Author: Msgr. Charles Pope

Posted on

Why Anne Rice is Wrong: The Intersection of the Church and Politics Cannot be Reduced to Simplistic Labels.

The recent and public proclamations of two prominent women, one Catholic the other Protestant, highlight the growing conflicts at the intersection of faith, politics and culture. Author, Anne Rice, who had returned to the Catholic Faith in 1998, recently “renounced” her Christian Faith. And Kirsten Powers, a Fox News analyst and former Clinton Administration official, has written in her defense. The comments of both women show how increasingly difficult it is for the Church to negotiate the delicate balance of proclaiming moral truth and yet not transgressing  political and cultural boundaries by “taking sides” or forging alliances with parties and movements.

Here are some quotes from these women:

  1. Anne Rice from her Facebook Page –   “I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being ‘Christian’ or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to ‘belong’ to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.”
  2. Kirsten Powers writing yesterday in The Daily Beast – I feel your pain, sister. Like Rice, I developed a deep faith later in life and, like her, I brought with me liberal views that aren’t normally associated with devout Christians….American Christianity is suffering from a hangover from decades of indoctrination by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and a host of other religious leaders who falsely cloaked right-wing Republicanism in biblical principles. Worse, these leaders modeled the decidedly un-Christian behavior of treating certain groups with contempt. Even if Robertson et al. were actually justified in viewing liberals, gays, feminists, and Muslims as their enemy, their response is simply not rooted in Scripture. (See, for example, “love your enemies” and “bless those who persecute you.”) A popular bumper sticker—”I love Jesus but I hate his fan club”—reflects this growing frustration with the church among devout Christians. Something needs to change, or more Anne Rices are going to walk away. The full article by Ms. Powers is here: Kirsten Powers on Anne Rice’s Christianity Crisis

Now there are any number of things I personally object to in Ms. Rice’s comments. Referring to us as “infamous” borders on Religious bigotry. In her “anti”  list I particularly object to the anti-science, and anti-gay labels. The Church has a very nuanced and smart position viz. science wherein we respect science’s role and only object when certain scientists  transgress into philosophical and religious pronouncements. As for being “anti-Gay:”  It is difficult when an individual or group wants to insist that its entire identity be described by particular form sexual activity which the Scriptures we revere and must obey call sinful, it is unreasonable to expect approval from the Church. But disapproval does not equate to hate as many claim or simple and crude “anti-gay” agenda. The Catholic Church is not anti-gay, we simply cannot approve of any sexual activity outside of marriage and have a principled, Biblical understanding of marriage and sexuality. What is demanded of us is unreasonable. In fact her whole diatribe is simplistic in that it lacks any proper distinctions or respect for the nuances of Catholic and Christian views.

As for Ms. Powers’ comments she too uses words that are unnecessary. Why must she describe Christians as treating certain groups with “contempt?”  Is it now contempt to disagree or stand opposed to the seismic cultural shifts that have taken place in West?  And why the word “enemy?”  Is the fact that Christians oppose aspects of the gay agenda, for example,  mean that Christians necessarily see Gays as enemies? Why are such words used and do they not express the contempt for us that they criticize? Is it not possible for Christians to have principled differences with advocates of the new morality without being charged with contempt and being told we are treating people as enemies, that we are unloving and refusing to bless others?

But the deeper issue I want to explore is the implied critique that Catholics and Traditional Christians are wrong to build alliances in the political and secular realm. The simplistic form of the charge is that traditional Christians (to include Catholics) are just an arm of the Republican Party. I want to suggest that this is both simplistic and inaccurate. I also want to address the charge that it is wrong for the Church to develop alliances.  Let’s begin with a little history.

There is a long history of alliances – While the Church has never officially embraced a political party, political alliances have historically been evident. In the past, until the emergence of the Regan Democrats, Catholic voters were  a reliably  Democratic voting block. There were also many alliances forged between Church leaders and Democratic leaders. Issues such as labor, and labor unions, justice, minimum wage, and care for the poor forged deep alliances between Catholics and Democrats at all levels in the Church. In the years of the Civil Rights Movement the Christian Churches were the central pillar of that movement and a large number of Catholic Clergy, Sisters and lay leaders were active in the movement. The Civil rights movement forged important alliances with civic and political leaders to evoke lasting change. There were also countless alliances that developed between the Catholic Church, Protestant denominations and civic and political leaders to address a wide variety of local issues such as education, economic justice and development in poor neighborhoods, crime, traffic hazards and the like. So there is nothing new about the Church being out in the community and in the political realm forging alliances for matters deemed important.

Now in the first 70 years of the 20th Century the social and moral issues of abortion, euthanasia, homosexual activity, stem cell research and the like were not largely disputed and some didn’t even exist yet. Most Americans agreed essentially on such matters and that they were wrong. Generally then in these years the alliance was strong between the Democratic Party and Catholics due to the issues involved and the politics of the time.

After 1973 and the Roe v. Wade decision the alliance began to experience its first rifts. But not at first. In the initial years after Roe many prominent Democrats were against Abortion. For example Al Gore, Harry Reid, Jessie Jackson and others protested abortion. Abortion was not at first a strongly partisan issue. But in the decade following Roe, the pro-Choice position began to become Democratic orthodoxy. Pro-life democrats were increasingly hard to find and the party’s platform became officially pro-Choice. Little by little the Republican Party stood forth as increasingly pro-Life and this position was adopted as the official position of the GOP platform. One by one the other moral issues began to divide out along party lines as well.

