Author: Msgr. Charles Pope

Posted on

Perhaps the "Meanest" and Most Shocking Thing Jesus Ever Said

The Gospel from today’s Mass (Luke 19:11-27) is known as the Parable of the Ten Gold Coins. It is similar to Matthew’s Parable of the Talents with certain significant differences and has an end so shocking that, when I read it at daily Mass some years ago, a young child said audibly to her mother: “Wow that’s mean!?!”

I’d like to take a look at it and ponder its shocking end.

As said, the parable is similar to the “Parable of the Talents” except that ten people receive a gold coin each. Despite this, we only hear the reports of three men as in the Matthean account, two who show profit and one who shows an angry and disdainful lack of profit.

But another significant difference is the weaving of another parable (Let’s call it the “Parable of the Rejected King”) into the story. Briefly stated, here are the lines of that parable, along with its shocking end:

A nobleman went off to a distant country to obtain the kingship for himself and then to return. His fellow citizens, however, despised his and sent a delegation after him to announce, “We do not want this man to be our king.’ But when he returned after obtaining the kingship…..[He said] “Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:12,14, 27-28)

In analyzing a text like this I must say that I was disappointed at the silence of most commentaries. The shocking verse “slay them before me” goes largely unremarked.

The Fathers seem to say little (though perhaps you will correct me). I did find two references in the Catena Aurea. Augustine says of this verse: Whereby He describes the ungodliness of the Jews who refused to be converted to Him. And Theophilus adds Whom he will deliver to death, casting them into the outer fire. But even in this world they were most miserably slain by the Roman army.

Hence both Fathers take the verse at face value and even declare it to be historically fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Josephus indicates in his work that 1.2 million Jews were killed in that dreadful war.

Not to doubt any Father of the Church;  I must say however, that the triumphal and vengeful tone of Jesus still puzzles. For if this verse does refer to the destruction of 70 AD, how do we account for Jesus’ tone here,  who just verses later weeps over Jerusalem:

As Jesus approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.” (Lk 19:41-44)

Certainly a variety of emotions can sweep even the God-man Jesus, but let me also suggest some other contextual and cultural considerations that frame Jesus’ startling and “mean” words: Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me.

1. Jesus is speaking in the prophetic tradition – Prophets spoke this way, using startling and often biting imagery and characterizations. Though many today have tried to tame and domesticate Jesus, the real Jesus spoke vividly in the prophetic tradition. He often used shocking and paradoxical images. He spoke bluntly, as prophets do, calling his hostile interlocutors hypocrites, vipers, children of the devil, whitewashed tombs, evil, foolish, blind guides, and the sons of those who murdered the prophets. He warns them that they will be sentenced to hell unless they repent, and lays them out for their inconsistency and hardness of heart. This is what prophets do, they speak in this manner.

So, in speaking “mean” like this, Jesus is firmly in the tradition of the prophets, who spoke in a similar manner. Thus, in understanding the words of Jesus we are considering (slay them in my presence) we cannot overlook the prophetic context. His words which seem to us angry and even vengeful are expected in the prophetic tradition from which he speaks, intentionally shocking. Their purpose is to provoke a response.

Prophets used hyperbole and shock to convey and frame their call to repentance. And, while we ought not simply dismiss Jesus’ words as exaggeration, we should not fail to see them in the traditional context of prophetic speach.

Hence they may not, in fact,  portray an attitude of vengeance personally in Jesus’ heart but are to be understood as prophecy toward those who refuse to repent. They will die in their sins. And their refusal to reconcile with God and their neighbors (in this case the Romans) will indeed lead to a terrible war wherein they will be slain, dying horribly.

2. The Jewish culture and language often used hyperbole – Even beyond the prophetic tradition, the ancient Jews often used all or nothing language in their manner of speech. Although I am no Hebrew scholar, I have been taught that the Hebrew Language contains far fewer comparative words than English or other languages contain. Comparative words are words such as: more, less, greater, fewer, most, especially, and so forth. Hence, if an ancient Jew were asked if he liked Chocolate or Vanilla ice cream more, he would say something like: “I like Chocolate and hate vanilla.” By which he really means, I like Chocolate more.” Thus,  we see that Jesus says elsewhere that we must love him and hate our parents, spouse and children (e.g. Lk 14:26). He does not mean that we should literally hate them. This is a Jewish way of saying that we must love him more, and the most.

