We Choose the Fear of the Lord – A Meditation on the Gospel for the 33rd Sunday of the Year

The Scriptures of the last weeks have been a rich sampling of the Wisdom Tradition in the Bible. In this tradition is distinguished among other things, the wise from the foolish. The wise are those have set their hearts on God and the lasting things of eternity. They prepare for what is certain (death and judgement) and have their treasure with God and in heaven, God is the joy of their heart. The foolish set their hearts on the passing and uncertain things of this world. They focus on, prefer and find their joy in things that are uncertain and passing, like wealth, good looks, and popularity. And they neglect death and judgment or the things of God.

In today’s reading we are focused on another wisdom concept: the Fear of the Lord. In the First reading we hear, Charm is deceitful, beauty is fleeting, but the woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.(Prov 23) The Psalm says, Blessed are you who fear the Lord (Psalm 128:1)

Now this phrase “the fear of the Lord” needs to be rescued from common misunderstandings. To fear the Lord does not mean to cringe with servile fear, with the fear of being crushed or destroyed. Such a fear as this is not what the beatitude is getting at. Rather to fear the the Lord is to hold him in awe, to reverence him with a deep and abiding love and appreciation as the source of all that I am and all that I have. It is a “fear” a reverence and awe rooted in love and appreciation. Since I love God and He is Abba to me, I fear offending him by sin, or severing my relationship to him by refusing his grace. Out of love, reverence and a sense of awe, I fear giving any offense to Him who is Holy, God, and deserving of all my love.

The Gospel today develops a kind of portrait of the Holy Fear of the Lord which is taught, and of the resentful servile fear which is not taught. Let’s look at it with this perspective in mind and discover the differences of each kind of fear.

A man going on a journey called in his servants and entrusted his possessions to them. To one he gave five talents; to another, two; to a third, one– to each according to his ability.  Then he went away. Immediately the one who received five talents went and traded with them, and made another five. Likewise, the one who received two made another two.  But the man who received one went off and dug a hole in the ground and buried his master’s money.

Three men are given resources to use. Two succeed, one fails. Why the difference?  Ultimately it is the difference between holy fear, love and confidence on the one hand, and unholy fear and resentment on the other.

Consider the plan of the first two men who succeed.

  1. Receive Riches – One gets 5 Talents, the other 2 Talents, each according to his ability. While the “inequity” may offend modern notions, we can simply note the commentary in the scripture itself. Each had different abilities. And while some in our modern world may sniff at the the different amounts, it is rather to be doubted that any of these “enlightened” people, if they ran a business, would not give more resources to an industrious employee over an average employee. The fact is, God blesses some more abundantly than others due to their good use of gifts. As the Lord teaches  later and gives a fundamental rule: We must prove faithful in a few things to be ruler over many (Matt 25:23).
  2. Risk Reinvestment -Something in these two men makes them free to risk reinvesting the money. It is likely their relationship with the Master. Implicitly they see him as a reasonable man, someone who would applaud their industriousness. Though there is a risk in reinvesting the money, they would seem to see the Master as reasonable and patient enough that even if there are losses, they will not be destroyed or dealt with unmercifully. Thus they seem to experience the freedom and courage to step out and make use of the Talents entrusted to them.  Notice the text says they “immediately” went out and traded. Thus they are eager to work for their master and take the risks on his behalf in order to please him.
  3. Render a Report – Upon the Master’s return they are called to render an an account. The text depict a kind of joy on their part as they report: He said, ‘Master, you gave me five (two) talents.  See, I have made five (two) more.’ There is sensible a kind of enthusiasm for the opportunity and a joy for the harvest.
  4. Rise in the Ranks. And note that their presumptions of the master as a fair and reasonable man are affirmed in his response. Well done, my good and faithful servant.  Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities.  Come, share your master’s joy. Hence we see that the Master is joyful and wants to share his joy with the servants. Further, he is willing to give them greater access to share in his blessings and joy based on their openness to trust him and prove trustworthy themselves.

Thus at some level the two successful servants see the owner of the riches as a man they can deal with. They have a healthy respect for him but not an unhealthy fear. The receive the funds gladly, and with that with gratitude go to work, motivated and enthusiastic. Together they say, “We choose the Fear of the Lord!”

Allow them to be portrait of Holy Fear of The Lord. With this sort of Holy Fear we love God, and are enthusiastic to work for him, realizing that he shares his blessings and is both reasonable and generous. Confident of His mercy, (though not presumptive of it) we go to work in his vineyard. It is true there are risks and temptation in the vineyard. But if we fail or fall, we do not make light of our sin, we repent of it and are confident of God’s mercy. Holy Fear of the Lord does not box us in or paralyze us. It does remind of our boundaries and keep us away from truly dangerous things that erode our talents. But, because we love God, respecting his boundaries is a joyful thing for us and protects us from “unsafe investments.”  But within the designated boundaries there is both room to maneuver and safety from the thickets of sin. The Fear of the Lord is joyful and encouraging, not something to cause a cringing or hiding from God. Choose the Fear of the Lord

But the man who fails follows a different plan, a plan by which he is

  1. Fruitless – for he buries the treasure
  2. Furious – for he says, I knew you were a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter, so out of fear I went off and buried your talent in the ground he considers the owner a hard man. He also sees him as unjust by having others do his planting etc. He sees his work as slavery, unlike the other men who see it as an opportunity.  Notice too this subtlety. He the talent as “your talent” whereas the other men say, “You gave me five (two) talents.” These men see themselves as stewards whereas the third man sees himself as a slave.
  3. Fearful – For he says he buried it out of fear. In this case we see a cringing and servile fear, as distinct from the Holy Fear of the Lord, counseled by Scripture. Note too that it is his image of the Master that drives his fear.
  4. Forfeits – It is clear he wants nothing to do with the Master. The owner therefore says, in effect, Fine, if you don’t want to deal with me you don’t have to. I will take your talent and given it to the one with 10. And as for you, if you do not wish to be in my presence or deal with me, then consider yourself dismissed.

So we see how the failed servant gives way to anger, resentment and indulges his unholy fears that the owner is out to get him and the deck is stacked against him. He is not grateful for the opportunity afforded him by the owner. But notice these are thoughts he has that generate his feelings and actions. But are his thoughts true and unassailable? It is clear that the other two men do not see the Master in this way. And we see, by their example that the thoughts of the failed servant are not true, and that the Master is decent, just and joyful. The failed servant should believe everything he thinks, but should test it against reality.

It is a true and sad fact that many consider God in this way. They consider God trouble-maker and do not trust him. They are resentful of God and religion in general, due to what they perceive as rules and requirements, judgements and restrictions.

An old Irish saw says, In the beginning was the Word and the Word was “No!” Do you think of  God this way? Many do, and on account of their thoughts a thousand negative feelings are generated. But the challenge for them must be the same as for the failed servant: Are your thoughts and ideas about God true? Why do you insist on thinking of God this way? Is there no other way to see and understand God?