And here we are today with a host of critical moral issues of which the Church cannot remain silent but in which political divisions are sharp. So sharp are these political divisions that when the Church speaks on what ARE plainly moral issues (eg. Abortion, Homosexual marriage, contraceptives and abortions to minors, stem cell research etc.) she is said to be getting too political, or to talking politics from the pulpit, or promoting a Republican Agenda. And yet these are clearly moral issues which fair minded individuals realize the Church cannot simply ignore.

And hence, new alliances are forming between the Church and the world of politics. Since most all these matters involve public policy, public funds, legislation and the like, the Church cannot be part of the discussion and seek to influence outcomes without bumping up against legislators who, by the way, also happen to be politicians. So the Church and other Christians do what we have always done, we form alliances to address these issues and influence their outcome. It is not just the Church that does this, everyone does this.

Now the point thus far is that political alliances are nothing new in Catholicism. While not being a partisan faith, it is just a fact that strong partnerships have been formed over the past 100 years between the Church and the Democrats in the past, increasingly the Republicans now. Seismic shifts in the culture have led to seismic shifts in the political landscape and led to shifting alliances.

Now that some of these alliances are seen as conservative or Republican some say, “tisk, tisk.”  But such scolding did not come from these same people or  secular media when the alliances were more left of center.

But what of the charge that the Catholic Church is merely an outpost of the Republican Party? It is true,  as has already been stated, there are more alliances withthe right of center and the Republican Party than in the past. This is for the reasons stated. But the fact is, the Catholic Church holds many positions that do not conform to “right-wing politics” and has alliances far broader than one party. The Church is generally pro-immigration, opposes the death penalty, and insists on proper care for the poor. The Pope and most of the Bishops opposed our initiation of the Iraq War. More locally my own parish and most other parishes in the City of Washington belong to a non-partisan group called the Washington Interfaith Network (WIN). Together with Protestant congregations, we number over fifty congregations who develop partnerships with City government and civic organizations to ensure the availability of affordable housing, redevelopment of blighted neighborhoods, restoration of public libraries and recreation centers. Most recently we gathered the Candidates for Mayor and City Council Chair and  secured their promise to work with us on a detailed and multi-faceted jobs initiative to get people back to work. Every month, I along withother clergy and Church leaders in WIN are down at the District Building holding their feet to fire and developing alliances to ensure that these promises are fulfilled.

It is also true outside the Interfaith Network that we Catholic Clergy, along with some Protestant Ministers worked hard to fight the Gay “Marriage” Bill. We have also fought hard for opportunity scholarships for inner city kids and opposed any expansion of Abortion funding.

So what are we? What is the Church? Is it really true to say that we are just shills for the Republican Party? That hardly seems fair. What if we are just Christians who fight for what we value? And the truth is, those values aren’t so easily categorized as Anne Rice and Kirsten Powers think.  We, like everyone else in this country form  alliances, to fight for what we value. But in the Catholic Church those alliances are not as monolithic as some of our critics claim.

Perhaps a personal litany to end: I am against abortion and they call me a Republican. I oppose Capital Punishment and they call me a Democrat. I am against Gay Marriage and many aspects of the Gay agenda and they say, “O see he’s a Republican!” I work for affordable housing and insist that jobs be the priority for the City agenda and they say, “See he’s a Democrat.” And all this time what I was trying to be is a Christian.

Posted on

Restoring Greater Reverence to Sick Calls

In my Parish I work with the men of the Holy Name Society and also the women of the Sodality to ensure that the numerous sick in our parish are visited regularly. I try to visit the sick at least quarterly on a rolling basis to ensure they have had confession and anointing of the Sick. But, since I am without an assistant priest, as a general rule, I depend on them to bring communion regularly.

We met as a group this past week and had an interesting discussion about a concern that a number of them expressed, that of reverence. When they arrive at the home to which they visit it is not infrequent that a television is blaring, and the person to whom they bring communion is often unprepared by others in the home to receive Holy Communion. It is frequent that the extraordinary minister must ask that the television be turned down and that others might prayerfully participate. I too, upon visiting many of the sick encounter similar issues: loud TVs, other family members who do not understand the sacredness of the moment and a generally difficult setting in which to pray or reflect.

I do not blame either the sick or the family members for this situation. I blame myself and fellow clergy, many of whom, (though not all), have failed to teach or to explain to parishioners and family members (some of whom are not Catholic) as to proper protocol in this matter.

I explained to the extraordinary ministers assembled last week that we must re-catechize and teach on this matter. It will take time but, little by little, perhaps we can make progress toward restoring a greater reverence to sick calls. It is a general fact that sick calls have become very informal over the years. When the liturgy underwent sweeping changes in the 1970s many things were dropped (though we were not directed to drop them) that we are now rediscovering to be of importance.

