mere euphemism for the “town of ones birth.”

The layers of extended family that once existed were stripped away by the migration to the suburbs and the seeming desire to get as far apart from each other as possible. Old city neighborhoods that for generations nourished ethnic groups and identities emptied out, and now, most neighborhoods, cities or suburban, are filled with people who barely know each other and who seldom stay long in one place anyway.

The economy both feeds and reflects this instability. Gone are the days when most people worked for the same company or even in the same career all their life. Accepting a new job or promotion often means moving to a new city. Businesses often relocate to whole new areas of the country. Lasting professional relationships are threadbare as well as long-standing relationships between businesses and customers, tradesmen and clients. The American scene and culture has become largely ephemeral (i.e. passing and trendy).

And in our private lives too we reinforce this attitude:

1. Marriages – Spiritually everyone who enters into a marriage takes a vow of stability to be true and faithful to their spouse in good times and bad, in sickness and health, in riches or in poverty till death. And yet more than half of marriages fail to realize this vow. Many want their marriage to be ideal and if there is any ordeal, most want a new deal. And, frankly most who divorce and remarry  are the most likely to divorce again. As the Benedictine statement above says, Ultimately there is no escape from oneself, and the idea that things would be better someplace else is usually an illusion.

2. People do this with faith too, often moving from faith to faith, or at least from parish to parish in search of a more perfect experience of church. And while some are actually following a path deeper into and toward the truth, most who church-hop are looking for that illusive community where the sermons are all good, the people friendly, the moral teachings affirm them, and the liturgy perfectly executed according to their liking. It is a kind of “designer church” phenomenon. And yet again, the problem is often as much within as without: Ultimately there is no escape from oneself, and the idea that things would be better someplace else is usually an illusion.

3. The older practice of buying a home, settling in a neighborhood and living their your whole life there is largely gone too. Most people own several homes in a lifetime and thus live in several different neighborhoods as they move about. Never mind that this means a lot of uprooting and harm to relationships. People who are just passing through and waiting to find a better home are thus less committed to improving their communities, schools, and Churches. Children too have relationships with schoolmates, and neighbor friends severed by all this mobility. There may at times be a real need for a larger home or a safer neighborhood, but even without these needs, most seem to have the goal to “upgrade” and the emphasis seems more on the bigger house than real relationships.

4. A strange phenomenon to me personally is how popular the idea of moving to Florida or to the south is among retirees. In so doing they usually leave behind all their friends, much of their family, their church, and all that is familiar. Why is this so popular,  and does it also bespeak a kind of great divorce where family and obligations to friends and communities are seem more as burdens and part of the work that one retires from?

Well, you get the point. We have very little stability and it effects how well we can hand on the faith, and transform our culture. Our lack of stability is not wholly our fault but we do cooperate to some extent with its contours.

In the gospel for this coming Sunday Jesus counsels: Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave. In other words, settle down and don’t go from house to house looking for a better deal or a better meal. Pick a house and stay there, set down roots in the community where you minister, eat what is set before you and develop the deep relationships that are necessary for evangelization and the proclamation of the gospel.

Stability, though difficult to find in our times is very important to cultivate wherever possible and to the extent possible. In particular, the gift to seek is the kind of stability that is content with what God has given and is not always restlessly seeking a more ideal setting. For again, as we have noted: Ultimately there is no escape from oneself, and the idea that things would be better someplace else is usually an illusion.

Perhaps a parable to end: Sometimes there would be a rush of noisy visitors and the Silence of the monastery would be shattered. This would upset the monks; but not the Master, who seemed just as content with the noise as with the Silence. To his protesting disciples he said one day, “Silence is not
the absence of sound, but the absence of self.”

Stability, an oft neglected virtue, and one to cultivate.

Here’s a video that depicts the sad dislocation that often results from economic downturns and changing technologies:

<

Posted on

The Many Disguises of Satan

It would be easy if Satan came as he is often portrayed, with horns and a pitchfork. We would naturally flee this ugliness.

Alas, he often comes cloaked in beauty, in sheep’s clothing:

  • He claims to offer us freedom and autonomy from an unreasonable God and Church, liberation from rules and being “told what to do.”
  • He cloaks himself in the false righteousness of being “tolerant” and “not judging others.”
  • He exalts us by telling us we have finally come of age and can disregard the “hang-ups” and “repression” our ancestors had of sex and pleasure.
  • He flatters us by extolling our scientific knowledge and inflates us by equating it with wisdom and moral superiority over our “primitive” fore-bearers.
  • He reassures us by insisting we are merely the victims here, victims of biological urges, bad parenting, economic injustice, that we are not depraved, just deprived.
  • He humors us by making us laugh at sin, making light of it in comedian’s routines, sitcoms, music and otherwise turning sin into a form of entertainment.
  • He anesthetizes the pain of guilt and sin by sending us teachers who tickle our ears and assure us that what we know deep down to be wrong is actually fine, even virtuous.
  • He affirms us by insisting that whenever shortcomings in us have been called to our attention it is simply unfair since other people are surely worse, that self esteem is something owed to us and others who lessen it are unkind.
  • He sings to us the lullaby of presumption assuring us that consequences and judgment will not be our lot and, with this lullaby, we drift off into a moral sleep of indifference and false confidence.

But in the end, there is a wolf under the sheepskin. Satan is ugly. He enslaves, condemns, ridicules and ensnares. His “reassurances” bring pain and grief as the awful effects of sin unwind: hatred, fear, resentments, revenge, suffering, disease, addiction, bondage, strife, divorce, estrangement, war, insurrection, disloyalty, scorn, bitterness, depression, anxiety, depletion, poverty, loss and deep, deep sorrow.

Beware, Satan has many disguises and he seldom presents as he really is. The movie The Passion of the Christ brilliantly presented Satan in the Garden. At first there was almost a strange beauty. But a closer look revealed increasingly hideous details: cold, fixed eyes, sharp and discolored nails, sickly pale skin, suddenly androgynous qualities, and a disgusting maggot crawling in and out of the nose. An audible moan came from the audience in the theater where I first saw it. Would that, beyond the movie, we could sense this revulsion and clarity as to the evil of Satan and his truest reality.

Here is a very powerful video on the disguises of sin:

t