Category: Culture

Posted on

Eradicating Poverty Is Not a Gospel Value – A Reflection on a Teaching by Cardinal Sarah

homeless-blog-postThe eradication of poverty is an oft-stated goal of the modern, liberal West. President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s pronouncement of a “war on poverty” so imprinted this notion in the Western mind that it has become almost axiomatic. It is now a fundamental pillar in the thinking of almost every person (and organization) in the Western world, from the religious pew-sitter concerned for the poor to the most secular humanist bent on a utopian vision. Poverty is a great enemy that must be stamped out!

The only problem is that this is contrary to the Gospel! It is no surprise, therefore, that even after decades of Western “do-goodism,” barely a dent has been made in the percentage of people living in poverty. In fact, some statistics show that the percentage in poverty has increased. But why should we expect great fruitfulness in something that opposes God?

I can see the look of shock on your face right now; you may even be embarrassed that I have written this. I’d like to share a quote with you from Robert Cardinal Sarah, which makes an important distinction that we need to recover. While what he says may also shock you, I encourage you to read it carefully and thoughtfully; the distinction he makes is critical. Not only does the Gospel depend on it, but cultures and individual lives do as well. For indeed, in the name of eradicating poverty some of the worst of Western arrogance has been displayed. It is an arrogance that does not even recognize that it can become willing to the destroy the poor themselves as well as what and whom they love all in the name of this “noble” goal.

Cardinal Robert Sarah is no neophyte in this discussion. He grew up in an impoverished region of Africa and later headed the Roman dicastery, Cor unum, a charitable arm of the Holy See. The extensive passage below is an abbreviated version of the Cardinal’s response to the following questions posed by his interviewer, Nicholas Diat:

How would you describe the nature of Cor unum, the dicastery to which you devoted several years of your life, in its fight against all sorts of poverty? Furthermore, why do you speak so often about the close relation between God and the poor?

In his reply, the Cardinal is reacting somewhat to Mr. Diat’s description of Cor unum’s work as “fight[ing] against all sorts of poverty.” The Cardinal’s response is nothing short of stunning. Please read it carefully and consider obtaining the book so as to able to read the unabridged remarks as well.

The Gospel is not a slogan. The same goes for our activity to relieve people’s suffering … [it is a matter] of working humbly and having a deep respect for the poor. For example, I remember being disgusted when I heard the advertising slogan of a Catholic charitable organization, which was almost insulting to the poor: “Let us fight for zero poverty” … Not one saint … ever dared to speak that way about poverty and poor people.

Jesus himself had no pretention of this sort. This slogan respects neither the Gospel nor Christ. Ever since the Old Testament, God has been with the poor; and Sacred Scripture unceasingly acclaims “the poor of Yahweh.” …

Poverty is a biblical value confirmed by Christ, who emphatically exclaims, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:3). … The poor person is someone who knows that, by himself, he cannot live. He needs God and other people in order to be, flourish and grow. On the contrary, rich people expect nothing of anyone. They can provide for their needs without calling either on their neighbors or on God. In this sense wealth can lead to great sadness and true human loneliness or to terrible spiritual poverty. If in order to eat and care for himself, a man must turn to someone else, this necessarily results in a great enlargement of his heart. This is why the poor are closest to God and live in great solidarity with one another; they draw from this divine source the ability to be attentive to others.

The Church must not fight against poverty but, rather, wage a battle against destitution, especially material and spiritual destitution. … [so that all] might have the minimum they require in order to live. …

But we do not have the right to confuse destitution and poverty, because in so doing we would seriously be going against the Gospel. Recall what Christ told us: “The poor you will have always with you …” (Jn 12:8). Those who want to eradicate poverty make the Son of God a liar. …

[In his yearly Lenten message in 2014, Pope Francis] espoused what St. Francis [of Assisi] called “Lady Poverty.” … St. Francis of Assisi wanted to be poor because Christ chose poverty. If he calls poverty a royal virtue, it is because it shone brilliantly in the life of Jesus … and in the life of his mother, Mary of Nazareth. …

Similarly, I often think about the vow of poverty taken by religious … [they] do so in order to be as close as possible to Christ. The Son [of God] wanted us to be poor in order to show us the best path by which we can return to God. …

The Son of God loves the poor; others intend to eradicate them. What a lying, unrealistic, almost tyrannical utopia! I always marvel when Gaudium et Spes declares, “The spirit of poverty and charity is the glory and witness of the Church of Christ” (GS 88).