This background explains the ancient Jewish tendency to speak in hyperbole (exaggeration) and to often couch things in all or nothing terms. It is not as though they did not comprehend nuances, they just did not speak in that manner, allowing the context to supply that “hate” does not mean literal hate etc.

This linguistic background helps explain how the more extremist elements of prophetic language take shape.

We ought to be careful however not to simply dismiss things as hyperbole. We in the modern West, who speak English, may love that our language has greater nuance. But sometimes we are so nuanced as to say little. At some point we must be either yes or no, with God or against him. In the end, even if purgatory intervene, there is only Heaven or Hell.

The ancient Jewish way of speaking in a rather all or nothing manner is not primitive per se and it has a refreshing and honest way of insisting that we decide for or against God, what is right, and what is just.

Thus, though Jesus words are harsh, part of the Hebraic way of speaking, they do call the question. For either we choose God and live, or we choose sin and die spiritually. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Roma 6:23)

3. Jesus is speaking to hardened sinners – The audience here is important as well.  As Jesus draws near to Jerusalem he is going into hostile territory, and sinners and unbelievers he encounters are very rigid, and have hardened their hearts against him. Hence, Jesus’ words must be understood as strong medicine.

One can imagine a doctor saying to a stubborn patient, “If you do not change, you will die soon, and I’ll see you at your funeral.” While some may consider this a poor “bedside manner,” there are some patients for whom such language is necessary and appropriate.

Jesus is dealing with hardened sinners here and so he speaks bluntly. They are headed for death and hell and he tells them so.

Perhaps we who live in “dainty” times and who are so easily offended and of giving offense, could learn from such an approach. There are some who just need to hear from priests, parents, and others, “If you do not change you ways, I do not see how you can avoid being sentenced to hell.”

4. A final thought, a theory really, that some have advanced. According to this theory, Jesus is referring to an actual historical incident and using it to disabuse his listeners of their fond thoughts of a new King. After the death of Herod the Great, Archelaus, his son, went to Rome to receive the title of king. A group of Jews also appeared in Rome before Caesar Augustus and opposed the request of Archelaus. Although not given the title of king, Archelaus was made ruler over Judea and Samaria, and later had those Jews who opposed him killed.

Kings are often despots – Since many Jews thought the Messiah, when he came, would be a king, some where hoping that Jesus was going to Jerusalem to take up the role of an earthly King. According to this theory, since the people pined for a king, Jesus uses this fearsome parable and reminder that earthly Kings are usually despotic. Jesus is thus trying to disabuse them of the notion that he or anyone else should be their earthly King.

While this theory has a lot to recommend it, especially historical precedent, it seems unlikely that the Gospel text would use such an historically localized event to make such a narrow point. Jesus is not just speaking to the people of that time and place, he is also speaking to us. Hence, even if this explanation may have partial historical context, the meaning would also need to extend beyond one incident in the ancient past.

Well there you have it. I am interested in your thoughts as well. Since the commentaries I consulted seemed rather silent, perhaps you have read commentaries worth sharing. Likewise, perhaps you know of some other quotes of the Fathers I could not find.

Is Jesus mean here? No, but blunt and painfully clear? Yes. And frankly some of us need it. In these thin-skinned times we may bristle at such talk, but that’s our problem. Good refreshing honesty and a clear diagnosis are far more important than our precious feelings.

In this video James Earl Jones portrays Vernon Johns, an early Civil Rights activists. He shows well what real prophets are like.

And here’s Jesus in Prophetic Mode – No compromises

Posted on

As the Erosion of Religious Liberty Continues, the Bishops Speak Out

The Bishops of the Maryland Catholic Conference recently issued a a document: The Most Sacred of All Property: Religious Freedom and the People of Maryland. The Catholic Bishops of the United States are also discussing the erosion of Religious Liberty at their meeting. The matter is becoming increasingly serious, not only for Catholics, but for peoples of all faith, especially other Christians.

When I have discussed this matter here on the blog before I am surprised a bit a the reaction. While a few accept the invitation to be alert and concerned, many have commented that such notions are alarmist and exaggerated, arguing that Constitutional Law is clear and there is no real threat. While I expect this sort of response from more secular readers here, I do not expect it of Catholic readers and find it surprising.

The Church is already spending increasing time and money battling many attacks on religious liberty, as we or the programs we run are sued for not complying to secular and neopagan civil norms demanding we provide abortions services and contraception, in our hospitals and health plans, and facilitate Gay adoptions, etc. We win some the suits and lose others.