In the “old days” the visit of the priest to bring communion and/or anointing to the sick was a matter of some formality. Most homes had a sick-call kit on hand that included things like a cross, candles, a cloth, cotton, and a bowl of water. If the priest were on First Friday rounds he might even be escorted by a server with a lit candle. At other times, a family member might greet the priest at the door with a candle and escort the priest to the room where the sick person was. In that room the “altar” was usually set up somewhat like the photo above. Family members usually stood by quietly while the priest administered the sacraments. If the priest did talk with the sick person or the family it was usually very brief. Since he had the Blessed Sacrament, casual talking was kept to a minimum. As he left, if he still had the Blessed Sacrament he was escorted by a family member with a candle. (Photo at left was taken in 1942 – Double-Click and get a better view).

Now what is described in the paragraph above did vary based on location and circumstances. First Friday Holy Communions were more formal. Emergencies might exclude some of the formalities. There were also ethnic differences. Other factors such as the catholicity of other family members and how devout each family was were also factors. But what was described above was the practice in usual circumstances, give or take a few details.

In recent times, as already noted, most of these details have fallen away. Like so many things in our culture we have become very casual, very informal. But it may be beneficial for us to rediscover some of the older practices in order to restore greater reverence to sick calls. I would like to suggest a few matters of protocol for your reflection. I will begin with a few disclaimers and offer some suggestions to which you are invited to add or critique.

Disclaimers:

  1. Not everything in the list that follows is possible or even advisable in every situation. Sometimes sick calls are hastily arranged due to emergencies and preparing a sick call altar might mean time away from a distressed or dying relative. Sometimes in nursing homes all the implements are not available or even allowed. For example many nursing homes would not allow the burning of candles. Hence, prudential judgment will weigh in on what is necessary, possible and advisable.
  2. Family situations may also affect the preparation of the sick call altar and other protocol. There may be no one in the home healthy enough to assemble the implements. There may be family members who are non-Catholic and choose not to participate in the rites and preparations.
  3. Not all the implements shown above are necessary for every sick call. Sometimes there will not be anointing and, hence a good amount of the things shown above are not necessary. Even if there is an anointing, it may not be necessary to do everything shown above. Here too, factors vary.
  4. What follows are recommendations only. Not absolute requirements. The hope is to instill some thoughtfulness as to the reverence due the moment of a sick call. Reverence is not pure science. Externals can and do help but ultimately it is our internal disposition that is most important.
  5. Regarding these recommendations, take what you like and leave the rest. Add to them and distinguish as you wish. Discussion with your parish priest is also helpful.

Recommendations.

    1. Consider preparing the place where the Sacraments will be celebrated. If possible and necessary, tidy up a bit.
    2. Consider preparing a sick call table (or altar). Most commonly such a table included at least a candle. Preferably, there is a cross and two candles. A small glass of water is helpful since the sick person sometimes has trouble swallowing the host and a little water can help. A spoon is helpful if the person has a hard time sitting up to drink the water. A napkin of some sort can help if the person spills any water when drinking or gets their face wet. If the priest is going to anoint the sick person it may be helpful to have some cotton balls for him to wipe his fingers. If he does use them they are later to be burned. The picture above also shows bread and lemons to help the priest purify his fingers after anointing but these are rarely necessary and should not be supplied unless the priest asks for them ahead of time.
    3. Sick call kits containing many of these implements are available through Catholic catalogues. For example, HERE & HERE
    4. If possible and advisable, have the sick person awake and aware that the sacraments are about to be celebrated just prior to the arrival of the priest, deacon or extraordinary minister.
    5. Be sure that when the priest, deacon or extraordinary Minister arrives, the television, radio etc. are off and that other unnecessary conversations and activities in the house are ended.
  • In the past it was customary for someone to meet the priest at the door with a candle. This was done out of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. This can still be done today and is a wonderful way to teach others of the sacredness of the moment.
  1. It is preferable to have all the members of the household prayerfully aware of what is taking place. If the room is large enough they can be encouraged to pray along. It may be necessary for some brief privacy while a priest hears confession, but otherwise members of the household can and should join in prayer. It is certainly inappropriate for loud conversations to be taking place in the next room, for children to be playing video games and for any unnecessary activities to be taking place. It is to be hoped that even non-Catholics be respectful of the sacred rites, as they most often are. Usually just a word of invitation and encouragement is all that is needed.
  2. It is best for the priest, deacon or extraordinary minister to celebrate the rites right away. Surely a greeting and an inquiry of health is appropriate. But long conversations prior to the reception of Sacraments is inadvisable. After the celebration of the Sacraments longer and cordial conversations can take place. It is sometimes the case that the priest, deacon or extraordinary minister has other stops to make and, after the rites is still carrying the host with them. In such a case it is not wrong to have conversation with the sick person as this is an act of charity. However, one ought to balance the fact of the presence of the Blessed Sacrament and the need for conversation with prudence and reverence. Staying for lunch and lengthy chatty visits etc. is discouraged in such cases.
  3. Reverential prayer and celebration of the rites is also necessary for those who bring communion.
  4. Those who bring communion to the sick should go straightway to them and not stop at stores. It is best to drive in silence, pray or listen to religious music rather than secular radio in carrying the Blessed Sacrament.

 So, here are some recommendations. Feel free to add to them in the comments and make necessary distinctions. Remember all of this is not possible all the time. The recommendations are made in hopes of provoking thought and discussion on the question of reverence in sick calls. They are made more as gentle reminders than polemical pronouncements. I do not assume that any one intends to be irreverent. It is just that we have become very casual these days and reminders seem opportune.

Posted on

Wonder and Awe File: Our Perfect Planet: Happenstance or Hand of God?

