At yesterday’s Ash Wednesday Masses many of you heard the ancient acclamation, as ashes were imposed: Remember that you are dust, and unto dust you shall return. Yesterday’s beginning of the Lenten season puts before us an urgent plea that we should be sober and watchful of our soul and its condition, for the form of this world is passing away (1 Cor 7:31). Simply put, we are going to die and we need to be made ready to meet our God. Recall some of the urgency present in the readings:
Even now, says the LORD, return to me with your whole heart…..
Sound the trumpet in Zion!
We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God!
Behold, now is the day of salvation.
Yes, Now, not later. There is an urgency announced that we must hear and heed.
What’s in a picture? The Picture at the upper right was taken April 2, 1967. It was my sister, Mary Anne’s 7th birthday. Ash Wednesday morning the picture appeared on my screen-saver slideshow and I thought, “There it is, a picture of passing things.” For, as you look at the picture know this, there is absolutely nothing and no one in the picture that is still here in this world today. My sister who is blowing out the candles died in 1991, tragically in a fire. My mother who leans over her died in 2005 (also tragically). My maternal Grandmother, who is seated died of cancer in the late 1970s. But that is not all. This building in which the picture was taken was demolished 8 years ago. My Father who is taking the picture died in 2007. The Polaroid camera with which he took the photo is long gone as well. There is simply nothing in this picture that any longer exists in this world, and there is no one in the photo who still walks this earth. Yes, the form of this world is passing away. Remember that you are dust, and unto dust you shall return.
The Church’s reminder to us is a strong rejoinder to most of our priorities. Most of the things we think are so important, are not really that important in the long run. Most of the things that claim our attention are not all that critical either. We like Martha, are anxious about many things. We worry about our money, our house, our car, our physical health, how we look, what people think of us, and so forth. But none of this really matters all that much in the end. All these things pass.
But what about what really does matter? What of our soul and its well being? What of our direction? Is it heavenward? What are we doing with our life? Where are we headed? Do we know God, love and serve him? Are our eyes on the prize of God and heaven? These things get little attention in most people’s lives. The unessential and passing things are our passion, and the most essential and critical things are all but ignored.
In Lent the Church says stop. Be thoughtful and earnest. You are going to die. What are you doing to get ready to meet God? Your body and the things of this world are but dust, a mere passing reality. But what of your soul? Are you caring for your soul? Is it nourished on God’s Word and Holy Communion? Are the medicines of prayer, Scripture, Sacraments and holy fellowship (cf Acts 2:24) being applied so that your soul stands a chance?
Remember…..REMEMBER……you are dust, you are going to die. Get ready. Now is the time, be earnest about it. Be thoughtful and live a reflective life that considers carefully what your decisions amount to, where you are headed, what your life means. Too many people live unreflected lives, never thinking much on these things. But not you. You have heard the trumpet sound in Zion and the Church has implored you. Will you listen? Will I? Where are you going? Where will you be when the last trumpet sounds?
I have often thought that the second greatest prayer ever written is the Universal Prayer attributed to Pope Clement XI. Most people have never heard of it. But it is magnificent. Its sweeping themes cascade like a fountain and it is comprehensive without being too detailed so that it looses its poetry.
So many themes are covered in its short verses: faith, trust, beginnings and ends, wisdom, justice, mercy, mindfulness, purity, repentance, journey, judgment, authority, greed, gentleness, generosity, apathy, fervor, prudence, courage, justice, temperance, fortitude, vigilance, and the our last end, just to mention some.
If you are among the many who have never heard of this prayer, click here to see it:
And yet as I pray it, the prayer is so sweeping that I often feel overwhelmed by its sheer volume. It’s as though I am standing before an open fire hydrant with a little dixie cup trying to capture the water. Most of it rushes past me.
So for Lent I have thought to pray this prayer every day but also to take one line and meditate on it in particular. Here is a version of the Prayer that I have numbered so as to focus on a particular line for each of the forty days:
I hope the Universal prayer will bless you as much as it has blessed me. Consider this practice. Print out the PDF files and use them when you can. I think you’ll find that the prayer provides a lot on which to meditate.
In case you would like the Latin original with a literal and poetic translation it is here:
The erosion of a coherent and shared vision for marriage in America continues. Nationally, the decision of the President to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), constitutes a shift in the position of the Federal Government. Locally in the Washington DC area, (already enduring a City-Council imposed redefinition of marriage), the Maryland legislature is debating a proposal to redefine marriage to include Gay Unions.
We have previously discussed on this blog the long road that has gotten us here. (eg: HERE). The fact is, the traditional and biblical understanding of marriage has been eroding for over fifty years in this nation. Most people, even Church going Christians, do not have a vigorous understanding of Marriage that is either biblical or rooted in Natural Law.
Because of this, advocates of so-called “gay marriage” have been able to successfully shift the conversation to a question of civil rights and bigotry. The President, in his order to the Justice Department to stand down from defending DOMA, stated that he thinks DOMA is an impermissible form of sexual orientation discrimination. Never mind that such a judgment is not his to make, that he is neither the judicial nor the legislative branch of Government. The point here is that the concept of “gay marriage” as a civil right has won the day with the President, and frankly with many Americans. In so acting the President more than suggests that supporters of traditional marriage are guilty of supporting unjust discrimination. To this the US Conference of Catholic Bishops Conference has this to say:
This decision represents an abdication of the responsibility of the Executive Branch to carry out its constitutional obligation to ensure that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. It is also a grave affront to the millions of Americans who both reject unjust discrimination and affirm the unique and inestimable value of marriage as between one man and one woman. Support for actual marriage is not bigotry, but instead an eminently reasonable, common judgment affirming the foundational institution of civil society. Any suggestion by the government that such a judgment represents “discrimination” is a serious threat to the religious liberty of marriage supporters nationwide. [1] .