We must be precise in our choice of words. The language of the UN and its agencies, who want to suppress poverty, which they confuse with destitution, is not that of the Church of Christ. The Son of God did not come to speak to the poor in ideological slogans! The Church must banish these slogans from her language. For they have stupefied and destroyed peoples who were trying to remain free in conscience (Cardinal Sarah, God or Nothing: A Conversation in Faith with Nicholas Diat, pp. 140-142).

Perhaps stunned himself, Mr. Diat follows up with the following question: “Are you not afraid of being misunderstood in employing this sort of distinction?”

The Cardinal replies,

It is a lack of charity to shut one’s eyes. It is a lack of charity to remain silent in the face of confusing words and slogans! … If you read the Latin text of Gaudium et Spes carefully you will immediately notice this distinction (Ibid, p. 143).

This is a powerful insight and it reveals the deep flaw in Western “anti-poverty” programs. Christ asks us to love the poor and imitate the best of what they are, not eliminate them and disregard the simplicity and trust that they can often exemplify. But we in the West, imbued with our materialistic notions and mesmerized by the comfort and control that wealth can temporarily buy, denigrate what the Gospels praises and seek to eradicate it.

So unreflective are we in this matter that some will even justify the most awful things in the name of eradicating poverty. Many programs (U.S.-sponsored and U.N.-sponsored) with this goal advocate for contraception, abortion, and/or euthanasia. Some have even sought to compel these sorts of things as a precondition for receiving aid. Some seek to impose certain aspects of Western thinking, something that has been labeled an attempt at “ideological colonization.” Many of us in the “First World” often speak of the “Third World” in a way that at best is patronizing and at worst exhibits a thinly veiled contempt.

While it is true that certain economic and political systems best support Western lifestyles, there is more to life than material abundance. With our own culture, families, and common sense collapsing around us, it seems odd that we so easily consider our way of life superior; that we see our relationship to the poor and to poorer countries as one in which we have all the answers and they should just listen to us.

The word “arrogance” comes to mind. We too easily assume, without even asking, that we know what is best; we presume that poor people in every part of the world want what we have (materially) and that they don’t perceive the awful price we have paid in order to get it.

We must recover a respect for the world’s poor, who have much to teach us. Even if they are not materially without troubles, they often possess many things we have lost: simplicity, family and tribal (communal) life, reciprocity, proper interdependence (as opposed to radical individualism), trust, a slower life, and a less-stressful life.

Further, we must not forget that the Lord counseled poverty (Lk 18:22), declared the poor blessed (Lk 6:20), lived simply Himself having “nowhere to lay his head” (Mt 8:20), lived among the working poor, and warned of the pernicious quality of wealth (Lk 16:13). God hears the cry of the poor and Mother Mary taught us of a great reversal that is coming, when the mighty and powerful will be cast down and poor and lowly raised up (Lk 1:52). Jesus taught us that many who are now last will be first in the kingdom of Heaven (Mat 19:30). In this life, the poor will sometimes need us. In the next life, on Judgment Day, we are going to need them to welcome us into eternal dwellings (Luke 16:9).

I really cannot say it better than did the good Cardinal, so I will not attempt to do so. We must surely work to alleviate the destitution that often comes in times of famine, war, or natural disaster. But destitution and poverty are not the same thing. Overlooking this distinction can be deadly for the poor we claim to serve and for their cultures, and can result in the worst forms of ideological colonization and secular utopianism.

Posted on

A Catholic Reflects on Immigration

blog3-9The Catholic Church does not fit into anyone’s little political box. We are too big and ancient for that. And we serve a higher master. Our teachings predate current political categories and will surely postdate them as political lines continue to shift back and forth. The world, its nations, and political realities come and go, and still, here we are.

We have been called both the “Republican Party at prayer” and the “Democratic Party at prayer,” but we are neither. We are the Body of Christ at prayer. As such, we share his fate. The four political factions among the Jews of Jesus’ day (Herodians, Sadducees, Pharisees, and Zealots), who disagreed about essentially everything, all agreed that Jesus must go. Even the Romans concurred! Emblematically, Jesus was crucified outside the city gates; the polis (the city) could not contain him either. The Letter to the Hebrews advises, Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. So, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach (Heb 13:12-13).