MIRACLE EARTH?! The earth on which we live and which, by God’s grace,  sustains our life is surely miraculous. Consider the following facts.

  1. The life support system we call the solar system has just the correct distribution of large and medium sized planets to have swept clean most of the space through which Earth must travel. There are thus few asteroids anywhere near our path!
  2. Further, large gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn, “catch” comets in their gravitational fields and keep these comets from targeting earth.
  3. Our star, the Sun, is just the right size to consume its supply of hydrogen and produce energy at a rate that provided the time and conditions for life to form.
  4. Our orbit through space, at 93 million miles from the Sun, departs from a true circle by only 3 percent. Were it as elliptical as is the orbit of Mars, the next planet out, we would alternate between baking when closer to the Sun and freezing when distant.
  5. Earth contains just enough internal radioactivity to maintain its iron core in a molten state. This produces the magnetic umbrella that deflects an otherwise lethal doses of the harmful aspects of solar radiation.
  6. The volcanic activity driven by this internal heating is just adequate to have released previously stored subterranean waters into our biosphere, making them available for life processes, but not so much volcanism as to shroud our planet in dust.
  7. Earth’s gravity is strong enough to hold the needed gases of our atmosphere but weak enough to allow lighter more noxious gases to escape into space.
  8. All this is balanced at just the correct distance from our star so that our biosphere is warm enough to maintain water in its liquid, life-supporting, state, but not so warm that it evaporates away into space.

A just-right Earth with just the needed gravity, radioactivity, magnetic field, and volcanic activity to support life is located at just the correct distance from the Sun in a properly shaped orbit to nurture the inception and development of life…all the ingredients come together in just the right way…Just a nice coincidence? Or Maybe it’s God!  You decide.

Here is a wonderful video on the magnificence of this Earth.

Posted on

How about a Little Humility

When I was a little kid the science books said that the universe was in a steady state and had existed forever. There were some theories about the universe actually expanding but these were not accepted by most who declared the steady state universe to be a matter of “settled” science. Though evidence had been building through the 20th Century for an expanding universe (red shift etc.) and the “Big Bang” that started everything,  many ridiculed the Big Bang Theory with slogans like “Big Bust” and “Big Boom.” Discoveries in the mid sixties (e.g. background microwave radiation) shifted the debate and the Big Bang Theory won the day. But the fact is, in my own lifetime cosmology (How we understand the universe) has undergone a seismic shift. The science was not so settled after all.

When I was in High School the scientific world was all abuzz with climate change. But in the 1970s “climate change” referred to the fact that a new ice age was coming. It was held that man made pollution would so block the sun’s rays, that by the year 2000 the ice caps would be advancing and winters in the north would become increasingly frigid and summers shorter. The usual calamities were predicted: widespread hunger since growing seasons would shorten, extinctions etc. By the dreaded year, 2000,  many the same climatologists were predicting global warming and the same catastrophic consequences but now postponed to 2050 or beyond. These climatologists demand that we accept that their conclusions are “settled science.” Another seismic shift in my own lifetime and pardon me if I am a bit less certain than is demanded of me.

Science has brought us many blessings, but it would seem humility is not among those blessings. We do well to rediscover words like theory, possibility, assumption, premise, thesis, supposition and the like.

I am not attacking science here. True science is comfortable with the fact that, as evidence changes, so do theories. Likewise, our capacity to measure changes and generally gets better. This brings forth new data and shifts theories, sometimes in significant ways. This is part of the scientific method wherein data and evidence are accepted and interpreted in an on-going way so that theories grow and sometimes change.

But we are living in a world increasingly dominated by advocacy science. The “cause” too often eclipses the science.  Funding too has become a pernicious influence and whole scientific disciplines start to follow the money more than the data. “Popular” and politically savvy theories get funded, unpopular less politically correct ones do not. Popular media also influences science more than it should.  Some scientists get the interview, others do not and thus pop science often eclipses the truer and careful laboratory science.

Through it all, there are still wonderful scientists and great things happening in science. And the best of it is restoring a  lot of humility to the equation. Quantum theory is bewildering to be sure but it is showing the limits of our current understanding. Physics is bumping up against metaphysics, science is rubbing shoulders with philosophy, the material world seems to be pointing beyond itself.

This is not an essay in radical skepticism. There ARE many things we do know. But there are so many more that we do not know. We are not even sure how something as basic as gravity works. What we know amounts to a period at the end of a sentence in one book in the Library of Congress. And there are a LOT of books in the Library of Congress. Scripture says of the created world, Beyond these, many things lie hid; only a few of Gods’ works have we seen. (Sirach 43:34). It is humility that is necessary in the great pursuit of science.

In theology too humility is essential. Here,  as in science,  there are many things we know by faith and are certain about, things which God himself has revealed. But many other things are mysterious to us and we dare not ever think we have God or even the mystery of our own life fully figured out. God is “Other” and cannot be reduced to our thoughts or words. And thus we speak with clarity about what has certainly been revealed. But we also reverence the mystery of what is beyond our understanding with humility. To hand on what has been revealed intact and to insist upon it is not the arrogance that some claim. Rather it is the humility of accepting what God has revealed intact without selectively choosing what merely appeals to us. But even as we speak of what we surely know by God’s revelation, we are always humbly aware of what we do not know.

