We often like to read from and quote the prophets. But if you’ve ever met a real prophet you know that being in the presence of a real prophet can be very disturbing. Prophets were famous for goring every one’s ox. No one left the presence of a prophet untouched. So troubling were the prophets of old, including Jesus, that most of them were persecuted, jailed, stoned, exiled and killed. Most of the Biblical prophets were beyond controversial they were way over the top. Prophets denounced sin and injustice in the strongest language announcing doom to a nation that refused to repent. Many Israelites thus considered them unpatriotic and downright dangerous. They justified throwing them into prison for their lack of patriotism and for the way their words questioned and upset the status quo and the judgements of those who held power. To many, these were dangerous men who had to be stopped.
Jesus, though essentially our savior, also adopted the role of a prophet. Listen to these words as he denounces the people of his day for their rejection of his prophetic message. In this they are just like their fore-bearers who rejected the prophets:
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the memorials of the righteous, and you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have joined them in shedding the prophets’ blood.’ Thus you bear witness against yourselves that you are the children of those who murdered the prophets; now fill up what your ancestors measured out! You serpents, you brood of vipers, how can you avoid being sentenced to Hell?! (Matt 23:29ff)
Many of us today like to think that, had we lived in Jesus’ time we would surely be on his side. But, truth be told, prophets can be hard to endure and Jesus had “difficult” things to say for everyone. Honestly, most of us struggle with the truth to some extent. And especially we moderns who prefer a more gentle discourse with large doses of honey and very little vinegar. We probably would wince as we walked along with Jesus. Jesus was more “plain spoken” than we are usually comfortable with. If we are honest, when we read the prophets and Jesus we will come away with much to repent of.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Consider this video clip. It is of a modern prophet named Vernon Johns. In the early 1950s he was Pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery Alabama. The Black Congregation that hired him was a rather sleepy congregation. In the face of rather awful racial discrimination, they preferred to remain silent and therefore safe. Vernon Johns tried to wake them from their sleep, but to no avail. They were too afraid (yet) to take a prophetic stand. Eventually Vernon Johns was arrested as a trouble maker and the Board of Deacons fired him. But Johns had laid a foundation for the next Pastor of Dexter Baptist, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Within a few years Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat and the Bus Boycott was on. The rest is history. This clip is of VernonJohns final sermon where in finest prophetic tradition he denounces racism. But NO ONE escapes his vivid denunciations. Watch this clip and behold what it must have been like with the prophets of old, even Jesus. Behold the prophet! No one escapes! In the end of the clip, his daughter who had stood against her Father’s zeal sings “Go Down Moses.” The choir director who had also opposed him likewise stands to sing. The seed is planted even as the prophet is led away by the police.
The Gospel for today has Jesus clearly telling us he must carry his cross and we must carry ours. Generally we flee the cross. But somewhere deep inside we know the need for the cross. Where would you be today without the crosses you learned to carry. The cross is more than suffering, it is self discipline, it is generosity, it is obedience, it is doing what is right even without immediate reward, it is working hard when we’d rather sleep. Where would you and I be had we not learned to accept corsses like these. Most of our progress comes at the cost of sacrifice, ours and others for us. We know, deep inside, that the corss is necessary.
The following video is a little silly but it makes a good point, so learn while you laugh at a corny but clever video:
Here’s another rather clever but corny video which I’ve posted before. In it a pastor and his cat try to explain suffering.
Most of us remember well that terrible day 8 years ago when terrorists ruthlessly attacked us. Although that day is etched deeply in most of our memories, what may have slipped away is how we experienced September 12 and the days that followed. We wondered, was this the first of many more attacks? Was another shoe about to drop? How would we protect ourselves from new attacks? There was a lot of anxiety in the days and weeks that followed. But most people agreed, this nation had to protect itself from further attack. We needed to identify our enemy and end the threat that enemy posed.
In the weeks, months and years that followed this Country undertook significant actions to end the threat posed to us by Al Qaeda. The problem was that this enemy did not live in a single region or country. The field of battle was difficult to define. The army we faced wore no uniforms and lived among non-combatants. Opinions began to differ widely as to the best way to address the threat posed to us.