So here we are, outsiders in a land we too easily call home. We are American citizens to be sure, but our true citizenship is in Heaven (Phil 3:20). As a Church we cannot simply conform to an “R” or “D” vision of the world. We certainly stand conscientiously opposed to abortion, the redefinition of marriage, the forced funding of contraceptives, euthanasia, and any erosion of religious liberty. But we oppose these and other related life- and family-related issues as Catholics.

Another critical moral issue that tests our soul as a nation is that of immigration. Here, too, the challenge for every Catholic is to approach the issue as a believer.

My own views on this matter have been shaped by over thirty years of daily Scripture reading in the Divine Office and Holy Mass. There are numerous texts (frankly, an avalanche of them) that command us to care for the sojourners, foreigners, and aliens among us. Over and over again the theme comes up. It is a steady drumbeat: hospitality and care are to be shown the foreigners among us. Here are just a few of the more than one hundred texts that command this:

  1. When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God (Lev 19:33-34).
  2. You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt (Ex 22:21).
  3. Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the Lord of hosts (Mal 3:5).
  4. I was a stranger and you welcomed me … (Mat 25:35)
  5. He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt (Dt 10:18-19).
  6. Give counsel; grant justice; make your shade like night at the height of noon; shelter the outcasts; do not reveal the fugitive; let the outcasts of Moab sojourn among you; be a shelter to them from the destroyer (Is 16:3).

There are many other texts commanding us in this manner or reminding us of our own needs in the past and exhorting us to deal with strangers among us respectfully and with care.

You can read a list of many other passages here: 100 Quotes from Scripture on Immigration.

The amount of ink expended on this topic in the Scriptures is overwhelming. It is just not possible for me as a Catholic Christian who insists that we take Scripture seriously in other matters to simply say, “Well, this is just a bunch of old-fashioned thinking that we can ignore.”

However we work to secure our borders and craft reasonable immigration laws, we cannot simply suppress the overwhelming voice of God, who commands of us a stance of welcome, openness, and care for those who are among us.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church seeks to strike a balance between the need of a nation to protect its borders and reasonably manage immigration with the command to welcome and care for others:

The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws, and to assist in carrying civic burdens (Catechism 2241).

By any assessment, the current system in this country is broken. Our laws are chaotic, selectively enforced, and have created a dangerous situation for immigrant and countryman alike. Fear and suspicion dominate; there has been a sad increase in nativist anger that is unbecoming a nation of immigrants with a Judeo-Christian heritage. Laws surely existed in previous decades, but there were fewer of them and they were far less confusing.

I am not a political genius or a policy wonk who has the perfect solution. But Catholics ought to approach this issue as Catholics, deeply rooted in Scripture and in our established teachings that summon us to welcome and assist others to contribute to our great land. We have suffered much from nativist sentiments in the past. We are and always have been an immigrant Church in America. We have a proud history of coming here, making a positive difference, and helping others to do so. Our parishes have always been centers of both familiar culture and of acclimation to our country.

In our charity we ought to be very hesitant to demonize the majority of immigrants as scofflaws and criminals. Even those who are currently without legal papers have most often come here to escape from desperate conditions of poverty and/or injustice. Some originally arrived legally but have since had their status expire and now cannot reasonably return.

As a priest, I know the personal stories of many immigrants; they are typically complex and often tragic. Almost no one leaves his country and his relatives behind on a whim, just to go and live in a foreign land. They often risk their lives and endure substantial hardship in order to come here because they are so desperate and see so few alternatives.

Are there criminals and opportunists among them? Yes. The same can be said about my own Irish and German immigrant ancestors. But most of my relatives were decent, hard-working people who wanted to survive—and to contribute as well. I have found nothing different about the vast majority of today’s immigrants. And these days, their children often speak English, even if some of the first generation struggle to master it.

We are Catholics and as such we need to think about this issue as Catholics. Our Scriptures and our teachings are unambiguous. The human rights of the immigrants, sojourners, and strangers among us are to be respected. We also need to help them to respect our laws and traditions. We can and should enrich one another.