In the Book of Proverbs there is an important reminder: Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him. (Prov 26:12) 

By the way, double click on the picture above and you’ll get a better look at how beautiful it really is. It also illustrates how the huge mountains on this planet are tiny compared to the vast universe. So too our knowledge compared to what can be known.

Here is a good video that shows a consistent lack of humility in the many prognosticators of our day. It is a very cleverly done video.

Posted on

You Can’t Take It With You But You Can Send It On Ahead

The Gospel for today’s Mass contains some very clear instructions about Income that we do well to heed. Most of us think of money, income, and wealth as a great blessing. To be sure money is a necessary part of life. Without it our very life can be in danger for want of food, clothing and shelter. But the Lord also wants us to soberly understand the problems and perils that are caused by wealth. So, in today’s Gospel he sets forth five basic teachings on wealth that we do well to heed and that we ignore to our peril. Let’s take a look at them one by one.

1. The INSIDIOUSNESS of wealth – Someone in the crowd said to Jesus, “Teacher, tell my brother to share the inheritance with me.” He replied to him, “Friend, who appointed me as your judge and arbitrator?”  Then he said to the crowd, “Take care to guard against all greed, for though one may be rich, one’s life does not consist of possessions.”  – Notice here how the man thinks his problem is an unjust brother. But the Lord diagnoses his problem to be more personal and more serious. His problem is greed (also called avarice and depicted at the right). Now greed is the insatiable desire for more. Greed is considered one of the seven “cardinal” or “capital” sins in that it leads us many other sins. Greed works insidiously within us and causes us to act unjustly, spend more than we have, and despise or ignore the poor. It will often cause people to lie, cheat, or steal. Greed divides families, and may cause grave harm to children. Consider how many children are farmed out to day care because parents want to live a life style that requires double incomes and careers. Greed also causes stress since, by it, we indulge in the lie that wealth brings security. As shall be developed in a moment but we also know by experience, our many possessions and material wealth have led to a very stressful and anxious existence. We have lives with entirely too much clutter, too many options, too many expectations, too many demands and much of this is due to the extravagant and mobile lifestyle we insist upon living because of greed. Greed also leads to ingratitude since, due to greed we are never satisfied and thus not very grateful. Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is vanity.(Eccles 5:10)

This litany could go on, but the Lord is clear here that greed in any form must be guarded against. To say it must be “guarded against” means that it is a threat, an enemy, a destroyer, a thief. We must think of it this way and secure our lives against it. It is a deadly and serious adversary and grace is necessary for us to even consider defeating it. Scripture says But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction.  For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs. (1 Tim 6:9-10) Despite a strongly worded text like this, most of us still want to be rich. Even when the Lord warns how hard it is for the rich to enter heaven we still want to be rich! Greed is a very strong, unreasonable and insidious foe.

2.  The INCEPTION of Wealth – There was a rich man whose land produced a bountiful harvest – Notice that the subject of the verb “produced” is not the man but the Land. It was the land that produced the bountiful harvest, not the man. Scripture says, “What have you that you have not received? And if you have received, why do you boast as though you had not? (1 Cor 4:7) This man receives a bountiful harvest from the land and ultimately from God. For, as Scripture says, “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof”  (Psalm 24:1) Scripture also says Every good and perfect gift comes from above, comes from the Father of lights (James 1:17). Hence it is God who grants increase. We also see by Psalm 24 just quoted that everything belongs to God. We are but stewards, not owners. And, as stewards, we must use the goods of creation in accord with the desires of the owner, God.

Now it is a plain fact that, through innumerable scriptural texts God has told us that he expects us to be generous to the poor and less fortunate. This universal teaching of scripture is well summed up in the Catechism under the concept of the “Universal Destination of Goods.” This principle states that God gave all the good of the earth for all the people of the earth. This means that the goods of creation are destined for the whole human race…In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself. The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family. (Catechism 2402, 2404).

3. The INCONVENIENCE of wealth – He asked himself, ‘What shall I do, for I do not have space to store my harvest?’ – It is a true fact that wealth brings certain blessings but we must also be sober about the fact that it also brings burdens. Consider that we human beings have never been so wealthy as we in the West are. And yet consider again how stressful and distracted our lives are. Consider how burdening many people consider the pace of their lives. Wealth seems great but then come locks, insurance, keys, alarms, insurance, lawyers, repairs, maintenance, upgrades, lawsuits, disputes over inheritance, addiction to credit, and lack of self control. Conveniences soon become necessities and necessities, not resisted, become slavery. Scripture says, The sleep of a laborer is sweet, whether he eats little or much, but the abundance of a rich man permits him no sleep (Eccles 5:12). Or again,  Better is a little with the fear of the LORD than great treasure and trouble with it. (Prov 15:16)

Hence we see this man with an abundance. But, because he is not generous with it, he is burdened by it. A quick way to store excess food is to store it in the stomachs of the poor, but now he has to hire an architect and get a building permit, and go to zoning court to get a variance, and lay in supplies etc. It is a true fact that one way the rich can help the poor is to use wealth to stimulate industry. Hence it might not be required that he simply give it away, he may use his increase it in a mutually beneficial way so as to create opportunities for others and also to see further increase for himself. But the main focus of this man is to store  up his wealth only for himself. As we shall see the Lord calls this sort of person a fool.