For many believers know and experience God’s love for them. Many of us have learned to trust him and rejoice in his gifts. And as for rules and restrictions, these are accepted in the love with which they were given. Within the protective walls that Holy Fear of the Lord accepts there is great freedom and joy. God’s laws are not prison walls, they are defending walls. We choose the Fear of the Lord, a fear rooted in love and trust.

The third man failed because he believed everything he thought and did not check out the reality of the Master as He really was. Many today also give way to negative thoughts about God and never stop to consider that not everything they think is true.

The common stereotype of faith today is that religion is an unhappy life, stifling one’s humanity and freedom, binding people with moral rules and dogmas that restrict human fulfillment.

But just because people think this, doesn’t mean it is true. And to such as these the challenge must go forth: “Don’t believe everything you think. Test the reality, talk to believers and open your heart to the possibility that God and religious faith are none of the things you think.

A challenge for us who believe is: what if a person of this sort came to you? Would they find in you someone who is joyful, fulfilled and being transformed? Would their stereotypical thoughts not stand up against the stereotype as they observed you? Or would you tend more to confirm the stereotype, exhibiting a cringing fear and a grouchy, joyless, faith? What would they see? Would they see a man or a woman who is “sharing their master’s joy” and choosing the Fear of the Lord? For the fact is, there are some grouchy Christians, some sour-faced saints, bored believers and dour disciples, the frozen chosen; those who seem never to have heard the Lord say, “Come, share your Master’s joy.” They do not choose the Fear of the Lord, but seem rather to endure Faith as something to do or else.

Make sure it isn’t you, for Christians are the “scriptures” people most often read.

To fear the Lord is to hold him awe, rejoicing in his power and wisdom, accepting his authority as saving and helpful. And thus we yield an abundant harvest with his gifts. But resentment, anger, and a servile, cringing fear only make us averse to being in God’s presence. In the end, God will respect our aversion and not force us to remain, we can consider ourselves dismissed, if that be the case.

What will it be for you and me? Pray it will be: We Choose the Fear of the Lord

I will write more tomorrow on the Fear of the Lord.

And Death is Gain….A Reflection on the Christian View of Death.

In the month of November we remember the souls of the faithful departed and our obligation to pray for them . November and into the early part of Advent is also a part of the Church Calendar when we begin to ponder the last things: death, judgment, heaven and hell. In the Northern hemisphere the days grow shorter and in regions further north, the once green trees and fields shed their lively green, and after the brief golden gown of autumn, a kind of death overtakes the landscape. Life changes, we grow older and one day we will die.

It is fitting at this time that we ponder the passing glory of things and set our gaze on heaven where joys will never end. There is a beautiful prayer in the Roman Missal that captures this disposition:

Deus, qui fidelium mentes unius efficis voluntatis, da populis tuis id amare quod praecipis, id disiderare quod promittis, ut, inter mundanas varietates, ibi nostra fixa sint corda, ubi vera sunt gaudia.

O God, who makes the minds of the faithful to be of one accord, grant to your people to love what you command and to desire what you promise, that, among the changes of this world, our hearts may there be fixed where true joys are. (21st Sunday of the year)

So here we are well into November. Summer is past and Winter beckons. Ponder with me that this world is passing. And I have a question to ask you. How do you see death? Do you long to one day depart this life and go home to God? St. Paul wrote to the Philippians of his longing to leave this world and go to God. He was not suicidal, he just wanted to be with God:

Christ will be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me life is Christ, and death is gain. If I go on living in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. And I do not know which I shall choose. I am caught between the two. I long to depart this life and be with Christ, for that is far better. Yet that I remain in the flesh is more necessary for your benefit. (Phil 1:20-23)

I am struck that, these days, almost no one publicly speaks of their longing to depart this life and be with God. I suspect it is because we live very comfortably, at least in the affluent West. Many of the daily hardships with which even our most recent ancestors struggled have been minimized and even eliminated. I suppose that when the struggles of this life are minimized, fewer people consciously long to leave this world and go to heaven. They set their sights and their hopes and prayers on having things HERE be better. “O God, please give me better health, a better marriage, a financial blessing, a promotion at work….” In other words, “Make this world an even better place for me and I’m content to stay here, rather than to long to go there to heaven.”

Longing to be with God was more evident in the older prayers, many of them written just a few generations ago. Consider for example the well known Salve Regina and note (especially in the words I have bolded) the longing to leave this world and be with God:

Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our Life, our Sweetness, and our Hope. To Thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To Thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious Advocate, Thine Eyes of Mercy toward us, and after this our exile, show us the Blessed Fruit of thy Womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.

The prayer acknowledges in a very realistic and sober way that life here can be very difficult. Rather than ask for deliverance from all of it, for this world is an exile after all, the prayer simply expresses a longing to come to heaven and be worthy to see Jesus. It is this longing that I sense is somewhat absent in our modern world, even among regular Church goers.

When was the last time you meditated on heaven? When was the last time you heard a sermon on heaven. I understand that we all have a natural fear and aversion to dying. But for a Christian there should be a deepening thirst for God that begins to erode the fear and aversion to death. St. Francis praised God for Sister bodily death which no one can escape (Canticum Fratris Solis). And why not praise God for it? It is what brings us ultimately home.

As for me, I will say it: I long to leave this world and go home and be with God. I am not suicidal and I love what I do here. But I can’t wait to be with God. I don’t mind getting older, because it means I’m closer to home. Another day’s journey and I’m so glad, one day closer to home! In our youth centered culture people (especially women) are encouraged to be anxious about getting older. As for me, when I hit forty, I said, “Hallelujah, I’m halfway home (err…as far as I know)!” Now as I get ready for fifty I rejoice even more. I’m glad to be getting older. God has made me wiser and he is preparing me to meet him. I can’t wait.

A couple of years ago a woman here in the parish walked into a meeting a few minutes late. It was obvious she had been rushing to get there and entered, quite out of breath. No sooner had she entered than she fell headlong on the ground. She had died instantly of a heart attack, was dead before she hit the ground. We rushed to revive her, but to no avail. God had called Wynette unto himself. I remember saying at her funeral, “For us it was one of the worst days of our life, but for Wynette it was the greatest day of her life.” God for whom she longed had drawn her to himself. She had died hurrying to God’s house and you know I had to quote the old spiritual that says, O Lord, I done what you told me to do….unto that morning when the Lord said, “Hurry!”

Even a necessary stopover in Purgatory cannot eclipse the joy of the day we die. There will surely be the suffering that precedes our death. But deep in our heart, if we are a believer, must ring forth the word: “Soon!” An old spiritual says, “Soon I will be done with the troubles of this world; going home to live with God.”