But here is the point, our religious liberty is steadily eroding. Religious exemptions to newly imposed secular norms are being taken away, or interpreted so narrowly that no one can comply. This is becoming a serious matter and will have a larger effect on our ability to evangelize as well as care for the poor, run school, hospitals and even staff parishes. Pay attention. This is becoming a serious problem.

Before giving a few excerpts from the Bishop’s Document, lets review a few things that were in the news just this week.

1. CNA Reports Illinois Dioceses Must End Adoption Services: Bishops in three Illinois dioceses announced Nov. 14 that they have dropped their lawsuit against the state and will shut down their adoption and foster care programs, after a civil union law required them to provide their services to same-sex couples.

“The decision not to pursue further appeals was reached with great reluctance, but was necessitated by the fact that the State of Illinois has made it financially impossible for our agencies to continue to provide these services,” said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, Bishop Edward K. Braxton of Belleville, and Bishop R. Daniel Conlon of Joliet. …

[This demonstrates that] legislators promising ‘religious protection’ in same sex marriage and civil union laws may not be able to deliver on those promises.

Robert Gilligan, executive director of the Illinois Catholic Conference, summarized what he believes to be the underlying problem in remarks to CNA on Nov. 11. What “you’re seeing at the state level in Illinois, what you’re seeing at the national level in Washington, D.C., is a consistent promulgation of policies and laws that are making it very difficult for faith-based agencies that believe that marriage is between one man and one woman,” Gilligan said…..[1]

2. Michael Gerson Writing in the Washington Post Yesterday in the Opinion Pages  [President] Obama Turns his Back on Catholics notes that Catholics no longer need apply for grants to serve the poor:

….The conscience protections of Catholics are under assault, particularly by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

[In 2008] The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts brought suit against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), seeking to eliminate a grant to programs that aid victims of human trafficking. Because Catholic programs don’t refer for abortions, the ACLU alleged that public support amounts to the establishment of religion.

The Obama Justice Department defended the grant in court. But last month, HHS abruptly ended the funding.

The main victims of this assault are not bishops but the poor and vulnerable. USCCB-sponsored human trafficking programs, for example, provide employment assistance, legal services, child care and medical screening. [2]

But because case managers won’t refer for abortions, HHS would rather see these programs shut down in favor of less effective alternatives. This form of anti-religious extremism counts casualties. [3]

3. Gerson also reports in the same article that pro-lifers need not apply:

It is now standard procedure in the Obama administration to deny funding to some Catholic programs based solely on their pro-life beliefs. [4]

4. In terms of the Obama Healthcare Legislation Gerson writes:

Broadly applied, the [new] HHS [Healthcare] policy would amount to systemic anti-Catholic bias in government programs…..HHS has drawn conscience protections so narrowly that Catholic colleges, universities and hospitals — any Catholic institution that employs and serves non-Catholics — will be required to offer health coverage that includes contraception and drugs that cause abortion. [5]

In global health grants, new language is appearing that requires the integration of family planning and “reproductive health” services, effectively barring the participation of Catholic institutions. [6]

Gerson goes on to wonder: How will the White House respond? More specifically, how will the Catholic chief of staff and America’s first Catholic vice president respond? They gave up their own adherence to Catholic teaching on abortion long ago. But are they really prepared to betray their co-religionists who still hold these beliefs? [7]

Drip, drip, drip.

The pro-abortion lobby, the homosexual rights activists and the secularists in general had all marched into town under the banner of tolerance, freedom of conscience, and “choice.” It is clear enough that they and/or their advocates in the Government have no interest in any of these supposed values, and the lie of their “tolerance” is on full display.

The message is increasingly clear: Comply or leave the public square. And if we do not succeed in forcing you to comply the first time, we will continue to sue you and hail you into court with our well funded legal teams, and make you spend all your money and time defending our attacks until you have to leave, simply from financial exhaustion.

Some Catholics argue with me, “We shouldn’t depend on any government money.” Perhaps, but that is beside the point. We are no less deserving of grants because of our faith than some secular or pro-abortion group, or some pro-homosexual group. Further, this erosion is not simply about obtaining grants. It is about Government, Federal, State and local, trying to force us to provide healthcare plans with anti-life, anti-traditional family agenda.  There are also increasing attempts to insist on who we must hire and what we must fund and recognize and even how we structure our parishes.