Among Christians who reflected on what to do, Biblical teaching, the example and words of Jesus present definite challenges to those who proposed a strong military solution. Jesus seems so clear and unequivocal when he teaches in this regard:
You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well….”You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, (Matt 5:38-44)
What a text! It is so radical as it seems to exclude self-defense. What does it mean to offer no resistance to one who is evil? When you are attacked Jesus does not say “defend yourself” he says “turn the other cheek.” So radical does this text seem to most that they are overwhelmed and simply turn the page. Is this a call to radical pacifism? Does it mean that a Nation should have no police force, no judicial system, no army?
Instead of turning the page, we might do well to reflect on the message of a text like this. Perhaps some observations and clarifications are due here:
The text seems to be more about matters of personal dignity than actual physical attack. True, the strike on the cheek seems quite physical, but in the ancient world such attacks were understood as an attack on one’s personal dignity no so much a grave physical threat. This is true even today. Being slapped on the face is not a devastating threat to our physical well-being. Rather it is an insult. In the ancient world one who wished to humiliate struck (always with the open right hand) the left cheek of the person. This was an indignity but not the worst one that could be inflicted. The worst insult was to strike the right cheek of a person with the back of your right hand. So what Jesus is describing here is a question of dignity. His basic teaching then is that if some one tries to rob you of your dignity by a slap on the cheek, realize that your dignity is not in what others think of you. Realize that your dignity is given by God and no one can take from you. Show this by offering your other cheek. Don’t stand on your precious dignity, don’t retaliate to regain your dignity. The one who struck didn’t give you your dignity and they cannot take it away.
Hence this text is not about defending from life threatening physical attack, it is a text about personal dignity. All the getting back at others because they offended you or did not praise you, or poked fun at you, or did not give you your due, all the revenge for stuff like that ends because it no longer matters to you, at least not when Jesus starts to live his life in you.
So this text has a cultural context that would not necessarily require us to interpret Jesus’ words as an absolute exclusion of legitimate self defense in moments of serious physical threat.
But any distinctions I have made above by way of explanation cannot remove the core of Jesus’ message which is meant to limit our retaliation and remove from it anything “personal” other than the protection of life from imminent threat or significant injustice.
This then serves as background to the Church’s very careful and thoughtful approach to necessary self-defense. The Catechsim sets forth this teaching in its exposition of the 5th Commandment (Thou Shall not Kill). Here are some excerpts:
2263The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor…. The one is intended, the other is not.”
2264Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful….
2265Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the state.
2266Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. For analogous reasons those holding authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the community in their charge.
2267….the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If however non-lethal means are sufficient…authority will limit itself to such means….the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
2308All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. However…governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.”
2309The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: 1- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; 2- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; 3- there must be serious prospects of success; 4- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
So, some reflections on 9/11. How have we done? It seems we had a right to defend ourselves by discovering our enemy who so threatened us and removing this threat. I do not claim that we got it all right and that every action of ours was right. Indeed, if I can leave you with one “take away” from this reflection it might be this: Self defense and the ending of unjust aggression can never be something we do lightly and without reflection. The Lord and the Church require of us serious reasons for bringing lethal blows even to enemies and we should never undertake such measures without considering carefully other less lethal means. Respect for life means that it is right that I demand my enemy respect my life but also means that I must respect his. Recourse to war or other lethal means may sometimes be necessary but we do well to carefully consider our motives and means in such a serious undertaking.
Have we done this? I leave this to your prayerful consideration. Pray for also our leaders who have important decisions to make in the protection of this great nation of ours.
This Year marks the 40th Anniversary of No-Fault Divorce. With the signature of Governor Ronald Regan on Sept 5, 1969, the State of California became the first State to enact “No-Fault Divorce.” Other states quickly followed and within 15 years it was nationwide. In effect this law simplified divorce and streamlined it by allowing only one party to petition for divorce. By this act Marriage became the easiest contract in civil law to break.
Prior to 1969 the States processed divorce requests but the process was long and difficult. Shouldn’t it be? The breakup of marriages has potentially powerful implications for families and for society. It is especially children who suffer from unstable family situations. The State and the wider society has good reason to insist that couples remain faithful to vows they have made (to use Church language) and to “contractual obligations” binding on them (to use the language of civil law). With the introduction of “No-fault Divorce” the notion of obligations and duties toward Children and the wider society was set aside. Marriage became a whimsical arrangement subject to easy and rather sudden end – no questions asked. “Irreconcilable differences” is all that needs to be said.
Late in life, Reagan admitted his son, Michael that, signing the bill was one of the worst mistakes he ever made in public office.