So I ask you again, do you long for heaven? Do you long to depart this world and be with God? You say, “Yes, but first let me raise my kids!” I know, but do you rejoice as the years tick by and goal becomes closer? Do you long to be with God?

I close with the words of Psalm 27:

One thing I ask from the LORD, this only do I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze on the beauty of the LORD….My heart says of you, “Seek his face!” Your face, LORD, I will seek. Do not hide your face from me.

As you listen to this Spiritual, consider the harsh conditions that the slaves who wrote it endured:

How Something We Consider Solidly Traditional was Once Thought as Strangely Progressive & Barely To be Tolerated. A Brief Study of the Communion (Chin) Paten

Such a small but highly significant thing, the chin paten. Its use is to catch a host that might drop or a particle from a host. As such it is another reminder of the real, true and substantial presence of Christ in even the smallest particle of the host. The chin paten helps ensure that not even a small particle drop.

Today the communion, or “chin” paten is also symbolic. When one sees them today it is a pretty clear signal that “this is a more traditional parish.” Their use had declined, especially when communion in the hand became widespread, during the 70s and 80s. Today they are always used in the Traditional Latin Mass and are part of the ambiance and emphasis on reverent reception of the Eucharist. Some parishes, even in the Ordinary Form, still use them.

But it is fascinating the learn that they are rather new “inventions” and their use was barely tolerated, as they emerged about 100 years ago. Let’s take a look at some history.

First of all, a little credit to the researcher. The Archivist of our Archdiocese, Fr. George Stuart, is a great collector of things great and small; surely a good trait for an archivist! Among the projects he has assisted in was the compiling of an excellent manual for the Archdiocese entitled Liturgical Norms and Policies. As part of his research he investigated the history of the many liturgical practices and implements. Among them is the chin paten, sometimes also called the communion paten. In a footnote, Fr. Stuart notes:

GIRM 188 lists the communion plate among the things on the credence table. The only other mention of the communion plate in the GIRM is at 287, in connection with reception of an intincted host. See also ADW, Liturgical Norms and Policies, 2010, 6.40.5.

It is interesting that the communion plate has been in use (in place of the traditional communion cloth) only for about 120 years, and as recently as 1918—even in Rome—it was “tolerated, but not recommended.”

In 1887 a priest asked the editor of a journal about the legitimacy of its use; he was careful to state that the altar server held the plate indirectly by a wooden handle, and not directly. (The literature indicated a concern over whether such patens required consecration as sacred vessels.)

The editor responded, “We do not think that there is force in the objection that the acolyte who carries it by the wooden handle is usurping the position of a deacon or priest. But neither can we recommend this special contrivance. It is novel, having been introduced but recently into certain dioceses. It is unnecessary; for the Church still continues to prescribe the use of the cloth only. But we cannot say that it is a practice to be abolished as wrong, for the Sacred Congregation has not forbidden it in dioceses in which such a custom has been established. Yet we do not think that it is right to introduce it into a church without the sanction of the bishop.

The editor quoted a response of the Sacred Congregation of Rites from 20 March 1875. “Substitute for the Usual Communion Cloth,” Irish Ecclesiastical Record 8 (1887) 370-372. See also “Communion Cloth or Plate,” American Ecclesiastical Review 56 (1917) 49-57, 194-195, 293-296; “Communion Plate Tolerated,” ibid., 59 (1918) 307.

Within a few years, however, the use of the communion plate was not merely tolerated, but required. In 1929, the SCS [AAS 21 (1929) 631-639] “ordered that a small metal plate, gilt on the inner surface, must be held beneath the chin of persons receiving Holy Communion. No shape was prescribed, but for convenience it is better that there are two small handles at each side. Should it be the custom for the server to hold the plate, one long handle is more convenient. The plate should be about the size of an ordinary paten used at Mass, and without a rim, so that it can be purified easily.” Peter F. Anson, Churches, Their Plan and Furnishing (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1948) 183.

Since they were held by lay people, whether servers or communicants, communion plates were not consecrated, for (with the tolerated exception of sacristans) only those in orders could touch sacred vessels. The rubrics of the Roman Missal of 1962 listed among the vessels placed on a side table the “patina pro fidelium communione,” but omitted the house cloth altogether (n. 528).

At age fifty I can say that I barely remember the use of the altar rail cloth in certain parishes. The cloth was draped along the inside of the altar rail and flipped over the rail just before communion (See photo left). As we knelt we were expected to scoop up the cloth and hold it under our chin about shoulder high. It would catch a falling host or small fragments. I was never sure how small fragments still didn’t fall to the ground when I let go of the cloth however. But we didn’t ask a lot of questions in those days and the practice was fading. Chin patens were the main tool and used even when, in some parishes, there was still the cloth.

I also remember the altar rail cloths looking wrinkled and unseemly (unlike the one at left) and they often detracted from the beauty of the rail itself. The old rails were often beautifully carved marble or wood.

It is fascinating to think that chin patens were seen by the editor of a prominent Roman Liturgical journal as a “contrivance;” the implication being that it was a loss in reverence, and a kind of reductionist solution. Today we consider them just the opposite.

Another fascination is the concern that such patens, if they were consecrated could not be touched by an ordinary server. Hence they were given a wooden handle so that he did not actually touch them. Older priests tell me that the practice of not allowing non clerical hands to touch consecrated vessels was honored more in the breach than the actual observance. After Mass, plenty of lay people, (sacristans, who put things away and women who cleaned and polished) touched them. Generally the norm was only followed in the Mass. After Mass, practicalities kicked in. Even today, in the Extraordinary form Masses I celebrate, while we are always very careful that only the priest or deacon touches the sacred vessels during Mass,  after Mass is another story 🙂 It just has to be.

I’m interested in what is done in your parishes. Communion (chin) patens are rarer today outside the Traditional Latin Mass, but they still exist. I haven’t seen a communion cloth in decades. But perhaps some of you have, especially as an EF Mass.

A final thought. I have often thought that altar cards must have been thought irreverent when they first emerged. Consider that the central altar card blocks the Tabernacle, or sometimes the altar cross. How strange, really. Today they are used only at the Traditional Latin Mass and once again they are part of the ambiance of that Mass. But, to be honest, I have always had trouble with how that central card blocks the Tabernacle. Yet to celebrate a Latin Mass without them would almost be thought nontraditional.

Reverence is an interesting thing really, lots of turns and twists. Don’t get me wrong, reverence DOES exist and we should follow its norms. But there are some fascinating alterations over time.

In this video Pope Benedict gives Holy Communion. The communicants kneel and receive only on the tongue, a preference for Pope Benedict, though not required of the universal Church. I note with some amusement that the Monsignor who serves has improvised a communion paten by turning a ciborium lid upside down. I admit that, in a pinch, I have sometimes done the same!