Pay careful attention: drip, drip, drip. You may say, “It’s just a drip” but the water is collecting and getting deeper.

More recent threats to religious liberty are listed in the document just below.

To conclude, here are some excerpts from the Maryland Bishop’s Conference document The Most Sacred of All Property: Religious Freedom and the People of Maryland.

  1. Religious freedom is not merely a civil right afforded us by our government, but, more fundamentally, it is a natural right due each person because of his or her human dignity….Each person is made in the image and likeness of God….Christ came to convince, not to compel. He offers us His love but He does not force us to accept it. The Lord respects our freedom to accept Him or to reject Him; so too must government and society.
  2. Religious freedom…is also integral to the establishment of a good and just society.  Individuals who are free to exercise religious liberty are free to live out their faith in service to others and to build up the common good. For example, faith groups and religious organizations often are the largest providers of private social services, including hospitals and health clinics, schools and universities, shelters and food pantries….. Workers’ rights have long been a concern of the religious community in the United States….But perhaps the most striking example of the good fruits of religious liberty was the civil rights movement. In many ways, the civil rights movement was a religious movement.
  3. Rev. King also explained the proper role of churches in society: “The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. . . . It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool.”
  4. Threats: In November 2009 the Baltimore City Council passed a bill regulating the speech of pro-life centers by requiring them to post a sign listing services they do not provide (abortion and contraception) or face a daily fine. The Montgomery County Council soon approved a similar regulation. The Baltimore ordinance has been declared unconstitutional by a federal court…[but] Even as courts overturn these laws, they place a huge time and financial burden on these charitable organizations and are a distraction from their mission.
  5. Threats: 600 Catholic  hospitals are finding themselves under increased scrutiny for providing care in accordance with their – our – religious  beliefs. The American Civil Liberties Union has asked the federal government to investigate Catholic hospitals for declining to provide abortion and emergency contraception. The ACLU alleges that Catholic hospitals are violating federal law by adhering to their religious beliefs.
  6. Threats: the [DC City Government] informed Catholic Charities that it would no longer be an eligible foster care and adoption partner. The reason? Because, as a Catholic organization, Catholic Charities was devoted to placing children in homes with both a mother and a father. Moreover, when District residents appealed to bring the issue of marriage before voters so that they could have a voice in the debate, their request was repeatedly denied by the D.C. Board of Elections.
  7. Threats: Sadly, there has been a growing trend of government intrusion into the institutional and administrative life of the Church.  One of the most alarming illustrations of this trend occurred in 2009, when a bill was introduced in the Connecticut legislature that would have allowed the state of Connecticut to mandate the structure and organization of Catholic parishes (and only Catholic parishes; it applied to no other denominations). The measure, which ultimately failed, would have removed many administrative and pastoral responsibilities from the pastor and placed them instead in the hands of committees whose membership was defined by the state legislature.
  8. In closing… Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religious belief. No one should be subject to coercion because of those beliefs…..Society as a whole benefits when all citizens in our pluralistic democracy – including religious citizens and institutions – remain free to participate in public life and to do so in accordance with their sincerely held beliefs.

Posted on

How Does The Secular World View God? Analyzing a Remarkable Movie Clip

There is a scene in the Movie Devil’s Advocate where Al Pacino, who plays the Devil, takes up a rant against God. In so doing, the scene rather remarkably portrays the attitude and view of God and religion held by many secularists today. If you click through to the YouTube page and look at the comments, you’ll see page after page of clench fists raised saying, in effect “YEAH!” Beware of the abundance of extreme profanity if you look at those comments. It seems not to be enough for some secularists that they find God and faith irrelevant, rather they must go further to hate God and faith.

Fr. Robert Barron has a cautionary note when engaging these sorts of secularists and atheists. He notes that they are not so much rejecting God, as a caricature of God, a false and distorted picture of God, gleaned from selective reading of Scripture, and a selective and a distorted notion of the life of faith. Frankly the “god” some of them reject, we reject too.

Hence, we do well to listen carefully to their notion of God and faith and to learn to distinguish the god they reject and the faith they despise, from the True God and the true faith.