The statement is well worded and forceful. And yet it remains true that It is clearly an uphill battle for the Church to reassert a vision for traditional marriage. Seeing the issue as a matter of civil rights, and not about the nature and purpose of marriage, is increasingly common in the public discussion and explains why even many Church-going Catholics support so called “gay marriage.”
Finding our way back – Part of the essential work we must do in re-establishing a coherent vision for marriage rooted in tradition, Natural Law and, for believers, Scripture, is to restore a proper reference point so that all the pieces of the discussion make sense.
And what is this proper reference point? Simply this, Marriage is about children and what is best for them. It is not essentially about civil rights. It is not merely about two adults being happy and fulfilled. It is essentially about children and what is best for them. If we use this as our starting point a lot of other things begin to fall in place:
1. That Marriage should be a stable and lasting union– Children require 18-20 years to come to maturity. A stable environment is obviously best for them. The modern scenario, in too many cases, is that children are shifted back and forth between parents who are often divorced or never married in the first place. One weekend here, another weekend there, summers here, summers there. The instability is terrible for children. Parents should seek, above all to resolve their differences and stay married.
Stable homes, even though imperfect (and all homes ARE imperfect) are an important way that children learn virtues and values such as trust, commitment, forgiveness, toleration, generosity, conflict resolution, love, loyalty, and integrity. A stable home, even if imperfect, inculcates in children a sense of true marriage and family, knits together important family ties at a multigenerational level, and sets them up to also form stronger families themselves. They also learn proper dynamics between men and women, how to treat and regard a member of the opposite sex, and so forth
Those who simply dismiss the traditional and stable family as no better or worse than other arrangements are ignoring what long experience has taught the human family in this regard. Scripture affirms the value of a stable family when it speaks of a husband clinging to his wife (Gen 2:24 Matt 19:1ffinter alia) and when Jesus forbids divorce (Matt 5, Matt 19, Mark 10 inter al). Marriage is about what is best for children. And stability, as a general rule, is what is best.
2. That Marriage should be heterosexual – Though, obviously heterosexuality is necessary for the actual procreation of children, this is not the main point here, for many Gays argue that they can adopt. The central point here is not the mere pro-creation of children, but what is best in raising them.
And the fact is, that children are best raised with a father and mother present. In terms of simple human formation, children are best raised with male and female influence. There are things that a father has to say and model for his children that only a father can properly and best do. There are things that a mother has to say and model for her children that only a mother can properly and best do. This is what nature herself provides in linking pro-creation, necessarily, to a father and a mother. Two fathers, or two mothers, or just one parent present, are not ideal situations for children. As a general rule it will always be best for children to be raised in a traditional family setting.
There are times were death or illnesses intervene. There are exceptional circumstances where a certain father or mother is unfit. But the general and common rule is that a traditional heterosexual marriage is ideal for children. Again, it is what nature herself has set forth, and for believers, it is also what God has set forth. In the rarer cases where a parent is missing from the family, it is essential for the remaining parent to provide opportunities for children to interact in a proper way with mentors of the missing sex. This can be accomplished most frequently with aunts, uncles, grandparents and the like.
But the bottom line is that traditional heterosexual marriage is optimal for children and their human formation. All other arrangements are less than optimal and to the degree possible children should always be raised in the optimal setting that Nature, and Nature’s God has set forth.
In adoption situations, married heterosexual couples should enjoy priority over single parent settings and homosexual couples. This is what is best for children. In terms of infant adoptions there is a usually a waiting list and these infants are thus best placed in the homes of qualified, married, heterosexual couples. This is not bigotry. This is what is best for children. As for older children, there is the sad reality that it is harder to find couples to adopt. But here too, married heterosexual couples should generally speaking be favored by that fact.
Again, the question is, what is best for the child. Not, how and whether certain adults may be offended by perceived bigotry, or whether the approach is politically correct or not. In the end we want what is best for children.
3. That traditional, heterosexual marriage should enjoy the favor of law and recognition – One of the great battle lines in the marriage debate has been that married couples do enjoy certain favors under law such as tax credits, inheritance scenarios, hospital visitation etc. Most fair minded people see room for some give on these sorts of things. On a case by case basis, it may make some sense to allow, under civil law, a greater capacity for Americans to legally enact a wider variety of arrangements for power of attorney, inheritance, tax issues and the like.
However, if what is best for children remains our starting point, then it also follows that traditional, heterosexual marriage should enjoy some legitimate favors. Strengthening traditional marriage is a worthwhile goal for public policy. It may be of value that some tax breaks that make it easier to form and keep traditional families. Granted, the degree of such proactive policies is debatable. Even among supporters of traditional marriage there are many who have a more libertarian preference when it comes to ANY government involvement.
But in the end, whether it is through tax breaks, or other laws, or simply through special recognition, a strong support and advocacy of traditional marriage is proper and good. For, whatever strengthens the traditional family is good for children. Whatever we can do as a society to uphold traditional marriage, insist on fidelity, limit divorce and give special recognition and honor to these families is good for children.