What Does Jesus Mean When He Tells Us To Makes Friends For Ourselves Through our Use of "Dishonest Wealth?"

 

In the Gospel of Luke Jesus makes reference to “dishonest wealth:” I tell you, make firends for yourselves by your use of dishonest wealth,  so that, when it fails, they will welcome you to eternal dwellings. (Luke 16:9). What does this expression “dishonest wealth” mean?

More literally the Greek μαμωνᾶ τῆς ἀδικίας  (mamona tes adikias) is translated, “mammon of iniquity.”  Now “mammon” is a Hebrew and Aramaic word and has a wider concept than just money. It refers to wealth in general and, even more generally, to the things of this world on which we rely. But what is meant by the expression “dishonest wealth?” Why is it called dishonest?

There seem to be various opinions and theories. None of them absolutely exclude the other but they do include some differences in emphasis:

1. It refers to wealth that we have obtained in dishonest or illegal ways. Now I personally think that this is unlikely since the Lord’s advice is to take this “dishonest wealth”  and give it others. But the usual remedy, if I have stolen from others, is to return what I stole to them. It is true the Lord’s advice follows a parable where a man stole (or embezzled) money. But the Lord is not praising his theft, but rather, his determination to be clever in worldly matters. The Lord wishes his disciples were as clever and thoughtful in spiritual matters. Hence it seems unlikely that the Lord means by “dishonest wealth” merely things we have stolen. If we steal we ought to return it to the rightful  owner, not make friends for ourselves of third parties for our own ultimate gain.

2. It refers to the fact that money and wealth tend to lead us to dishonesty, corruption and compromise. Since it tends to lead to iniquity it is called (literally) the mammon of iniquity. It is a true fact that Scripture generally has a deep distrust of money. For example:

  • How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God (Luke 18:24).
  • Those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. (1 Tim 6:9-10)
  • Give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, ‘Who is the Lord?’ Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God. (Prov 30:8)

It’s funny that, knowing passages like these, most of us still want to be rich! But at any rate,  this interpretation sees the expression as referring more to where money and wealth lead rather than to money and wealth themselves. Of itself,  money is not evil, neither is wealth.  But they do tend to lead us into many temptations, to corruption and unrighteousness. Hence mammon is called “unrighteous” or “of iniquity.” Some also consider this manner of speaking to be a type of Jewish hyperbole since it assigns unrighteousness to all wealth,  even though it only tends to lead there.

Over all this position has merit but I personally think it is incomplete and needs to be completed by a wider sense of unrighteousness. Simply chalking something up to Jewish hyperbole (exaggeration) may miss the fact we are not simply to dismiss hyperbole in Scripture. I have often found that the Jewish hyperbole found in the Scriptures is there for a reason. The usual reason is that we are being asked to consider that the exaggeration my not be a total exaggeration after all and, that  there is more truth than exaggeration in the hyperbole. This notion is developed in the third theory.

3. It refers to the fact that this world is unjust,  and thus, all its wealth has injustice and unrighteousness intrinsically attached. We live in a world where the distribution of wealth, resources and money are very unevenly and unjustly distributed. Now world wide economies are very complicated matters and there may be any number of reasons for this. Some areas of this planet are just more fertile than others. Other areas have more oil etc. There is often a role that corrupt governments play in unjust distribution as well. It is a true fact that we are sometimes unable to effectively help the needy in certain countries because corrupt governments and individuals divert what is intended for the poor. But there is just no getting around it, this world has a very unjust and unequal distribution of wealth and resources for any number of reasons. We, in America, live at the top of the system and we cannot wholly ignore that our inexpensive goods often are so because workers in other parts of the world earn a mere pittance to manufacture or harvest our cheap goods. Much of the convenience and comforts of our lifestyle are provided by people who earn very little for what they do, often without medical benefits, pensions and the like.

Now again, economies are very complicated and we may not be able to a great deal to suddenly change all this. But we ought to at least be aware that we live very well and many others do not, and that our high standard of living is often the result of the cheap labor elsewhere. When I buy a shirt in the air-conditioned store and take it in my air-conditioned car back to my air-conditioned house with a walk-in closet, it ought to occur to me that the person who made and packed this shirt probably doesn’t live nearly as well as I do, earned very little for the work  at that I can buy the shirt for less than $20 for reasons like this.

Now I am not calling for boycotts, (they probably just hurt the poor anyway), and I am not sure exactly how we got to such inequities in this world. I know it annoys me when some people simply want to blame Americans for every ill there is. There are other factors such as international corruption, bad economic theory and the like. There’s plenty of blame to go around. But the fact is, this world is an unjust place and every bit of wealth we have is somehow tainted by that injustice.

So this final theory is not so quick to call Jesus’ expression “Jewish Hyperbole.” Rather it considers as quite real the notion that worldly inequities are so vast and and at so many levels that all the goods, comforts and conveniences of this world are tainted, are steeped in unrighteousness and inequity. None of it is clean, none of it is fully righteous. In this sense, Jesus rightly calls it “dishonest wealth.”

If that is the case, then what to do? Jesus is not unclear, for he goes on to counsel that we befriend the poor with our “unrighteous mammon,” that we be generous to others who are less fortunate. We who live so well need to remember that the monetary cost of a product may not fully express it’s true human cost. If we have been blessed (and boy have we been blessed) then we are called to bless others.

A final disclaimer – The question of poverty and or worldwide economies are complicated. I do not propose simple solutions. I am not an economist,  I am not a socialist, I am not a communist. I am simply a Christian trying to listen to what Jesus is teaching. I am trying to internalize his teaching that I ought not be so enamored of the wealth of this world. For, it is steeped in unrighteousness even if I don’t intend that unrighteousness. I think I hear the Lord saying, “Be on your guard with money and worldly wealth. It’s not as great as you think. In fact, if you don’t learn to be generous, it may well be your undoing.”  There is a powerful  scripture addressed to us who have so much. It seems to offer hope for us if we follow its plan. I would like to conclude on it:

Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment.  Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life (1 Tim 6:17-19).

You know I would value your thoughts, distinctions and additions.

About 20 years ago I toured an old coal mine in Pennsylvania near Scranton. I was amazed at the conditions and hardships the coal miners had to endure. I have often thought of them and that tour when I turn on a light or an appliance since our power plant is fueled by coal. My comfort comes at a higher cost than my bill suggests.

Wake Up Call for the West: The Church Moves South. A Reflection on a John Allen Article

A recent article by John Allen provided some interesting background and commentary on the much disputed statement by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. I am not planning to comment directly on the document here since others have adequately done so. I will only say here that I share the concern of others  about any calls for a “Global Authority” to resolve matters and figure that such a body can only make matters worse. That said, Catholic Social teaching remains one of the most poorly understood bodies of teaching among Catholics.

But what makes John Allen’s article interesting is the way in which he uses the recent and rather public debate about the document to illustrate a possible sea change in the composure and worldview of the Roman Catholic Church.