With that in mind lets take a closer look at the Al Pacino (as the devil) rant and analyze it. It may be helpful for you to view the video below and follow the text (reproduced here) before looking at my line by line reflection. I am sorry for the profanity in the middle of the clip….It is Hollywood after all. But the profanity does illustrate the depth of the anger, that not a few have today, of the caricatured god they reject who they somehow think is the True God. Here is the quote in full and the video is below:

What are you carrying all those bricks for, anyway, God? God? Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He is a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you these extraordinary gifts, and what does he do? I swear, for his own amusement, his own private cosmic gag reel, he sets the rules in opposition. It is the goof of all time. Look, but don’t touch. Touch, but don’t take. Taste, but don’t swallow. And while you are driving yourself nuts, what is He doing? He is laughing his sick ……..off…. He is an absentee landlord. Worship that? Never!…I’m here on the ground with my nose in it since the whole thing began. I’ve nurtured every sensation man has been inspired to have. I cared about what he wanted and I never judged him. Why? Because I never rejected him. In spite of all his imperfections I am a fan of man. I am a humanist. Maybe the last humanist. Who in their right mind, Kevin, could possibly deny that the 20th Century was entirely mine? All of it Kevin. All of it. Mine. I’m peaking…It’s my time now.

And now permit a few responses to each line:

What are you carrying all those bricks for, anyway, God? –

Most secular critics of the faith see the living of the faith as a hardship that stifles humanity and lead to unhappy and unfulfilled lives. They see us shackled by dogmas that limit us and confine our search for truth and greater self actualization and development. They see us as carrying bricks.

Sadly, some Christians give rise to these notions by manifesting a sour-faced, joyless faith, which does manifest unnecessary hostility to the world  and the beauty of creation. This of course is not an orthodox expression of the true faith. For at the heart of the true faith is the joy of an empty tomb, the new life of resurrected glory.

As a Christian my deepest experiences are of joy and serenity. I am overwhelmed with gratitude at what God is doing in my life. It is my joy to praise and serve God. His law is more precious to me than gold and it has preserved me from a boat load of trouble!

It is true that the Cross is held high by the Church. But it is at the Cross that the full love of God for me is visible as Jesus dies in my place. And the cross brings life, for it is in dying to lower things that we rise to higher and more wonderful things. I glory in the Cross and, in the laboratory of my own life, I have experienced how it does bring me life and blessing and how its power transforms my life.

I am not carrying bricks for love lightens every load. God’s commandments are not burdensome to me, for the more I love God and my neighbor, them more and more I keep them, almost without effort. Here too it has been my experience that God has given me grace upon grace and that, as his Law comes alive in my life, it is by his gift, rather than my effort. To be in Christ is my joy, my life, my most precious possession.

As for burdens, we all have them, secularists as well as the faithful. But to experience my burdens with faith lightens them and gives me confidence that they only make me stringer and prepare me for glory.

I do not carry bricks, I am carried by God’s love.

Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch….He is an absentee landlord. –

Here is a deistic notion of God, that he sort of sets things in motion, and then steps back to watch or go have lunch or something.

But neither Scripture nor my own experience confirm this notion. The Lord holds all creation together in himself (e.g. Col 1:17). He is more present to me than I am to myself. Though he transcends he also indwells through immanence.

I have come to powerfully experience God’s presence in my life in recent years. As my prayer has deepened I am drawn into close union with God in wordless contemplation. I am privileged to walk with many spiritual directees who have also come to experience deep union with God.

The normal Christian life is to be in living conscious contact with God at every moment. Nothing is more strange to me than to think God is watching from afar. Even as I type these words my heart is moved with his indwelling presence, a presence that is real and unquestioned by me.

He is a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you these extraordinary gifts, and what does he do? I swear, for his own amusement, his own private cosmic warped sense of humor, he sets the rules in opposition to your instincts. It is the goof of all time. Look, but don’t touch. Touch, but don’t take. Take, but don’t swallow. And while you are driving yourself nuts, what is He doing? He is laughing…

It is a Christian teaching that God gave us our passions (what Pacino (aka the devil) calls “instincts.” It is also Christian teaching that these passions are, of themselves good and necessary. God does not given them to us for his amusement, but for our survival and for our enjoyment of the good things he offers.

It is a truth however, that our passions, after the fall, are unruly and we often struggle to maintain them in a balance that is healthy and helpful.

It is not just God who sets up rules to limit our indulgence of passions. The world does too. If you drink and drink, you’re under arrest. If you eat too much the world laughs at you and calls you fat, and doctors wag their finger and (rightfully) warn of heart disease, diabetes, cholesterol etc. If you vent your anger excessively you may be arrested or sued. If you merely indulge your sexual passion and grope people, sexually abuse or rape them, you are subject to arrest, imprisonment and lawsuit.