And this also is why simply calling other unions “marriage” is problematic. To use the same term “marriage” for traditional marriages and also for gay unions implies an equality and identical reality which is not true. Gay unions are not on the same footing with traditional marriage since they are not what is best for children. Traditional marriage is what is best for children and it should enjoy an elevated and special status on account of this. Using the same word for the two blurs all this and traditional marriage loses the favor it should have and the recognition is it should receive.
Enough said for now. But note again the fundamental point: Marriage is about children and what is best for them. When children and what is best for them is our starting point, traditional marriage is clearly a best and proper. This starting point not only challenges advocates of “gay marriage” but also challenges advocates of traditional (actual) marriage. For, it sometimes happens that those in traditional marriage do not always have what is best for children in mind either. Too often couples do not work at their marriage and overcome difficulties. Too quickly many rush to divorces courts. What is best for children too often takes a back seat throughout our culture.
Many of you are aware that last week the Virginia Legislature passed historic legislation that calls out the veracity of the Pro-Choice claim that they want abortion “safe and legal” and puts that claim to the test.
Here are excerpts from a Washington Examiner article:
The Virginia legislature on Thursday passed historic legislation that would tighten regulations on abortion clinics in the state — and could make it more difficult for Northern Virginia women to find one.
Facilities in which five or more first-trimester abortions are performed each month would be classified as hospitals, which are subject to stricter rules regarding the width of their hallways, for example, as well as certain staffing and medical requirements…..Gov. Bob McDonnell said Thursday he intends to sign the measure.
Should that happen, Virginia will become the first state to require hospital regulations at facilities that perform first-trimester abortions. The law would take effect July 1, and the state Board of Health, made up of gubernatorial appointments, would issue regulations within 280 days of that date.
Advocates for the long-sought measure, including Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, hailed the outcome as a measure to preserve and protect the health of women in the state.”While I regret the occurrence of abortions, I do want women in all circumstances treated with the dignity and respect that every human being deserves,” Cuccinelli said in a statement.
Opponents, however, argued that the increased regulations would have the opposite effect and restrict access to those seeking abortions, raising potential constitutional issues. “This is a sad, sad day for the women of Virginia and our families,” said Sen. Janet Howell, D-Fairfax.
Clinics in Northern Virginia could be shuttered as a result, said Tarina Keene, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia. “Right now, believe it or not, the most populated area in Virginia does not have an abortion clinic that would meet hospital standards,” Keene said.
….Abortion clinics in Virginia are currently regulated as outpatient clinics, similar to oral or cosmetic surgery centers.
Now, of course, pro-choice advocates, who have long marched under the banner of “safe and legal,” should hail this decision since it goes a long way to ensure one of their two “pillar” positions. As strong advocates for “women’s safety” they, look back in horror to the days of “coat-hanger” abortions and insist that those days must never return. So, surely, they will support measures to further protect women from the often unsafe, unsanitary and under-regulated women’s “clinics.” Many stories have recently surfaced that show just how unsafe these clinics are. For example
Well, you get the point. There are huge problems in the abortion “industry” regarding safety. The pro-choice advocates claim they want to have safe abortions available. Here comes Virginia to the rescue with strong legislative protections for women who go to these so-called clinics. But as we can see from the reactions above, the “safe and legal” advocates are well prepared to sacrifice safety in order to keep abortion more legal. Regulating abortion for them is chipping away at its legality and availability. Hence the “Safe” pillar, they claim to be at the foundation of their movement, has to give way for the legal pillar. Never mind that some women are butchered and even die.
It’s really the “legal” of “safe and legal” that matters. Or so it would seem. For all the talk about women’s safety, it would appear that such a concern is quite secondary.
Hence, the Virginia Law puts the lie to the propaganda of the Pro-choice advocates. “Safe” for them appears to be more of an abstraction or a slogan. Real safety doesn’t seem to interest them, or at least, it seems to threaten them.
Without a doubt, the victory in Virginia is a sad and ironic one. Focusing on women’s safety is a fine goal in itself. But, what of the safety of the unborn children? Well, step by step we’ll make this journey to recapture of the hearts of our countrymen. Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli rightly states, While I regret the occurrence of abortions, I do want women in all circumstances treated with the dignity and respect that every human being deserves. Yes, and to this I would only add: unborn babies too. I know Mr. Cuccinelli would agree. Here at least is a step to further exposing the hypocrisy of many who cry “safe and legal.” Here at least is a step in seeing that women who are often pressured to have abortions are not easily subjected to the horrors of an under-regulated “industry.”
Now a river runs through the DC area called the Potomac. And while there is a small bit of good news on the Virginia side of the river, a deep sadness has set up on the Maryland side. Sad and tragic to be sure, but some local heroes have stepped on the scene armed with prayer.
The place is Germantown, Md. The case is that of the notorious late-term abortionist, LeRoy Carhart who arrived in this area after being invited to leave the Midwest. Carhart is at his “clinic” Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Women from all over the country arrive as he performs his three-day abortion procedure. Protestors witness mothers walking in the door clearly advanced in their pregnancies. The babies are killed by lethal injection on Monday morning and a laminaria (to dilate the cervix) is started. On Tuesday they return. Finally on Wednesday the mothers get a “choice”, they can either endure a hard day of labor with no anesthesia and deliver the “contents” intact (a dead baby) or they can deliver the “contents” more easily in pieces. (Pardon the graphics.)