How have we done since 1969? Well no one would say marriage is a healthier institution as a result. Divorce has skyrocketed. Now more than half the children of this country no longer enjoy a stable nuclear family but instead are sent back and forth between the households of divorced parents. Often they have to endure the confusion and turmoil of their parents’ second marriages, half brothers and sisters, moms and step moms, dads and stepdads and every other sort of relationship you can imagine. What sort of a toll has this taken on children in terms of things like drug use, suicide rates, premarital sex, SAT scores, etc.? Well, you know the answer. And how do we fare as a society, as a nation, as Church when our most basic pillar is on shaky ground? Here again, you know the answer, we have not fared well.
There was a time in this land when divorce was rare. When it occurred people were shocked and whispered about it. Really it was not so long ago. I who am only 48 remember those times from my early childhood. It is not as though every marriage was happy before 1965. Indeed, there were many “unhappy marriages.” But people had a different outlook which emphasized the importance of staying true to commitments that had been made and to sticking them “for the sake of the kids.” These attitudes were enshrined in law which made divorce difficult. Marriage was for the Children and children had needs for stability and for parents who stuck to their commitments. Today, the attitude is that marriage is for the adults and the needs of children are somewhat secondary.
Do you also see how this had led to the current trend to “redefine” marriage. If Marriage is essentially only about the relationship of the adults involved and children are only an optional accessory, who is to say that marriage should be stable or even heterosexual? Or so the thinking goes. But if, as the Church continues to teach, the procreation and rearing of children is an essential end of marriage then it makes sense that God would establish marriage as between one man and one woman till death do them part. As God puts it, “This is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh.” (Gen 2:24) God goes on further to command them to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28).
So here we are today, marriage, family, and children are all on the ropes. Our own strength as a civilization depends on us getting this right again. The first major and serious blow took place 40 years ago this month. God invites us to return.
To those who are divorced, I mean you no disrespect. Many are divorced today due to complicated reasons. Not all wanted the divorce they had. Others made decisions early in life that they now regret. Still others had unique situations too complicated to speculate about here. But I’ll bet most who are divorced would be the first to describe its pains and ramifications in the family. Easy divorce has not made life easy. “Amicable solutions” are seldom pain-free and they are seldom solutions at all. Rather they unleash a whole new set of problems. Somewhere in the midst of all this God is calling to us and he invites us all to rediscover his plan for marriage and the family.
When I was first ordained the Internet was not yet a reality. But in these past twenty years it has surely exploded on the scene and it has become a dominant force in many people’s lives. Much of it’s effects have been good. Information flows more freely, and communication worldwide is almost instant. Remarkable “communities” of sorts have set up and ordinary people, showing great creativity can reach a worldwide audience. Remarkable really.
But one of the darker sides to the Internethas been the easy availability of pornography. As a priest I have had to help people who have fallen very deep into a kind of bondage around Internet pornography. There is a kind of addictive effect that sets up for many.
More than merely compulsive, Internet pornography is quite addictive to many. The difference between compulsion and addiction is that compulsiveness is a kind of “steady” bad habit but addiction requires more and more of the thing to satisfy. The many who struggle with addiction to pornography indicate that they cannot stop and that they need more exotic materials as time goes on. Stranger and stranger, deeper and deeper they go. Soon many find themselves drawn even to illegal sites featuring underage subjects and even children. This is usually where the law catches up with them.
Be very careful about your Internet habits. The danger of pornography on the Internet is that it is so easy to find, just a few clicks away. There is also the illusion of privacy. In the old days one had to walk into an “adult bookstore” and interact with people in order to get the products they desired. Today there is an illusion that viewing such materials is completely private. It is not. Do not be fooled. EVERYTHING you do on the Internet is public. Extensive records of your browsing habits are stored not only on your own machine but also out on the Web. New government laws now forbid the erasure of e-mails. There are newer laws coming in to effect each year requiring search engines such as Google and Yahoo to disclose browsing habits of individuals to law enforcement officials under certain circumstances. Those who routinely visit illegal sites are easily known to law enforcement officials who routinely monitor such sites. The main point is THERE IS NOTHING PRIVATE ABOUT THE INTERNET. When we are online we are out in public.
So be very careful about the Internet. Not only is pornography sinful, it is also very addictive to many and leads them down a very slippery slope. It demands more and more of their time. It devolves into stranger and more exotic appetites and often causes people to stray into unnatural and even illegal attractions. Addictions are also very hard to break once they are acquired. Don’t just avoid pornography, flee from it (cf 1 Cor 6:18). Take it from a priest who has had to help people deal with some very sad consequences. Pornography is not a “victimless” crime. It has many, many victims: broken lives, broken hearts, broken marriages, lost jobs, lost freedom, lost innocence. Share this message with others!