There are necessary limits for our indulgence of passions in any setting, secular or religious. If all we do is follow our instincts, we are but animals, and orderly society is not possible.

Self Mastery – So limits are not unique to a Christian or religious setting. What is unique is the understanding that what the world calls limits, we call self mastery. The Christian moral vision is not a vision so much of limits, as of transformation and freedom. I am not to be enslaved by my passions but the master of them. Christ announces freedom not slavery or suppression.

Here too I am a witness. I am joyful in what the Lord has done for me. He has set me free from innumerable sinful habits and patterns. I have gained great mastery over many of my passions, especially anger. In its place are greater compassion, patience, kindness and love.

I do not experience these as impositions or limits, but as gifts. I am not stifled but strengthened. I am joyful over the fact that I am not a slave to pornography, I do not sexually act out nor do I even want to. I am seeing my greed abate and be replaced by greater generosity. I am less resentful, and more easily forget hurts of the past.

I do not say things like to boast, except to boast in the Lord. I am so glad at what he is doing in my life! He is not laughing at me, He is loving me, and transforming me! Thank you Lord.

I’m here on the ground with my nose in it since the whole thing began. I’ve nurtured every sensation man has been inspired to have. I cared about what he wanted and I never judged him. Why? Because I never rejected him. In spite of all his imperfections I am a fan of man. I am a humanist.

Yes, Satan and the secular mindset like to praise themselves as the friend of man, the friend of the people.

Here Satan claims to be close,  while God is distant and laughing. I have already addressed those notions.

But what Satan here calls “nurturing every sensation” I call temptation. Our passions do not need to be nurtured. We have them naturally from God and, of themselves they work fine. And as noted, since the Fall of Man, sometimes they work too well and out of balance. What Satan and the world do, is to manipulate and tempt us beyond what is necessary or just. All day long, Satan and the world seek to provoke our anger, our fear, our sexuality, our need for popularity and acceptance, our greed, our hatred, our hunger and thirst. The hope is to get us spending too much and to ensnare us in the insatiable desire for more. When our passions own us, we are easily bought and manipulated.

This is not humanism, it is hatred and exploitation. It is slavery that is the goal, not freedom. Most people who have marched under the banner of freedom in recent decades have ended up addicted, diseased and indebted, with broken families, broken lives and broken hearts. Any honest look at the disarray caused by the excesses of modern times tells this sad tale.

Satan also boasts that the he has never judged or rejected man. Nonsense, for both he and the so-called “tolerant” secularists are highly judgmental.

Scripture calls Satan our accuser.

And the secular world is anything but tolerant. Just utter, even unintentionally, something that is not politically correct and watch how fast you are humiliated, called names, kicked to the curb, threatened with lawsuits, and even told to resign. Transgress, even for a moment, the rule that certain protected classes are never to be questioned or challenged, and watch the venom and name calling: bigot, homophobe, hater,  intolerant, insensitive, racist, etc.

Our so-called tolerant society specializes in destroying those who transgress, even obliquely. There is no room for apology, clarification, context, or any presumption of good will. The transgressor must be destroyed.

Is this humanism or is it what the Pope has called the “tyranny of relativism?” Is this what the devil in this scene means when we says he and the secular world does not judge although God, and presumably, religionists do? It does not seem that being judgmental is a problem only of the religiously observant. Frankly, some of the destructive vindictiveness of the secular world far surpasses what the Pope or the local pastor can mete out.

Who in their right mind, Kevin, could possibly deny that the 20th Century was entirely mine? All of it Kevin. All of it. Mine. I’m peaking…It’s my time now –

Ah, and here is where “Satan” goes a bridge too far. I am really rather surprised that Hollywood allowed this line in the final cut. For here is where the mask comes off, and we see the real face of Satan and the true fruits of the secularism of these times. The woes of the 20th Century have little to do with religion. Rather, they emerge directly from secular principles, as well as from sin set loose by Satan.

Most of us who have lived through the 20th Century realize what a dreadful fall we have had.

It is true our technology, science and medicine are off the hook and wonderful things have been seen.We have also made progress in turning back the most severe forms of racism.

But the dreadful and bloody wars where millions died, the genocidal mania that swept Germany in the 40s, the Balkans and Rwanda in 90s. The over 100 million killed by Stalin and the Chinese in their Communist crack down. The incredible bloodshed in southeast Asia, the unfathomable toll of abortion and on and on.