Pro-life advocates are working hard to spread awareness and awaken the community. For over a month now 80 to 200+ people protest and pray before the clinic as the women arrive for the Monday killings. There are people from many local denominations, students coming before classes, pro-life veterans from all over the county, businessmen that are currently in the surrounding offices and businessmen that have moved their businesses because of the presence of the abortion clinic.
A First Rescue – On the second week of the protest was seen the first fruit of the efforts. Here is and excerpt from a press release that describes the rescue:
[As] Over 90 people stood in peaceful, prayerful witness outside of the abortion facility….witnesses described a young woman who arrived to have a scheduled abortion with Carhart, and how the entire group gathered together to pray specific and focused prayers for this particular woman and her child. The woman came back out of facility a short time later and announced, “I knew the love was out here and not in there!” She also said that the facility is “disgusting and the people are mean in there.” The young woman continued to speak with the group for several minutes, and eventually accompanied one of the witnesses to Shady Grove Pregnancy Center. Shady Grove’s purpose is to help and support women who believe that their only option is abortion [1]
The prayer and the advocacy for life continue. God bless those who pray before these “clinics.” As one who does so myself, I want to say it is a very difficult work, often a deep sadness envelopes, and yet also a deep love. Pray for those who make these difficult walks. Pray for results. Pray that more women may come to know that “the love is out here, not in there.” Blessings to Grace and Jamie Morrison who supplied me with info for this post.
Here is a video of the prayers on-going before this awful clinic. Take a few moments and watch. And while you watch, pray. One of those organizing the prayers says with confidence, “Carhart will leave soon.” And surely our prayers will help in not only that, but his conversion as well.
This week brings an end to our six week meditation on the Sermon on The Mount of Jesus (Matt 5-7). We do well to remember some basic fundamentals about this wonderful sermon of our Lord:
The Lord is not merely reciting moralisms. The word moralism tends to refer to the mere recitation of rules and norms more as slogans than as deep truths that emerge from a vision of life.
The Lord is describing more than he is prescribing. In effect he is painting a picture of what the transformed human being is like. What happens to a human person whom the Lord, through his indwelling Holy Spirit, is transforming? We will review some of this picture below.
This transformation is a work of God, not of the flesh. It is the Lord who works this in us by living his life in us. As we enter more deeply into a life-changing and transformative relationship with Jesus this is what begins to happen in us and what begins to grow.
This concept of a life changing and transformative relationship will be important to remember in today’s Gospel passage when the Lord declares rather solemnly that he does not “know” some of us.
In today’s Gospel we come face to face with the ultimate necessity of allowing the Lord to transform us. The Lord, in the Sermon on the Mount , is offering us a whole new life and we must choose to accept it and see our life change, based on it, or we will simply be unfit to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Our flesh hates these sort of “all or nothing” scenarios. We prefer things to be vague and fuzzy. We prefer a “many paths to God” scenario. But in the end our preferences do not change the reality which the Lord sets before us: we are going to spend eternity either with God or apart from him. There is heaven or there is hell. Tertium non datur (no third way is given). The Lord chooses to finish this sermon with an urgent call: Either come to know me by faith and let me transform you or be unfit to enter the reign of God. You and I must choose.
Let’s look at this Gospel in three stages.
I. The Discipleship that must be seen – The text says, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. There is a strong tendency in our flesh to be intentional but not actual, and then to think that is enough. It is very easy for our flesh to make commitments but then not keep them. To be verbally supportive, but not be willing to make the sacrifices necessary to be actually supportive. And too often we tell ourselves that this is enough.
But at some point we have to realize that it is not enough to mean well. We actually have to do well. Scripture says elsewhere: If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. (1 John 3:17-18).
To illustrate another way, if you give me directions to get to your home, I actually have to follow them to get there. I cannot, a certain intersection, say, “Well I don’t feel like turning here,” and then think I am going to arrive at your home. Likewise, I cannot be negligent in the details, just breezing through intersections and only half paying attention, and think I will arrive at the destination. I have to actually follow the directions. Vaguely following them is not enough, and explicitly ignoring or violating them will send me to the wrong end of town. Now, God has told us how to get home to heaven. Yet too often we want to think that we can carelessly navigate through life and still end up at the proper destination. Others think that they can outright disobey one or more of the directions and still get home. It just doesn’t work that way. The only way home is to obey the directions given us.
It is true that the Lord allows us U-turns and permits us, when we get lost, to make a cell phone call (repentance and confession) to clarify directions and redirect. But in the end, the critical point is, we simply have to obey. There is just no other way. Saying Jesus is Lord is not enough. He actually has to be Lord. The term “Lord” refers to one who has authority, who has ownership. And so Jesus says elsewhere: Why do you call me “Lord” and not do what I tell you? (Luke 6:46). The Lord wants to be clear with us: it is simply not possible to enter the kingdom of heaven unless we obey.
Our flesh wants to water this down and think that merely intending to obey, merely meaning well and having positive thoughts about God is enough, or that following some of the time, or most of the time is enough. It is not. Obedience, actually following the directions is also necessary.
Only Jesus himself perfectly obeys the Father. That is why it is necessary for us to allow Jesus to live his life in us. Only knowing the Lord and allowing him to transform us in the ways he has described in previous weeks will enable us to reach our destination. Only Jesus living in us can bring about saving obedience.