Here is a sobering video that elaborates on the addictive quality of Internet pornography:
Today is “Labor Day” in the United States of America. With this in mind I thought it good to reflect on some teachings about human labor and work that are given in the catechism. Here follow the teachings. My own comments are added in RED to the catechism text (which is italicized):
Human Labor precedes Original Sin and hence is not an imposition due to sin but part of our original dignity – God places [Man] in the garden. There he lives “to till it and keep it”. Work is not yet a burden, but rather the collaboration of man and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation. (CCC # 378) Thus note that our dignity is that we are to work WITH God to perfect creation. Adam and Eve were told by God to fill the earth and subdue it. (Gen 1:28) Radical environmentalism often sets aside any notion that we are to help perfect creation and presents a far more negative portrait of humanity’s interaction with the environment. True enough we have not always done well in treating the environment, but it is wrong to think of the created world as better without humanity’s presence. It is rather our dignity to work with God in perfecting nature. Note too the description of work as not burdensome prior to sin. Man and woman HAD a work to do, but it was not experienced as a burden. Only after Original sin does work come to be experienced in this way for Eve will bring forth her children in pain and Adam will only get his food by the “sweat of his brow.” (Gen 3:16, 19)
Human Work is a duty and prolongs the work of Creation – Human work proceeds directly from persons created in the image of God and called to prolong the work of creation by subduing the earth, both with and for one another. Hence work is a duty: “If any one will not work, let him not eat.”[2 Thess 3:10] Work honors the Creator’s gifts and the talents received from him.(CCC 2427) See again the emphasis of our dignity as collaborators with God in the work of creation and in perfecting what God has begun! As to the duty of work, it is true that not everyone can work in the same way. Age and handicap may limit a person’s ability to do manual labor. Further, talents and state in life will tend to focus one’s work in specific areas. But all are called to work. Even the bedridden can pray and offer their sufferings for the good of others.
Work can be sanctifying and redemptive – [Work] can also be redemptive. By enduring the hardship of work in union with Jesus, the carpenter of Nazareth and the one crucified on Calvary, man collaborates in a certain fashion with the Son of God in his redemptive work. He shows himself to be a disciple of Christ by carrying the cross, daily, in the work he is called to accomplish. Work can be a means of sanctification and a way of animating earthly realities with the Spirit of Christ. (CCC 2427)…In his mercy God has not forsaken sinful man. The punishments consequent upon sin, “pain in childbearing” and toil “in the sweat of your brow,” also embody remedies that limit the damaging effects of sin. (CCC # 1609) Sin has brought upon us many weaknesses and a selfish tendencies. Work can serve as a remedy wherein we are strengthened unto discipline, the common good and cooperation with others in attaining good ends.
Work is an acceptable sacrifice to God – [The] laity, dedicated as they are to Christ and anointed by the Holy Spirit, are marvellously called and prepared so that even richer fruits of the Spirit maybe produced in them. For all their works, prayers, and apostolic undertakings, family and married life, daily work, relaxation of mind and body, if they are accomplished in the Spirit – indeed even the hardships of life if patiently born – all these become spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. In the celebration of the Eucharist these may most fittingly be offered to the Father along with the body of the Lord. (CCC # 901).
To work is participate in the Common Good – Participation [in the common good]is achieved first of all by taking charge of the areas for which one assumes personal responsibility: by the care taken for the education of his family, by conscientious work, and so forth, man participates in the good of others and of society. (CCC # 1914) Hence, we work not only to benefit ourselves but also to contribute to the good of everyone. We do this first by caring for our own needs to the extent possible and thus not burdening unnecessarily, others with our care. We also contribute to the common good by supplying our talent and work in such a way as to contribute to the overall availability of goods and services in the economy and community. We supply human talent and the fruits of our works to others in addition to purchasing, from our resources, the goods and services of others. Hence to work is to participate in the common good.
So, the key word seems to be “Dignity.” Human work proceeds from our dignity as collaborators with God in perfecting and completing the work of creation. Everyone can work and should work in the way that is possible for them not merely because every one has a duty, but also because this is of the essence of their dignity. Happy Labor Day.