We Catholics in the West, and especially here in America, tend to be very parochial and we presume that Catholics everywhere think largely as we do and share our Western priorities, moral, economic and political views. Or at least they “ought” to.

But, as John Allen points out, it is isn’t necessarily so. And, further, we in the affluent but decadent West are increasingly being outnumbered by Catholics in the Southern Hemishpere who represent a growth sector and an increasing proportion of Catholics.

I would like to present excerpts from John Allen’s article in the usual format of this blog. His remarks are in bold, black italic text. My remarks are in red plain text.

I am presenting excerpts, the full article can be read here: Southern Wave

Whatever you make of it, does the note [of the Pontifical Council] reflect important currents in Catholic social and political thought anywhere in the world. The answer is yes, and it happens to be where two-thirds of the Catholics on the planet today live: the southern hemisphere, also known as the developing world.

It’s a powerful number. Two-thirds of Catholics do not hail from the affluent West. While we have been becoming  secular, and are depopulating ourselves through abortion and contraception, the Church is growing steadily in the developing world. They are less industrialized, cosmopolitan, and formally educated. The have larger families, and often live in parts of the world where many grave economic injustices exist and where the market economies and more stable governments we have are not their experience.

There are almost 750 million Catholics scattered across Africa, Asia and Latin America, and generalizations about such a vast pool of people are always hazardous. Nonetheless, on matters of sexual morality and the “culture wars,” Catholics in the south generally strike Europeans and Americans as remarkably conservative — opposed to gay marriage, anti-abortion, devoted to the traditional family.

And indeed many conservative Catholics have often rejoiced in the outspokenness of Bishops from Africa and other places about the issues stated and compared them to Bishops of northern and affluent West, especially those of Europe who were often too discrete or even in dissent or conflict with official Church teaching.

When the conversation shifts to economic policy and geopolitics, however, Catholic opinion in the developing world often comes off in the West as strikingly progressive. To be specific, Southern bishops, priests, religious and laity often are:

  • Skeptical of free-market capitalism and unregulated globalization;
  • Wary about the global influence of the United States;
  • Pro-United Nations and pro-global governance;
  • In favor of a robust role for the state in the economy.

Now, many  Conservative Catholics will argue that this sort of thinking will keep the developing world from attaining a robust economy. I do not dispute the genius of free market Capitalism and what it has done for us economically and do not really wish to debate economic policy here.

Again, the point worth pondering is that many of our Catholic Confrers to the South simply do not share our enthusiam for Northern and Western views on this.

And the question is how we will  attain a consensus on these sorts of matters or even whether we need to?

More personally, how will we in West, especially those of us who are more economically and politically conservative, regard our brethren to the South who may have some very different outlooks than we do?

Their views, of course, emerge from a rather different experience than we have been privileged to share. We have abundant resources, and relatively stable governments. It is easier for us to assert that the free market can meet most of our needs. Perhaps it is less easy for them to say this.

Further, it may actually shock us to find that there are people in the world who do not consider our affleunce as appealing as we do. They may, in fact, look with grave concern at our decadence and the breakdown of our families, social structures, and moral vision, and wonder if afflunce has a role to play in that.

I do not have enough data to speak to this definitively but it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see how an African or Asian Bishop might not look to Europe or even America in our present decadent condition and say, “Yeah that’s what I want for my people.”

In June 2005, a group of Catholic bishops from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Sudan, Uganda, Zambia, Somalia and Djibouti declared, “We are particularly horrified by the ravages of unbridled capitalism, which has taken away and stifled local ownership of economic initiatives and is leading to a dangerous gap between the rich few and the poor majority.”

Catholic leaders in other parts of the global south hold similar views. For instance, in a 127-page report issued in 2004, the Catholic bishops of Asia declared that “neoliberal economic globalization” destroys Asian families and is the primary cause of poverty on the continent.

It’s fitting that the Vatican official responsible for the document is an African, Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana, because it articulates key elements of what almost might be called a “southern consensus.” One way of sizing up the note’s significance, therefore, is as an indication that the demographic transition long under way in Catholicism, with the center of gravity shifting from north to south, is being felt in Rome.

This is not the dying echo of warmed-over European socialism. For better or worse, it’s the first ripple of a southern wave.

[John L. Allen Jr. is NCR’s senior correspondent.]

Wow! I realize that these sorts of statements from our brethren to the south and far east may strike us a “rich” considering that many of these same parts of the world look to us in the West for economic aid.

But at some point, after we finish bristling I have a few questions I would like to ask.

1. Are we wrong, in the West to be perturbed and the characterization of of our economic system? While no economic system is perfect, free market capitalism has produced a standard of living higher than any other system. And this is not only true for the wealthy. Most free market Democracies have a large and stable Middle Class. Further, there are greater varieties of products, efficiencies of market, and quality of products due to economic incentive, such as profit. We also live longer and healthier than ever before and have perhaps the greatest economic and social mobility of any other system. Hence, while no system is above critique and surely not sinless, free market capitalism has a lot of strengths and virtues.

2. But are we above reproach? Surely not. Bishops and Catholic Laity in the southern hemisphere and to the Far East have good reason to be concerned with the decadence of the West and the pernicious influence that decadence wields in their sphere. Some of that decadence comes from our affluence and what has come to be an exaggerated notion of freedom.

It is also a true fact that greed often leads to wrongful priorities that emphasize money and possessions at the expense of families, children and faith.

In recent years it has also become evident that no economy in the West, including America is in good shape. We are laden with debt and suffering from a legacy of buying things we cannot afford.

Further our wealth has also led us at times to overextend our power and involvement.

It is also a fact that free markets cannot meet all human needs. Some things, such as the care of the poor, the disabled and the elderly are just not lucrative enough to be solved by a profit driven market.

No we are not above reproach.

3. Can both sectors of the Church benefit one another? Certainly. And this is where the Vatican can possibly be of the most help in bringing insights and concerns together.

I was reacently talking with an economic conservative friend who had grave reservations about who was advising the Vatican and the U.S. Bishops, for that matter, on matters of economic policy etc.

I have little answer to these questions but it occurs to me that Economic and social Conservatives (with whom I often identitify) are long on complaints and short on solutions to the problem of influence. Influence begins when people like my friend joining together and begining to form relationships with Church leaders, such as the bishops and their staffs.

There are many valid economic approaches that fit within Catholic social principles. I would hope that those who support open market captialism or various versions of it would be in discussions at the Vatican and with world Bishops sharing ideas. I would also hope they would be open to other insights that offer healthy critique of our system which is not perfect and can afford some challenges.

4. What do we in the decaying West need to develop as a proper awareness, aside from the economic questions? I would say simply, that we are small and getting smaller. Currently we are only on third of the Church and dropping.