But note, this obedience has to be real. The transformation that Jesus offers us is not an abstraction. It is about a real change in our life. Merely saying I have given my life to the Lord is not salvation. The real proof that we have actually given our life over to God, not just saying we have, is to be actually experiencing the transformation he has promised. This alone can get us home.
Ok, so the Lord is being very clear with us here. Actual obedience is the only way home. There just isn’t any other way.
II. The Disclosure that is sure – The text says: Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’ There is a sure and certain Day of Judgment looming for each one of us. Scripture says elsewhere: For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad (2 Cor 5:10). The day is fixed and it is certain when our true disposition with be disclosed. Are we true disciples or just actors? Is Jesus really our Lord or just somewhere on our list of friends? Have we really obeyed or just played fast and easy occasionally “checking off the God-box?”
But here is the key question. Do we know the Lord and does he know us? Notice how Jesus says to them, “I never knew you.” We studied before that to “know” in the Bible almost always means more than mere intellectual knowing. To “know” in biblical terms means to have deep, intimate, personal experience of the thing or person known. Notice how deeply relational knowing is, in this sense. It is one thing to know about God and something far deeper to KNOW God. And Lord invites us to this sort of relationship:
* That we know him and are known by him.
* That our relationship with him is not merely having some intellectual impression, or a command of certain fact, but rather, that we have a deep experience of him,
* That we be in living, conscious contact with him,
* That we be in a transformative relationship with him,
* That we become increasingly one with him.
* That we know him, and allow him to know us.
And thus the Lord declares here to them that he does not know them. That they have not agreed to, or permitted the knowing relationship which is at the heart of heaven, and which would have prepared them for heaven. They insist that they “know” Jesus but their description highlights a mere intellectual knowing and a kind of “using” of the Name of Jesus. They “used” his name but did not really call on His name. They knew of him but they did not KNOW him. It is very possible for priests, religious and other religious leaders to announce Jesus but not to hear him calling them. Any Christian can fall into this trap. They love to discuss religion but do not really have true faith. They will argue for and about God, but refuse to be transformed by Him. They will consider God, but only on their own terms.
What does it mean to be known by God? In the end, the only way into heaven is to know God and be known by him. To be in a transformative relationship with Jesus Christ that is living and conscious and very real. The evidence of this relationship is not just that we say we have it, but that we are experiencing the real fruits of it. And the fruits of this relationship are what Jesus is offering to do for us and has been describing all along in the Sermon on the Mount:
That we are poor in spirit, meek, hungering and thirsting for righteousness, merciful, single-hearted, and peaceful (Mat 5:3-11)
That we are salt and light (Matt 5:13-16)
That we have authority over our anger and are respectful of and reconciled to our brethren (Matt 5:21-26)
That we have authority over our sexuality, have pure minds and hearts, free from lust and sexual exploitation (Matt 5:27-30)
That we love our spouse and family members, are faithful to our marital commitments and hold marriage in high esteem (Matt 5:31-32)
That we are true to our word, faithful to our commitments and speak the truth in love (Matt 5:33-37)
That we feel no need to retaliate and are generous in serving and toward the poor and needy (Matt 5:38-42)
That we love our enemies and persecutors. That we develop a compassion and understanding of the troubled people we meet and want only that which is good for them (Matt 5:43-48)
That we have a deep affection for the heavenly Father and a trusting relationship that drives out fear and anxiety of what others think or what may happen. (Matt 6)
To truly know the Lord Jesus and be in a knowing relationship with him is to experience this sort of transformation and more. Lip service does not yield this sort of radical transformation. Only knowing and being known by the Lord can bring forth this sort of fruit. And only this sort of transformation can make heaven possible for us. Jesus says,
I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned…..This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love. (John 15:5-10)
Thus, our obedience, the keeping of the commandments, is a chief sign that we are actually in this transformative relationship that alone can prepare us for heaven. Notice that the keeping of the commandments is the fruit of love, not the cause or it. It is the fruit of our relationship with Jesus, not the cause of it. It is the fruit, of the vine, not the cause of the vine. To remain in Jesus is to know him and be known by him. This alone is the way to heaven. There just isn’t any other way. And the day that will disclose our choice is looming for each of us.
III. The Designation that is Supplied – The text says, Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock. And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.
A pretty simple parable in essence. Either you are going to be among the wise in heaven or the fools in hell. Either we will listen to Christ and build on the solid rock of his teachings and thus withstand the storm that is coming, or we will foolish refuse to listen and not withstand the coming storm.
Make no mistake, the storm is coming. It will surely come for us on the day of judgment.
But it is also possible to see this parable applied to everyday life. Some people live foolishly. Perhaps it starts when they are young. They goof off in school, get bad grades, join gangs, have an arrest record before 15. Others smoke dope, drink excessively, fornicate and so forth. And before you know it their whole house is close to collapsing: no job, no income, pregnant at 15, full of STDs, addicted, going nowhere. Or divorced, remarried, divorced again, had a baby by a third woman. All their income going to alimony and child support, complicated visitation rights, and one big mess for a life, not anyone’s Father, just some baby’s daddy. Life gets complicated pretty fast when we foolishly indulge in sin! And the storms multiply and the house eventually collapses. A ruined, foolish life already experiencing hell.
But others live wisely. Perhaps as youngsters they studied hard, went to Church, obeyed their elders, learned self-control and were careful about the company they kept. And sure enough, doors opened: College, then a good job. A carefully discerned marriage to one spouse, a marriage marked by fruitfulness and fidelity. In the end their children too were a blessing. Such a life is not trouble free but it is a LOT simpler and the storms are less frequent. And when the storms do come, the house of their life does not collapse for is to set on the solid foundation of God’s teaching. He here is the life of the wise, fruitful and heavenly bound.