4. The INUSFFICIENCY of Wealth – And he said, ‘This is what I shall do: I shall tear down my barns and build larger ones.  There I shall store all my grain and other goods and I shall say to myself, “Now as for you, you have so many good things stored up for many years, rest, eat, drink, be merry!”’ But God said to him, ‘You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you; and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?– In the end wealth is still poverty for it cannot solve our biggest problem which is our sin and the death it brings. A mere 80 years and the party is over. You can work all your life to be powerful, wealthy, feared and respected. And maybe you’re successful! Then you die. End of story. The world makes promises it cannot keep. And, in the end it is NOT the end, for a destiny looms after judgement. No amount of money can buy us out of this. Wealth tends to create the illusion of self-sufficiency, but that is all it is, an illusion. Consider some of the following Scriptures:

  • There are men who trust in their wealth and boast of the vastness of their riches. But no man can buy his own ransom, or pay a price to God for his life. The ransom of his soul is beyond him. He cannot buy life without end nor avoid coming to the grave. He knows that wise men and fools must perish and leave their wealth to others. Their graves are their homes for ever, their dwelling place from age to age though their names spread wide through the land. In his riches man lacks wisdom, he is like the beast that perish.(Ps 49).
  • 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. (1 Tim 6:17)
  • Whoever trusts in his riches will fall  (Prov 11:28)
  • For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the grass; its flower falls, and its beauty perishes. So will the rich man fade away in the midst of his pursuits. (James 1:11)
  • 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)

5. The INSTRUCTION for the Wealthy – Thus will it be for all who store up treasure for themselves but are not rich in what matters to God. – We admire wealth and power. Things like this matter to us. But they do not matter to God. What matters to God is that we are rich in justice, mercy, holiness, love and truth. God is not impressed by my money and economic power. In fact, he warns insistently about it, that wealth will make us hard to save, haughty, proud, arrogant, self-sufficient, compromised, lacking in saving trust and faith, worldly and just plain stupid.

God’s only advice for those who are “cursed” with wealth is that they be generous with it. Perhaps it can be given away, perhaps it can serve as a source of industry and jobs for others, perhaps it can supply low interest loans, perhaps it can be used in countless ways to bless others. The Lord tells us not to store up treasure on earth but to store up treasure in heaven. And how do we store up treasure in heaven? Do we put our gold in a balloon or rocket ship and send it up? Surely not. The way to store up our treasure in heaven is to put it in the hands of the poor and needy. To use it to bless others through wise investment so that it grows and can be a source of industry and capital, so that it can grow the economy and others can benefit from it, to donate to worthy causes and so forth. This is how we store up treasure in heaven.

You can’t take it with you but you can send it on ahead – There is an old saying, “You can’t take it with you.”  But that is not exactly true. The truer scriptural answer is that “You can’t take it with you but you can send it on ahead!” Through the  right use of our wealth, and talents God tells us we are storing up treasure for ourselves in heaven. Hence to be generous is a form of investment, a heavenly 401K.  Scripture says, Cast your bread on the water. It will come back to you after many days. (Eccl 11:1) or again, Give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For the measure you give will be the measure you get back (Luke 6:38).

Finally, consider these Scriptures that teach how the Lord teaches that through our generous use of worldly wealth, it is possible to store up heavenly treasure:

  • “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. Mat 6:19
  • I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings. Luke 16:9
  • 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)

So then, here are five instructions on wealth from the Lord. Be very careful about greed. Be sober about wealth too. We so easily bow before it, but it is a snare. And we in the affluent West have to be VERY sober about this because we are all wealthy by any standard. Even our poor live mighty fine compared to the poor elsewhere. The only way we are going to stand a chance is to guard against all forms of greed and be generous. Without this, we will be numbered among the rich of whom the Lord said, “How hard it is for the rich to inherit eternal life!” (Lk 18:24) Only grace and mercy, operative through the sacraments and faith can save us from our greed.

Help us, save us,  O Lord, have mercy one us and keep us by your grace!

 Here is an audio version of this sermon (sorry for the poor sound quality): http://frpope.com/audio/Instructions%20On%20Income.mp3

Posted on

It May be Friday, But Sunday’s Coming

Some years ago in a previous parish assignment, St. Thomas More, in Washington DC,  I was accustomed to take a Friday afternoon walk to focus on my homily for Sunday. At the beginning of the walk I’d often stop by the nearby house of an elderly parishioner, Lillian, and give her communion. She was quite elderly, her mind was beginning to fail and for these reasons it was difficult to get to Church. In mild weather she often be in her wheel chair on the front porch and, as I’d walk up she’d say, “Oh Father! It must be Sunday!”  “No, Lillian,” I’d usually say, “It’s actually Friday.”  And she’d usually say, “Oh, I’m sorry to hear that.”

I was thinking of the calendar most times I answered her, but she she was long past worrying what day the world said it was. And so, Friday after Friday, as I’d stop by she kept asking if it was Sunday. Friday it was, but she kept looking for Sunday.  “Is it Sunday, Father?”…. “No Ms. Lillian, today is Friday.”

The world has a saying: “Thank God, it’s Friday.” But in the Church, especially among African Americans whom I serve, there is an older expression: “It may be Friday, but Sunday’s coming.” It is a thoroughly Biblical reflection wherein Friday represents our sufferings, our own “Good Fridays” and Sunday represents our rising from the dead, our joy and the fulfillment of our hopes.