Most of us who are older were used to thinking of the Catholic Church as primarily a European membership and our critics often pointed this out. But that, if it ever was the case, is no longer. And we are going to have to get use to the fact that the attention of the Vatican and other Church leaders is going to increasingly be to the South and Southeast where the Church is growing.

We shall see how long trends like these continue, but for now, humility and sobriety are important. Europe and America are not the only thing on the Vatican’s radar;  a fact of which we are sometimes forgetful.

Western concerns about permitting contraception and approving of divorce, and any number of sexual sins, along with preocupations about why women can’t be priests and endless issues about Church authority, are just not the things that matter to most of the rest of the Church. And the pouting in the decaying West about why the Vatican doesn’t update Church teaching must look pretty silly to rest of the world.

We are out numbered folks. And when we do want to legitimately be part of discussions at the Vatican about economic theory, science, etc, we ought to enter those discussion with some degree of humilty, knowing that we bring important things to the table and many successes, but also remembering that the Church is bigger than just us.

Your thoughts?

This video by Fr. Barron reflects on Caritas in Veritate and he expresses some concern too about a supranational agency proposed in that letter. His remarks about that are towards the end of the video

Personhood Amendment In Mississippi Runs Afoul of "In Vitro" Fertilization Enthusiasts. A Consideration of the Facts of IVF and of the Sinful Human Tendency to Want What We Want, No Matter Who Gets Hurt.

In Mississippi, Tuesday (November 8 ), citizens will be asked to vote on the Personhood Amendment, declaring the fertilized embryo a legal person. The amendment is intended to legally prevent abortions.  However a group called Resolve –  National Fertility Association has publicized concerns that the bill could render In Vitro Fertilization illegal or at least open to legal challenge. Personhood USA, a group supportive of the bill claims that In Vitro procedures will not be threatened. The video below features a discussion from both points of view.

The Personhood Amendment would be a wonderful step forward in walking back Roe v. Wade. It will surely face an uphill battle with legal challenges that will likely land it in the Supreme Court of the United States.  Nevertheless the initiative is bold and gives me great hope. Thus it is a great sadness to hear the latest protests that put passage of the Amendment at risk.

I am neither a political pundit nor a lawyer. But what I am is a concerned believer in God who deeply regrets the mess we have gotten ourselves into by our many attempts to play God.

We clearly play God by sentencing innocent life to death by abortion. This is life God has created (cf. Jer 1:4; Psalm 139 ) In effect we snatch the life from God’s creative hands and say, “This shall not be.”

But we also play God by insisting that infertile couples have a right to conceive and bear children, when nature and nature’s God have said no. With in vitro fertilization we go beyond assisting fertility and then depending on the marriage act. Rather we sideline the God given manner for conception and turn it into a technology in a petri dish. This too is a way of telling God “This shall not be” in reference to infertility and normal conception.

There are many problems with In Vitro fertilization that has caused the Catholic Church to forbid it.

  1. Life as Consumer Product – In IVF, a fertilizable ovum is removed from a woman’s ovary and put in a petri dish (the Latin for dish is vitrum) to which a few concentrated drops of sperm are added. This removes human conception from the marriage act, its sacred and proper place, where God acts to bestow life.  IVF puts it in the laboratory where man controls the process and conception is treated as a technology and consumer product, rather than as part of a mystery of fruitful love caught up in the marriage embrace and the love God.
  2. No person and no couple has a right to a child. A child is a person with rights; he or she is not merely an object, a possession, or a technological product.
  3. God is Wrong! From a faith perspective, IVF simply refuses God’s “failure” to act in accord with the wishes of the parents, and removes the decision from God. God may be teaching something to the couple due to their infertility. Perhaps he wants them to adopt, perhaps he has a special work or cause he wants them to be devoted to. But IVF suspends such discernment, and forces the solution.
  4. There is a strong bias today toward only caring about what is best for adults. This is widespread in our culture. Hence, if adults are unhappy they can divorce, not matter what this does to children, the children have no legal voice or say in the matter. Further, if a child comes at an unexpected or inopportune time, many just abort. Again, it is the adults who matter. In IVF there is also some of this thinking since what seems to matter most is that the adults want a baby. Never mind what IVF may do to how we think of life, as a technology to be exercised at our whim, rather than a sacred mystery. Never mind that imperfect embryos are discarded or frozen. Never mind that many IVF procedures selectively abort later. Never mind that IVF children are more often born prematurely, or suffer higher rates of birth defects. What matters is what adults want and demand.
  5. Discarding Embryos – As already stated, it is a usual practice that more eggs are fertilized than the woman will need. This is because not all embryos survive. Thus, more than one egg, usually several or numerous eggs, are fertilized. If “too many” embryos survive the rest are either discarded (i.e. killed), frozen or mined for stem cells (i.e. killed).
  6. For reasons such as these, the Church considers IVF to be gravely sinful.
  7. You can read more here: INSTRUCTION ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE IN ITS ORIGIN AND ON THE DIGNITY OF PROCREATION
  8. There are certain procedures allowable to Catholics which enhance fertility but do not remove or replace the marriage act. But IVF is far beyond what is approved for the reasons stated.

So here we are with another cultural show-down. Resolve –  National Fertility Association is not a pro-abortion group as far as I can tell. In fact I would imagine that many, if not most, of its members would describe themselves as pro-life. But IVF and abortion have this in common: Playing God and saying that I have a right over life, that I call the shots.

Further, while many of its members and “consumers” of IVF services may choose not to think so, discarding of embryos is killing, is aborting. Freezing them is a cruel delay and a further indignity. Imagine keeping children on ice until their arrival is more convenient. And what if they never become convenient? The big chill continues until they become stale (i.e. dead).

Disclaimer – Now, there are likely many well-intentioned couples who may never have thought through all this, or have been misguided, or are just so desperate for a child that they’ll do almost anything. But in the end, IVF is problematic and morally wrong for the reasons stated.

We live in times where too many think that they can just have what they want. Many think that, if we can do something, we should be free to do something. But there are other things at stake than just what people want. There is reverence for the sacred mystery of life, there is concern for the common good, there is what actually happens to imperfect or superfluous embryos.

And in Mississippi there is a good bill that is now threatened by IVF enthusiasts whose basic premise seems often to be that they should be able to have what they want, no matter side effects. And for Resolve –  National Fertility Association it is clear that IVF is more important to them even than working to end abortion. The threat to IVF procedures, even if legally remote, is so grave to them, that they are willing to see abortions continue by the millions, if only they can still have IVF. It would seem more of the same from our culture that wants what it wants no matter the cost.  What a mess.

Here’s the video of the Fox news debate. Sorry for the Ad if it pops up.