The West has also suffered dramatic decline and our families have been destroyed by promiscuity, divorce, and cohabitation. Contraception and abortion have also fueled a kind of death wish as our birthrates have plummeted. It is the children who suffer most.

Church attendance has severely declined, social unrest grows, the economy throughout the West is laden with debt and near disaster.

Most of us who are older remember times that were safer and simpler, where people made commitments and kept them, and where self control and a common moral vision were more the norm. They were not perfect times by any means, and some things were worse, but any casual observer will note a sudden and shocking decline in the 20th Century of the basic fabric of culture, faith, family and country.

Yes, I would easily agree, the 20th Century has surely been a playground for Satan. It recalls the vision of Pope Leo who came to understand that Satan’s power would grow for the period of 100 years. He asked that the Prayer of St. Michael be thus recited everywhere, especially after low Mass. Keep praying, for, even if Satan’s time is up, the ripples in the water take time to calm down.

Yes, I am surprised Hollywood allowed this last line to stay in. For, despite all the talk of how religion has caused wars, and how religion imprisons people in a lack of self fulfillment, and dogmatic rigidity, the problems of the 20th Century cannot be laid at the door of faith. The ruins of the 20th Century are the “fair-flower” of utopian secularist thinking. Divorced from God, and insisting it is accountable to no one higher, and convinced it can cast aside the wisdom of previous ages like filthy rags, secular culture has shown us the fruit of its premises. Welcome to humanist paradise.

As for me, I have come to love the Kingdom of God. We in the Church have not lived it perfectly or manifested it well. Indeed, we too are accountable for the ruins around us, for it has happened on our watch. We failed to effectively hand on the faith to our children, and we were inwardly focused while our culture melted down. Other Catholics were too busy trying to fit in, rather than joyfully live the faith.

But in the end, it is not the faith that was the cause, it was the failure to life the faith that caused our witness to the world to fall flat. Now it is the time for Christians to authentically come to a true and lively faith, a joyful and confident faith. For, as Fr. Barron has said so well, it is not God that most atheists and secularists reject, it is a false picture of God that they reject. It is up to us to encounter the living and true God, and to manifest him to the world. We must soberly assess the world, joyfully embrace our God and our Faith and manifest him personally to the world.

Posted on

What Does it Mean to Fear the Lord?

To modern ears the word “fear” is almost wholly negative. We usually associate it with threat or perhaps with some negative experience like pending punishment or diminishment. And yet, over and over, the Scriptures lift up the value of the “Fear of the Lord” and encourage us in this regard. As you may already know or at least suspect, the word “fear” has different senses or meanings.

Distinctions –St. Thomas in the Summa, drawing on the Fathers of the Church, as well as ancient philosophy, distinguishes different kinds of fear based on the object of that fear. So, to begin there is worldly fear (wherein we fear some evil or threat from the world), and there is human fear (wherein we fear some evil or threat from others) (II IIae 19,2 & 9). Now neither of these fears concern us here since God is not the object of these fears. Our concern here is the “Fear of the Lord,” wherein God is the object of fear.

Now as to the Fear of the Lord, here too a distinction is to be made between servile fear (fear of punishment) and filial fear (whereby a son fears to offend his father or to be separated from him) (II, IIae 19.10) Now it is not servile fear but filial fear that is the gift of the Holy Spirit and which Scripture commends.

Hence, when Scripture says we should “Fear the Lord” it does not mean that we should run and hide because God is going to punish us, but rather that we should receive the the gift of the Holy Spirit wherein we dread to offend God or be separated from him because we love him. This, I hope you can see, is a very precious gift. And although the word “fear” tends to elicit negative reactions, I hope to show you that the Biblical world experienced the Fear of the Lord as a very great and highly prized blessing.

But first we have to be clear to emphasize that the fear towards God comes in two ways but only one of those ways is considered the gift of the Holy Spirit and rightly called “The Fear of the Lord.” Scripture therefore has to be read with some sophistication. It is important to know which kind of fear is being discussed to understand the text. Consider a few examples from the New Testament:

  1. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. (1 Jn 4:18) – Here is described servile fear (fear of punishment). The text teaches us that Love puts sin to death. And, since we no longer sin, we no longer fear punishment. Servile fear of God is not evil or wrong but it IS imperfect since it has to do with the imperfection of sin. Ultimately we are to be free of servile fear, and hence it is seen as a negative thing overall, even though it can have some salutary effects. For example, fear of punishment can be a motive to avoid sin. But it is an imperfect motive since it does not come from our love of God, but more from our love our self, and our comfort or well-being. Servile fear is not therefore commended by Scripture but neither is it condemned.
  2. For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father (Rom 8:15). Notice again that servile fear is something to be freed of. This freedom comes by the Holy Spirit who replaces our servile fear with a filial fear, a fear born in love of God that experiences him as Abba, a fear whereby he hold God is awe. So Holy Fear needs to replace servile fear.
  3. Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord. (Acts 9:31) Obviously here, Holy Fear is described, not servile fear. The early Christians are being encouraged by the Holy Spirit and this elicits in them a Holy Fear, a fear born in love that dreads offending Abba, the Father they love and hold in awe.
  4. Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king. (1 Peter 2:17) Note again the connection of fear to love. In the context of our love for the brethren we are told to fear the Lord. But the context here clearly suggests that fear is being used as a synonym for a higher form of love. In other words, as much as we should love the brethren, even more so we should love God and that love is described as the “Fear of the Lord.”

What then is the Fear of the Lord? What does it really mean to “Fear the Lord?” Mindful that something as deeply rooted in love as the Fear of the Lord is, words alone cannot fully describe the experience of fearing the Lord, let me advance a few thought on the Fear of the Lord.

  1. The Fear of the Lord is rooted in our relationship to God as his adopted Children. As we have already discussed, the Fear of the Lord is not servile fear (having to do with punishment) it is filial fear (the dread of offending or being separated from God who is our loving Father).
  2. The Fear of the Lord is rooted in our love for God. We really love God, with all our heart! He is Abba, Papa, Father. He has given us everything and we deeply love and reverence him. The thought of offending him fills us with dread! We cannot bear the thought that we have offended God in any way, we love him too much.
  3. The Fear of the Lord is rooted in our admiration for God. Through this gift of Holy Fear we hold God in awe. We are filled with wonder as we contemplate his glory and all he has done. This wonder and awe, inspire deep respect in us for God and an aversion to offending him. We respect him too much to ever want to mar our relationship with him.
  4. The Fear of God is rooted in our desire for unity with God. Love seeks union. We instinctively know that sin mars the union of love and can even sever it. We thus come to fear sin that creates distance between us and God. Because we desire union with God, the gift of Holy Fear causes us to fear cutting our self off from the intensity of that union.
  5. The Fear of God is rooted in our appreciation for God’s Holiness. God is Holy and the gift of Holy Fear strikes within us a deep awareness of this holiness, as well as a deep understanding that we must be made holy before coming into his full presence. The gift of fear helps us to appreciate that we do not simply walk into God’s presence in the spiritual equivalent of “jeans and a T-Shirt.” Holy Fear inspires us to be clothed in holy attire, to get ready to meet God. Just as we might bathe and wear fine clothes to visit a world leader, we reverence God enough to be robed in righteousness by his grace before we go to meet him. Holy Fear makes us serious about this preparation. We get ready to go and meet a God who we love and hold in awe. We know he is holy and so we strive to receive the holiness with out which none of us can see God (cf Heb 12:14)

Scripture in the Wisdom Tradition and especially in the Psalms lays out a very through description of the Fear of the Lord. Since the data is extensive I cannot put it all here in the post, but I have attached a PDF that reflects on how the Fear of the Lord is portrayed in the Book of Psalms. What is valuable about the Book of Psalms is that it is largely Hebrew poetry. Now in Hebrew poetry the rhyme is in the thought not the sound. Thus, we can learn a lot about what the ancient Jews thought about the Fear of the Lord, by studying the rhyme. If you’d like to do further study or see some of the theme above echoed in the psalms you can view it here: Studying the Fear of the Lord in the Psalms.

Briefly here are some of the themes explored in the PDF. The fear of the Lord is: reverential joy, stable delighting in the Law of God as a sure just guide, the joy of reverential praise, being open to instruction by God, delighting in God’s revelation, experiencing hope and God’s unfailing love, his deliverance and providence. The Fear of the Lord is to experience an undivided heart, to experience God’s greatness and glory, His compassion and righteousness, His wisdom and power. The Fear of the Lord is experience delight in the commands of God, to keep them, in trust and in love.  Each of these statements is drawn from the psalms and the PDF lists the verses that spell these qualities out, qualities of the Fear of the Lord.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

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:

Posted on

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!

Posted on

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.