When Lillian saw her priest, she thought of Sunday, she thought of Jesus and Holy Communion. So, in a way for her it was Sunday, for a moment. But, to be sure,  Lillian was in the Friday of her life. She had all the crippling effects of old age: dementia, arthritis, weakness, hearing and eyesight problems, sugar, and you name it.    “I’s gotten ooooold, Father.”    Yes, Friday had surely come for Lillian.

At her funeral I could think of no other way to begin the homily than to say, “It’s Sunday Lillian.” And the congregation nodded, some just hummed, others said, “Thank you Jesus.” Lillian had gone to Jesus and Sunday had come. Surely she, like all of us, needed some of the cleansing purgation wherein the Lord wipes away the tears of all who have died (cf  Rev 21:4) lifts the burdens of our sorrows, regrets and sins for the last time. For those who die in the Lord, die in the care of the Lord.  The souls of the just are in the hand of God (Wis 3:1).

Yes, Sunday, glorious Sunday, for all those who trust in the Lord. The Fridays of life will come but if we trust, Sunday will surely follow.

 “Oh, Father! It must be Sunday!” ….”Yes, Ms. Lillian, it is surely Sunday.”

Posted on

Is It Possible that St. Paul Was a "Poor Preacher?" A Brief Meditation on Superficiality

For many years, growing up,  my usual image of St. Paul was of a bold preacher and teacher who went from town to town powerfully teaching and preaching on Christ. I imagined people mesmerized as he preached and took on his opponents.

In the years since seminary however I have altered my view just a bit based on Scriptural descriptions of Paul. I have no doubt that he was a brilliant theologian. He was reputed to have been one of the greatest students of one of the greatest Rabbis of that time, Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). I have no doubt as to his zeal for Christ and that this zeal must have been reflected on his face as he preached and taught. But it would seem that Paul was not considered a remarkably gifted preacher. Consider the following texts from Scripture along with some commentary by me in RED.

  1. Now I myself, Paul, urge you through the gentleness and clemency of Christ, I who (you say) am humble when present in your midst, but bold toward you when absent…..(2 Cor 10:1) The key element of this passage is that people regard Paul as rather humble and quiet in person but in contrast quite bold and assertive in his letters. This does not paint the picture of a fearsome and bold preacher.
  2. For someone will say, “His [Paul’s] letters are severe and forceful, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.” (2 Cor 10:10)  Here is clearer evidence that some (surely not all or most) though of Paul’s presence and preaching as weak and of no account. The Greek phrase λόγος  ἐξουθενημένος  (logos exouthenhmenos)  translated here as “speech contemptible”  can also be translated as “words or speech of no account”, or “a word or speech  to be despised”  Now, of course, Paul himself is reporting this and may be overstating the perception of his preaching out of a kind of humility. But, here again, is more evidence that Paul may not have been a highly gifted or bold preacher,  at least from a worldly perspective.
  3. For I think that I am not in any way inferior to these “superapostles.” Even if I am untrained in speaking, I am not so in knowledge; in every way we have made this plain to you in all things (2 Cor 11:5-6) The exact identity of the “superapostles” is debated but there is wide consensus that Paul does not mean here the Apostles chosen by Christ. Rather he likely refers to itinerant preachers who were well known for their oratorical skills. Some of them may have been Judaizers who opposed Paul. But it would seem that these skilled orators could draw a crowd. Perhaps they are like the revivalists of today. Here too is more evidence that Paul was not possessed of great oratorical skill. He seems to admit this but refuses to admit that he is inferior to anyone in the knowledge of the faith.
  4. For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the cleverness of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning…..(1 Cor 1:17). Again Paul admits of no clever oratorical skill but actually underscores his lack of eloquence to emphasize that the power is in the Cross of Christ.
  5. On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight…..Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. When he was sound asleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up dead. Paul went down, threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him. “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “He’s alive!” Then he went upstairs again and broke bread(Acts 20:7-11)  🙂 Note that Luke describes Paul as preaching “on and on.” The sermon seems to have put the young Eutychus right to sleep and he, sitting in a window sill, fell three flights to his death. Paul runs down and raises him from the dead. (All in a night’s work!)  He then returns to complete the Mass. A humorous and touching story in many ways but one that also illustrates that perhaps Paul could go on and on and be soporific.

So it would seem that Paul was not possessed of great oratorical skill. This may surprise us given his astonishing missionary accomplishments. But we must avoid superficiality in understanding the power of God’s Word. The power is in God. The battle is the Lord’s. We may all prefer to listen to great orators who can bring the house down. But God can write straight with crooked lines. He can make a way out of no way. If God could speak through Balaam’s donkey (cf Num 22:21), maybe he can speak through me too. Maybe he can speak through you.

Avoiding Superficiality – As a priest, I strive to work very hard to develop my skills. I think the people of God deserve this. But in the end none of us should ignore that God can speak in and through the humblest people and circumstances. Paul may not have had all the rhetorical skills we think he should have had. But he was possessed of many other gifts. He was a brilliant theologian, had amazing zeal and energy, was committed to walk thousands of miles and endure horrible sufferings if only he could proclaim Christ crucified and risen. He was also a natural leader and one of the most fruitful evangelizers the Church has ever known. We rather highly prize oratorical skill and personality. But there is obviously more to evangelizing effectively than eloquence and personality.