On the Story of the Tower of Babel and What it Says to Us Today

In our Parish Sunday School classes I have asked that we read basic Bible Stories and discuss them, along with the rest of the curriculum. There is nothing like an old Bible story to teach fundamental points. For my part I teach the parents while their children are in class. Today we discussed the story of the Tower of Babel (Gen 11). It is a story that has much to teach us, especially in this modern and proud world.

I’d like to ponder one particular aspect here on the blog, the issue of technology, and how it relates to modern times and the problem of pride.

Consider the opening lines form the story:

Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves….. (Gen 11:1-4)

Note in this story that there is a technological innovation: the making of fire hardened bricks that were both uniform and very hard. As such they could bear enormous weight. Further the uniform size of the bricks and the use of tar (asphalt) to bind them, meant that the weight was more uniformly distributed, and thus the walls could reach much higher than stone walls which bore weight so irregularly due to the varying shape and sizes of the stones.

So, we’re dealing with a technological breakthrough and now the men of that early time could build higher than ever before. The results were impressive and man, being in his fallen condition, took great pride in what he had done. He claimed now the capacity to make a name for himself and build a tower so high he could walk into heaven like he owned the joint.

And this is very much our stumbling block today, for we are very technological. The fact is, we have been through a period of wondrous invention, ingenuity and technology. We have been to the moon and back! We have seen the dawn and advancement of electricity, computers, televisions, medical science, physical sciences, and all the endless gadgets and devices that enhance and simply our life.

But technology has a way of fooling us, as we see in the story of the Tower of Babel. We start to think we are so great, that we can save ourselves, that we don’t need God or the wisdom of our ancestors. If Babel rose high, look at our Skyscrapers! It is very easy to be impressed with ourselves.

But it is an illusion. We really know so very little. What we know amounts to a period (.) at the end of a sentence, in one book in the Library of Congress. Our technology inebriates us, just like it did of old at Babel. And in our stupor we overestimate our strength and become braggadocios. Like teenagers we proclaim, “I know a few things!” To which God must have to laugh and say, “You are right, you do a few things….very few things.”

Pride is a very deadly thing, for by it we come to think of ourselves incorrectly and we take dangerous risks. We tend to think we are more powerful than we are. We think we can beat the consequences of our acts.  Through pride we act recklessly, and think we are no longer small, tiny and in need of God and one another for all we do. We forget we are contingent beings, fragile and vulnerable. So, through pride we go on sinning and think we will never have to face judgment, or even the simple physical consequences of what we do. Through pride we can feel so invincible. But this is very dangerous, because we are NOT invincible.

We forget that we are tiny specks, on a slightly larger speck (earth), sailing around a fiery speck (the sun), in an immense cloud of specks called the Milky Way. But even this seemingly large galaxy is but the size of a speck in the full range of space, for there are over 100 million galaxies.

It is a fascinating thing to consider that we, and all our large cities are not even visible from low earth orbit. Notice the photo of the greater New York Area, at upper right, taken from the Space Shuttle orbiting at about 330 miles above the earth. Where are the cites, and our tall buildings? There are over 12 million people living in the area photographed, and there is no evidence of them (us) at all!

Humor comes in the story of Babel, so that when the tower is built, the great tower, with its “top reaching to the heavens,” the truth is, it is actually so puny that God has to come down from heaven to see it. The text says,

And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built (Gen 11:5).

Now, of course, as omniscient, God clearly sees everything, and the humor in the text is not some primitive notion of God. Rather the humor is for our benefit. For, in effect, it says that our greatest, tallest, most prominent and glorious work that we saw as reaching heaven itself, is in fact so puny, that God has to stoop to even “see” it. He has to descend to get a glimpse of it.

God therefore must act. Pride is our mortal enemy. There is nothing so destructive in us, as individuals and as a race, as pride. Pride is the most deadly of all drives. It leads to every other sin, for we think ourselves wiser than God. It makes us forget of God, and our debt to others and to the resources of this world. Through pride we think too highly of ourselves and forget our fragility, we stop accepting necessary and healthy limits, and consider the wisdom of the past to be childish. We over rule God and our ancestors too. Pride is so foolish, but, being blind, it does not even recognize itself.

Thus the Lord must act and put an end to this foolishness before we did something really stupid:

The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be restrained for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth. (Gen 11:1-9)

One might ask if God will act again and scatter our language or some other thing. Perhaps he will.

But I wonder if he has not already do so. Consider how hard it is (in this age of communication) to actually communicate. People have developed such different world views and work from such fundamentally different premises that it almost becomes impossible for us to have a conversation. We have dabbled in the language of relativism so long, we really have little left to say, and do not agree even on some of the most basic moral, let alone civic principles. And as developing any consensus becomes increasingly impossible we see a breakdown in the unity we desperately need to survive.  The West as we have known it is passing away. We are depopulating, our families are disintegrating, our economies are in ruined states and there seems to be no agreement on what to do about it. We know we should spend less, but no one is willing to do so, so deeply selfish have we become. Economic reform means some other slob has to take a hit, but don’t touch my precious program or benefit. Developing any moral or political consensus seems quite a remote hope.  Even as things get more and more critical we still can’t come to any agreement or even agree on the language of an agreement. (Babel anyone?)

Perhaps we are being scattered and our language has been confused. Perhaps this is increasingly why we can no longer agree or even hold intelligent conversations, let alone reach consensus. Hence our unity is scattered.  Perhaps God has taken the proud and now thoroughly secular West and made it less possible for us to “build our city.”

An old story, Babel is,  but ever fresh.

In this video, Fr. Barron makes an interesting point about our skyscrapers (Our modern towers of Babel?)

Oh Sinner, why don’t you answer. Somebody’s knocking at your door! A Meditation on the Gospel for the 32nd Week of the Year

The Gospel today presents a number of Practical Principles of Preparation. As always the Lord has a way of teaching us such practical things in a very memorable way. Most of us remember well the parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins. Now it pertains to us to look with some care of some the principles it teaches us. Lets look at four of them. In the end we will find that the Lord turns the tables on us.

I. Procure your Provisions – The text says, The kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish and five were wise. The foolish ones, when taking their lamps, brought no oil with them, but the wise brought flasks of oil with their lamps.

In looking at this text we see that humanity is divided between the wise the foolish. We generally live in times that like to de-emphasize distinctions. It is a true fact that at times we have emphasized things that did not matter, or were unfair to focus on. But there are distinctions that DO matter and this is one of them. To be wise is to be richly rooted in God and in what God offers: His love, his wisdom, his grace and mercy, his truth, His vision and priorities, His very life.

To lack these things is not merely a matter of unfortunate poverty or bad luck, for these things are offered richly and freely by God and are widely known and available to all.

Thus to lack these things renders one a fool. Many proceed through this life and consider themselves very smart. And they may be smart in science, or finances, or business, or sports. But being smart is not the same as being wise. One can be very smart, and still be a fool. One can climb the ladder of success. But if it is leaning up against the wrong wall, they climb only to ruin. The wise, whether smart or simple, know God and are recipients of his gifts. The foolish deny him or his gifts, whether explicitly through conscious resistance, or implicitly through lukewarmness and lip service.