In the end, there’s just no other way. Either be wise: know Christ and be known by him, or be a fool. Let Christ find you. Know him and be known by him. Let him transform you and prepare you for heaven. There’s just no other way.
Some Computer problems today mean I cannot easily post a new blog tonight. Back up to speed tomorrow. I could not think of a better post to re-post that this one with a few additions:
The maker of all humans beings (GOD) is recalling all units manufactured, regardless of make or year, due to a serious defect in the primary and central component of the heart. This is due to a malfunction in the original prototype units (code named Adam and Eve 1.0) resulting in the same defect in all subsequent units. This defect has been technically termed “Sorrow Inducing Non-morality (S.I.N.). Some of the symptoms include:
Loss of direction
Foul vocal emissions
Amnesia of Origin
Lack of peace and joy
Selfish or violent behavior
Depression or confusion in the mental component
Fearfulness
Idolatry
Rebellion
Sometimes the units are just plain mean.
The Manufacturer, who is neither liable nor at fault for this defect is providing factory-authorized repair and service, free of charge, to correct this defect. The Repair Technician, Jesus, has most graciously offered to bear the entire burden of the staggering cost of these repairs. Some of the following procedures will be necessary in this repair:
The disk in the heart component must be scrubbed clean of all viruses.
The mental component must be overwritten with new software, (especially WORD of GOD 3.0)
Virus Protection software (such as Pure Eyes 2.0) must be installed to protect the unit from further damage.
Connection to the Maker of all all human beings (GOD) must be re-established through the restoration of communication software in the unit. This is done by installing COMMUNION 2.0 Software and reconfiguring the USB (Upward Soaring Brotherhood) port.
Communications protocols must be upgraded to make sure that the unit says “only the good things men need to hear” and to be sure the unit speaks only that which is true.
Please bring your unit to the nearest Catholic Parish for immediate service. While it is true that WORD of God 3.0 is available for immediate download, an interpretive key must be installed on site at the Catholic parish. Without this interpretive key, WORD of God 3.0 may not function properly in the unit. Further, scrubbing the disk of the heart component can only be done by an authorized technician as well as the installation of COMMUNION 2.0 software. Jesus has personally authorized these technicians to do the work necessary to repair your unit. Upon arrival at a Catholic Parish ask to see the Properly Registered, Indwelt & Elected Service Technician (P.R.I.E.S.T.).
WARNING: Continuing to operate the human being unit without correction voids any manufacturer warranties, exposing the unit to further dangers and problems and will result in the unit being permanently quarantined. For more information on avoiding the “Hell sub-routine” send a kneemail to Jesus at: [email protected]
Please note that emergency service is always available. For information on the location of Catholic Churches and regular service hours go to www.masstimes.org
We have talked before here about some concerns in regard to the New American Bible. Both the translations, and especially the footnotes, are matters of concern. Now comes the news that a revised version is being issued March 9. Here are excerpts of the press release:
The New American Bible, revised edition (NABRE), the first major update to the New American Bible (NAB) translation in 20 years, has been approved for publication…..The NABRE will be available in a variety of print, audio and electronic formats on March 9, Ash Wednesday.
The new translation takes into account advances in linguistics of the biblical languages, as well as changes in vocabulary and the cultural background of English, in order to ensure a more accurate translation. This issue is addressed in the apostolic exhortation of Pope Benedict XVI, Verbum Domini, in which the pope says, “The inculturation of God’s word is an integral part of the Church’s mission in the world, and a decisive moment in this process is the diffusion of the Bible through the precious work of translation into different languages.”
The new translation also takes into account the discovery of new and better ancient manuscripts so that the best possible textual tradition is followed. The NABRE includes the first revised translation of the Old Testament since 1970 and a complete revision of the Psalter. It retains the 1986 edition of the New Testament. Work on most books of the Old Testament began in 1994 and was completed in 2001. The 1991 revision of the Psalter was further revised between 2009 and 2010.
I have seen a few samples of the text and there are things to affirm.
1. The dreadful 1991 Psalter is gone. So significant were the problems with the 1991 Psalter that the Vatican rescinded approval for its use in the liturgy. Among the problems with the older Psalter was an excessive use of “inclusive” language. One of the main problems with this is approach is that it shreds the messianic psalms of their reference directly to Christ. For example, in certain Psalms the text, “Blessed is the man” is often a reference to Christ who alone fulfills the psalm perfectly. Man, in such cases, does not merely mean, “the person who.” However, the 1991 Psalter in current NAB versions renders this phrase, Blessed is the Man as Happy those. In so doing, they lose, not only the gender, (for Christ is male), but they also make the reference plural. Hence a reference to Christ is wholly obscured.
The new Psalter looks to have resolved this problem. I do not have access to the whole new Psalter so I cannot say if it will wholly resolve things. However, one psalm in the sample set is psalm 8. The 1991 version crudely rendered verse 5-6 as What are humans that you are mindful of them, mere mortals that you care for them? Yet you have made them little less than a god, crowned them with glory and honor. The new text says, What is man that you are mindful of him, and a son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him little less than a god, crowned him with glory and honor.