Our TV based media centered culture has come to focus primarily on personality and word-smithing. The ability to communicate is surely a great gift but there are many others as well. In prizing certain gifts over others we risk superficiality and injustice. The Church needs all the gifts.

What gifts do you have that God can use?

This song says, “If you can use anything Lord, you can use me.”

Posted on

What does Heaven Cost? A Meditation on the "Curse" of Affluence

Heaven costs everything. This is made plain by the parable spoken by the Lord in today’s Gospel:

The Kingdom of heaven is like a treasure buried in a field, which a person finds and hides  again, and out of joy goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. Again, the Kingdom of heaven is like a merchant searching for fine pearls. When he finds a pearl of great price, he goes and sells all that he has and buys it. (Matt. 13:44-46)

The most common interpretation of this parable is that we have to be willing to forsake everything to obtain heaven. But more radically, the parable isn’t saying we have to be willing to forsake everything, but that we WILL forsake, or at least lose, everything. The question is, will we do this willingly and even with a kind of joy, or will be do so resentfully and die with a hardened heart?

The truth is, there is absolutely nothing that you now have that you will not be required at some point to give up. No thing you think you own is really yours. It is God’s and you and I will give it back. There is no person you love whom you will not have to give back to God.

It has been my experience that I spent most of the first 25 years of my life acquiring but ever since I have been giving back. I have given back my youthful energy, much of the hair on my head, my slender figure, my almost perfect health. Little by little my eyesight and hearing are diminishing. I have had to say goodbye to my grandparents, then I buried my parents. My sister too I have given back to the Lord.

Now the question for me is, do I do this resentfully or with gratitude and acceptance? We live in a time where loss and difficulty in this life is not easily accepted. Loss has never been easy to accept but I am convinced we are especially challenged by the notion of loss and decline. This is because we have obtained a level of comfort and ease unknown to even our most recent ancestors. Electricity, air conditioning, indoor plumbing, endless labor saving devices and abundant consumer products, cheap and widely available, have all brought forth an expectation from most of us moderns that life is supposed to be pleasant and easy. When it is not we are quickly resentful and sometimes even threaten lawsuits. We live so comfortably today that it is rare to hear people in the general population speak of a longing for heaven.

The Older View – Our most recent ancestors often spoke of life as a valley of tears, as an exile. The Salve Regina says, “The thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve, to thee we do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears…..after this our exile show unto to us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus.”  This prayer, and others like it were written out the the experience that this life was often unpredictable, filled with sudden turns and sorrows; life could be brutal and short until very recently. In many parts of the world today it still is. This climate produces a much deeper longing for heaven and a sober understanding that this world is not all that fabulous. Even in the affluent West we have to admit, if we sober up for a moment, that life is difficult and that the party we are so “privileged” to be in will end.

Prosperity Gospel? – An old spiritual  says, “Soon I will be done with the troubles of this world, going home to live with God.” But most people today in the affluent West, even committed Christians, inebriated with the world’s comforts,  speak little of heaven. Often when we pray it is generally some prayer that God make this world a better place: Please Lord, fix my finances, fix my health, get me a better job. It is not wrong to pray for this but when that is all we pray for it is almost as if we were saying to God, “Give me enough comfort, health, and resources and I’ll just stay here forever.” We’ve all been a little infected with the “prosperity gospel.” But when in our prayer do we long for God and to be with him in heaven? When do we ask  him to make us holy and prepare us to meet him? It is natural to have a fear of death but in the end, if we are faithful, death is also to be a longed-for moment that we prepare for with both sobriety and longing,  for it is then that we go to meet God, our heart’s truest longing.

In this sense our comfort and affluence have not blessed us, they have cursed us and made us much harder to save. The Lord remarked how hard it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom of heaven (cf Luke  18:24). And we in the affluent and modern west are very rich. Even the poorest among us live like royalty compared to the poor elsewhere. We are much harder to save for we are stubbornly attached to this world and most of us are exceedingly unwilling to sell everything we have for the Kingdom of God. We enjoy our creature comforts far too much to be willing to easily part with them. Paradoxically our losses and suffering can be blessings for us in that they can begin to loose this world’s strong attraction and restore in us a greater longing for heaven and a willingness to leave this inferior kingdom for the greater one. It is strong medicine to be sure and we are not asked to like it but we must learn to accept it.

And acceptance is the key for the medicine to work. That we accept it does not mean we have to like it. Loss is always painful, giving back is hard. But accepting that, in the end, we will one day give back everything we have to God brings a paradoxical serenity. God has something better for us, but it means we have to trust Him and leave here, having given everything back.  It is the refusal to accept this that brings a bitterness, a resentfulness that hardens our heart and makes us very hard to save.

The fact is, the Lord must root from us every attachment and vestige of the world before we can obtain heaven or even want it sufficiently. In the end we will get what we want: heaven at the price of all this, or eternal separation from the God we have grown to resent because we consider the price too high. But the choice is ours. The Kingdom of GOD is like a man who found it and out of JOY goes and sells all that he has. Pray for detachment and a serene acceptance. The price is high, but God has something far better than this valley of tears.

Here is a sermon I preached on this this morning: http://frpope.com/audio/17%20Wed.mp3