In the this parable, the wise virgins bring extra oil. They have procured their provsions.

But what is this oil? The Fathers of the Church had many answers. Some said it was love, others wisdom, or holy deeds. But we need not limit it to any one thing. The oil is the the love of God, the Wisdom of God. It is God Himself. It is all God’s treasures of Scripture, the Sacraments, prayer, the Church, the liturgy; it is joy, mercy, forgiveness, peace and the gift of holiness. The wise virgins have stocked up on God’s abundant and free gifts. They have richly availed themselves of God’s goodness a plentiful graces.

The foolish virgins are not wholly lacking in God’s gifts, for no human being made in the likeness of God is. But they have not sought to endow themselves sufficiently to see the night of this life through. They are careless and lazy. Perhaps carrying extra oil is too much trouble, just as going to Mass, praying, or reading Scripture is too much trouble for “the foolish” today.

What of you? Are you wise or foolish? Put another way, are you procuring your provisions? Are you availing yourself of the oil of God’s good gifts? Or, do you have other “more important” things to attend to?

The First Principle of Proper Preparation is: Procure your Provisions.

II. Personally Prepare – The text says, The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ But the wise ones replied, ‘No, for there may not be enough for us and you. Go instead to the merchants and buy some for yourselves.

At first glance the answer of the wise virgins surprises us. Shouldn’t they share? Isn’t this what we would expect Jesus to say?

But, the fact is, there are some things you can’t loan and there are some things you can’t borrow. You can’t borrow someone else’s relationship with God, you can’t borrow holiness, or mercy, or love, or wisdom. You can’t borrow someone else’s prayer life. You just have to have your own.

As a priest I get lots of requests, sometimes for money, perhaps to use the Church for a funeral etc. I often inquire, “Was the deceased a member here?” So often the answer is, “Well no, but his Grandmother was.” Or “His second cousin used to go here.” Now as for me, I’ll celebrate the funeral, no matter, but the frankly the answer is “No, he did not go here” and the fact that his Grandmother did or his second cousin has nothing to do with it. None of that will profit him before God and none of that adds even a drop of oil to his lamp. You can’t borrow you grandmother’s holiness. You have to have your own.

Hence we must personally prepare to meet God. We must come to know him and love him. We must personally be open to receiving the gifts he offers, be it prayer, scripture, the liturgy, sacraments, the moral life, a new mind and heart, and so forth.

What about us? Do we have our own oil, or are we just talking about what a great person granny was? An old gospel hymn says, Yes I know Jesus for myself. Do we? Another old Gospel hymn says, My mother taught me how to pray. So if I die and my soul be lost, it’s nobody’s fault but mine.

The Second Principle of of Proper Preparation is to Personally Prepare.

III. Persevere in Preparations – The Text says, At midnight, there was a cry, Behold the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!…and those who were ready went into the wedding feast with him. Then the door was locked.

Here too is an important reminder we must persevere in our walk to the end. The groom did not come till midnight and the foolish ones, though they had procured oil early on, could not hold out to the end.

I cannot tell you, how often people tell me, a priest,  things like, “I used to be an altar boy…..I used to go to “your” Church…..I went to St Cyprian’s School….I’m old St Cyprian’s….our family goes all the way back….My Grandfather helped build the place!” Of course I am supposed to be impressed. But instead I ask, “And where are you today?” Usually they aren’t anywhere, and so I say something like,  “You’re telling me you used to have your lamp trimmed and burning, but it sounds like you ran out of oil. Watch out, the Day is drawing nigh!”

But of course the point here is that only those who were ready with their lamps trimmed and burning WHEN THE GROOM ARRIVED, entered the wedding with him. Then the door was barred.  We must be faithful unto the end. Jesus says, He who perseveres to the end will be saved (Matt 24:13). Scripture also says, Call no man blessed till he die. For it is by his end that a man is known. (Sirach 11:28)

Persevere. I may be wonder that you read the whole Bible when you where in High School. But where are you today. And where will you be at midnight?

The Third Principle of Proper Preparation is to Persevere in Preparations.

IV. Procrastination is Perilous – The text says, While [the five foolish virgins] went off to buy [the oil], the bridegroom came…those who were ready went into the wedding feast with him. Then the door was locked. Afterwards the other virgins came and said, ‘Lord, Lord, open the door for us!’ But he said in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, I do not know you.’ Therefore, stay awake, for you know neither the day nor the hour.

In the end, our Wisdom goes with us or our foolishness catches us. The foolish virgins scrambled at the end to get what they needed. But it was too late. The door was barred.

One physical explanation for this detail may be found in the fact that houses of the ancient world were often rather small, but backed out onto a closed courtyard. Hence, when all the guests had arrived, the doors of these small houses were close and the furniture moved up against the walls and the door to make room as the celebration began. To move everything to open the door was problematic, and it was rude to ask for this.

It was just too late for them. Procrastination is perilous.

And two things beckon for our special attention.

First there are the words of the Lord, “I do not know you.” The Greek word here is οἶδα (oida) which bespeaks a kind of intellectual knowing. And so it may surprise us to hear the omniscient Lord say he does not know someone. Perhaps here we can understand the word as meaning he does not “recognize” them as one of the guests. They are not of the wedding party, not on the guest list. Or, to use another metaphor, they are not among the sheep of his flock. Later, in this same chapter of  Matthew, Jesus will speak of dividing sheep from goats. Hence there is a judgment issued here: I do not recognize you as one of my flock, the door cannot be opened, it is too late.

But how did it get to be so late and what does it mean that the door is barred?

This leads us to the second point that demands our attention. It is said that the foolish virgins are knocking on the door, or at least calling out, asking entrance.

But this precisely backward. It is not we who knock, but the Lord who knocks. It is he who bids us open, and we who must answer. Jesus says, Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me (Rev 3:20). It is the Lord who calls, It was I who chose you, he says (Jn 15:16).

Hence the way to heaven is not through some door “up there,” it is through the door down here, that we must open, the door of our heart. And the Lord is knocking now. Procrastination is peril, it is foolishness. It is now, and every day, that we must answer the knock. The choice is ours. Yes, the door to heaven is opened from the inside of our hearts. It is we who ultimately determine our destiny. The Lord merely ratifies it at the judgment.

The Lord wants to know us, want to recognize us as his own, that much is clear. That is why he knocks, and knocks. Will you answer?

Be careful, the fourth principle of proper preparation to realize that procrastination is perilous. There comes a day when the door is forever closed. But the door is your heart. Answer! Open!

This song says, Somebody’s knocking at your door. Oh Sinner, why don’t you answer? Somebody’s Knocking at Your Door.