2. As for inclusive language in general the press backgrounder (found HERE) states the following:
Does this Bible use inclusive language? This edition reflects the original meaning of the texts. Much of the original material, especially in thee narrative books, was gender specific and remains so. All references to God retain the traditional use of masculine pronouns. Where the original reference was gender neutral, the translation reflects that.
This is hopeful, for although some support “inclusive” language, we must remember that we are dealing with a sacred text. It is dangerous to claim to be “more enlightened” than the sacred texts, and then set about editing the text. Hebrew and Greek make greater use of nuance in grammatical gender than English and we ought to respect that fact since, it was in these languages that God chose to set forth his relevation. We conform to the text, we do not merely conform it to us.
3. It’s time for a new translation. A lot has happened since 1970, to which most of the current NAB Old Testament translation dates. Biblical scholarship has clarified texts. In English usage certain usages have change. Of this last point the press release gives a few examples:
Samples of longer text changes are at the end of this document, but some words that no longer appear include “booty” (replaced with “plunder”), “cereal” (replaced with “grain”), and “holocaust” (replaced with “burnt offering”). That is because they have taken on new meanings for modern readers and could distract from the original intent of the Scripture. [1]
All this said, there remain some on-going concerns remain.
1. The 1986 New Testament remains unchanged. There are significant issues in regard to that translation. For example, it renders Gabriel’s salutation to Mary as Hail favored one! (Lk 1:26) instead of the usual and traditional (and probably more accurate) Hail full of grace! There is also the tendency to render the Greek word porneia (sexual immorality) as merely “immorality” (which could mean anything). This is a consistent problem in the Pauline corpus. We have discussed more on these issues here: http://blog.adw.org/2010/08/puzzlement-over-porneia-and-a-pet-peeve/
2. There may be an interpretive key in the new translation of the Old Testament that many do not favor. In a text I was not given access to it would appear that a historicist approach is being taken. Here is an excerpt from the USA Today article that describes the problem:
One change may set off alarms with traditionalists, in a passage many Christians believe foreshadows the coming of Christ and his birth to a virgin. The 1970 version of Isaiah 7:14 says “the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.” The 2011 text refers to “the young woman” instead. It elaborates that the original Hebrew word, almah, may, or may not, signify a virgin.[2]
Now what this seems to indicate is what I call here a historicist approach. In this approach the interpretive key seeks to answer the question “How would a Jew of the 8th Century BC (in this case) understand this verse?” It is possible, and even probable, that a Jew of that era would think merely that a young girl would grow up, get married and have a baby.
But, frankly, I am not all that concerned with how a Jew of the 8th Century BC would understand it. For, as a Christian, I read the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament. And this text is clearly a reference to Mary and Christ. Almah signifies virgin, or young woman in Hebrew because, in that culture, young women were virgins (imagine that!).
New Testament Christians have rightly translated this verse as virgin because its reference to Mary is clearer and virgin is a perfectly acceptable way to translate Almah. But it looks like the editors of the NABRE want us to see it more as a Jew of the 8th Century BC would see it.
Catholic principles allow this interpretation but many do not prefer it since allusions are lost. St. Paul said regarding the Old Testament, these things were written for our instruction (Rom 15:4; cf 1 Cor 10:11). Jesus told the Jewish people of his day regarding the Old Testament: You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me (Jn 5:39).
Hence it seems more proper to read the scriptures not in an historicist sense, but as historical texts fulfilled in the New Testament, and understood in the light of the New Testament. I wish the NABRE would have used this approach which, at least according to this text, it did not.
3. The Footnotes of the New Testament are extremely problematic in places. At times they seem to directly question Catholic doctrine and the scriptural roots of it. We have talked more about that here: http://blog.adw.org/2010/09/new-american-bible-problems-on-purgatory/ I raised one problem, and commenters raised many other issues in the footnotes of the NAB New Testament.
It is my presumption that these bad footnotes will remain in the NT, even though the OT has been revised. Let us hope that the bishops will choose to pull the bad notes and replace them with better ones. Then the NAB will be “safer” for use by the inquiring faithful. Frankly, I struggle to hand it to the faithful with those footnotes. I have not seen the footnotes for the Old Testament in the NABRE and hope they will better annunciate the roots of Catholic teaching.
In the end, there is hope for this new translation. More will be known to us of this new translation next Wednesday when it goes live at the USCCCB website: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/index.shtml
The NAB remains the most widely used Catholic Bible and is tied to the liturgy. This new version will require further review at the Vatican before it is approved for liturgical use, but it is likely to take its place in the Catholic liturgy in the next few years. I look forward with hope to on-going improvements in the New Testament sections and will receive the revised Old Testament with great and hopeful expectation this Wednesday.
Colleges and Universities are usually thought to be a place where knowledge is conferred. But one is justified; it seems, in questioning whether knowledge can be conferred in settings where common sense and prudence are so gravely lacking. Here are excerpts from an article today in the Washington Examiner:
New Jersey’s flagship state university has decided to allow male and female students to share rooms in three dorms in an effort to make the Rutgers’ New Brunswick campus more inclusive for gay students after a highly publicized suicide last year.
Starting this fall, all students — whether gay, lesbian, transgender or heterosexual — can choose either male or female roommates under the pilot program. Men and women will share bathrooms.
A similar, but smaller, pilot program is being launched at the Newark campus.
A number of other schools, including the University of Maryland, New York’s Columbia University and Washington’s George Washington University, offer similar housing options….
Rutgers got wide attention last year after freshman Tyler Clementi killed himself by jumping off the George Washington Bridge into the Hudson River. Authorities say that days before, his roommate in a dorm used a webcam to capture Clementi during an intimate encounter with another man…..[Following] there was increased scrutiny of the way gay, lesbian and transgender students are sometimes treated on campus….
The absurdity and imprudence of campus life grows graver with each decade. College Campuses, as a general rule, are a grave threat to the moral life of the students who attend. Students, who need clear guidance on moral issues, are thrown by faculty and parents into a moral cesspool of drugs, alcohol, and illicit sexual union. The irresponsibility of college faculty and administrators is nothing short of horrifying.
Of course we have journeyed to this latest absurdity of males and females sharing dorm rooms in stages.
Many years ago many colleges were not even co-ed, due to the reasonable premise that sexual temptation and distractions were problematic in a learning environment. Those colleges that were co-ed carefully segregated the young men and women in separate dorm buildings altogether. Women’s dorms were carefully protected. A guard in the front lobby limited access, and if a young woman had a male visitor she would come down to the lobby and meet him there. Men were not allowed beyond the lobby.
Now I was not born yesterday, and I surely know that there may have been some sneaking around and use of back entrances and fire escapes. But in the end, colleges had strict policies that both discouraged fornication and limited opportunities for the behavior. This was prudent and responsible.
By the late sixties boundaries began to disappear and faculty and college administrators began to shed their sense of responsibility for the moral life of the students. This, of course, is one of the more serious problems of the modern age wherein we no longer share a moral vision and/or have a care for the moral condition of one another. Never mind the terrible toll that all the drinking, drugs and sex has on the young men and women. The dangerous behaviors, the STDs, pregnancy, abortion and moral confusion, never mind all that. That is “none of our business.”
It is a malfeasance due to the utter neglect shown by those who ought to have greater care for the overall well-being of the students. To them the Lord has this to say, It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin (Luke 17:2)
Through the 1970s and into the 80s common dorm buildings for men and women become more the norm. There was the fiction of separate floors, but what is a staircase to desirous tweens and twenty-somes.
The next absurdity was common bathroom facilities on mixed floors. Why did the women even tolerate such an indignity? Even as a male, I would never have gone to a college where they would suggest to me the absurdity of shared toilet stalls and showers for men and women together.
And now the final blow: “Just let ‘em shack up openly,” as an officially sanctioned university policy. After all, who really cares about their moral life? Who’s really to say anyway? Or so the stinking thinking seems to be.
And then, just to add more absurdity, the leap is made that somehow all of this is really meant to be “gay-friendly.” What young college men and women shacking up has to do with affirming the gay lifestyle is surely opaque to me. To someone such as me, uninitiated in the sexual revolution, the explanation the university gives about this connection still makes no sense, even once it is offered. Living in the same dorm room says only one thing to me: fornication is fine. Of course it isn’t fine and colleges ought not encourage such imprudent and, I would add, sinful behavior.
I don’t know what I would do if I were a parent today. I don’t think I could send my kids off to most colleges or universities. I’d have to look carefully for a traditional Catholic College.
Some argue we have to send them off to the big name places so they can get a good career. To this Jesus has something to say, What does it profit a person to gain the whole world and lose his soul? (Mark 8:36). We need to re-examine our priorities. What is more important, the degree and career, or one’s soul? Parents usually want to know something of the tuition costs of college and will often go up with their kid to orientation. But do they ask to meet with the Catholic Chaplain? Do they assess the moral climate? Do they insist on proper housing and reasonable moral safeguards for their children?
And we clergy too have to think about this. For it often happens that someone will say, “Great News!, My Kid just got a full scholarship to Harvard or Columbia or whatever.” And we clergy say, “Great!” when what we should say is, “Ok, now who is going to preach the Gospel to your kid up there so he stands a chance of not losing his soul?” For it is quite possible, in the current moral climate of college, for a reasonably decent kid to go in, come out a Harvard lawyer, but be headed straight for hell. How serious are we clergy in speaking to our departing college kids about the moral climate and the need to resist it? Even before they pick a college, how insistent are we that they look for a moral climate better that Rutgers et al.?
As for me, I do gather my departing college students and give them the “stay with Jesus talk.” We do try and connect them with the local Catholic parish or Newman center. I want them to enter the college scene with sobriety (pardon the pun), and realizing that they are often heading for a real moral swamp, that they had better not wade in. But I need to do more. I need a small cadre of volunteers to call our students regularly and make sure they are getting to Mass, going to confession and avoiding sin.
We have to do better by our children than to send them to moral swamps. Where are the outraged parents and alumni of these colleges? Places like Rutgers can only get away with this sort of absurd plan because parents and alumni either don’t care, or are silent. We too, if we remain silent are part of the problem. I told a certain college I once did some studies with, that they would never get a dime or a recommendation from me as an alumnus until they cleaned up their moral act.
To end on a positive note, there ARE some very good Catholic colleges out there that still care for the moral life of the young people entrusted to their care. The Cardinal Newman Society keeps a pretty good watch on the health of Catholic Colleges and has issued a guide “Choosing a Catholic College” to assist parents and college bound students in seeking a healthy moral and academic environment that is in conformity with Catholic teaching.
We need to be serious. Many colleges are a serious threat out children’s moral welfare and eternal salvation. Orate et vigilate! (pray and be watchful!)
Photo Credit: New Brunswick City, NJ (Right Click for Properties).