I fully expect a lot of pushback on a post like this. You are free to comment, but I ask a couple of things: First, don’t address me, address your fellow readers. Second, don’t just say why I am wrong or naïve, etc.; say what you think and why.

Before you press “Submit Reply” (and take your math test J) please take a moment and at least glance at the long list of Scriptures in the link above. Consider whether or not your remarks take sufficient note of what God teaches us. In the end, it matters little what you or I think; or whether the Church teaches this as dogma, doctrine, or discipline; or whether it is taught fallibly or infallibly. The question is this: What does God think and how would He have me speak of and respond to this profoundly significant human issue?

Catholics don’t fit into anyone’s neat little box. We’re too big, too old, too diverse, and I pray too much like Jesus (who didn’t fit in anyone’s box either).

Posted on

On the Coarsening of Culture and What We Have Lost – As Seen In a Movie

There was a movie that came out in 1999 called Blast from The Past. The movie begins in the early 1960s at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis. An eccentric man and his pregnant wife have built an elaborate fallout shelter underground in their backyard. It is no ordinary bomb shelter, but a large, well-stocked one that has many amenities, including the ability to grow food and raise fish.

When a plane crashes nearby, they think that the country is under attack and that an atomic bomb has hit. They run into the shelter and lock it behind them, setting the automatic locks not to open for 35 years when the radiation will have dissipated.

During this time the wife gives birth to their son, Adam, whom they raise in the shelter. Adam receives the usual education one would expect for the time, with a strong emphasis on reading, writing, arithmetic, and history. He also obtains a liberal arts college education from his father, who had been a professor. This education included learning Latin, Greek, French, and German. Adam also learns the social skills of that time such as basic manners, the proper treatment of a lady, ballroom dancing, and the meaning of life. He is also raised to reverence God.

In a way the family was frozen in time and preserved the value of the early 1960s. The film does not present that era as being flawless: the mother has a bit of a drinking problem and the father is rather eccentric and xenophobic.

Suddenly it is 1997 and the locks open. The family makes its first excursion out into the world since the bomb (supposedly) went off. The father expects to find that those who survived will show the effects of radiation poisoning and that the world will manifest many signs of the destruction the bomb surely wrought. So they go forth from the shelter cautiously.

Now, you and I know that no atomic bomb did go off. Or did it?

As they emerge from the bomb shelter, they see that their once quaint neighborhood has become a red-light district. They see shocking things: not only prostitutes and adult book stores, but also drug addicts, trash-filled streets, and signs of grave disorder. People are coarse in their behavior. The family runs back into the shelter, concluding that things are even worse than they had expected. They send their son Adam out to get provisions and possibly find a wife (if he can locate a woman who has been less affected by the “radiation”). Then they will once again throw the locks on the shelter and wait for things to improve on the outside before venturing out again, lest they be poisoned by it all. In the following scene, Adam emerges from the shelter and encounters a drug addict who thinks Adam is God. Adam proceeds farther and sees things and people outside for the first time.

As Adam goes forth, he discovers that beyond the red-light district there are other less-devastated areas, but he still struggles with what he experiences. Families seem to be in disarray; people are coarse, cynical, and use God’s name in vain. The technology amazes him, but so do simple things like rain, the open sky, and the ocean. In this scene he is troubled by some modern cultural trends, but then is overwhelmed with awe upon seeing the ocean for the first time:

As the movie progresses, it becomes quite clear that much has been lost. Adam is head and shoulders above the modern people who surround him. He is kind, respectful, polite, and innocent in his interpretation of the world. He is much better educated than those around him as well, having amassed quite an encyclopedic knowledge in comparison. In the following scene, two things are illustrated: Adam’s superior education and his coming to grips with modern technology. How can a computer (a giant thing in his world) be inside a house?

And Adam can dance, really dance! It’s not the gyrating that is common on modern dance floors but 1940s swing, flawlessly executed, which is natural to him due to the daily training he received from his parents. Here is a dance scene showing that although dancing was a little risqué even back then, it still required training and talent. Pardon some of the language in this clip, but remember that the coarsening of culture is what is on display here.

Adam is befriended by a young lady named Eve and her brother. At first they think Adam to be strange and naive but come to discover that he has much to teach them. In this scene, they ponder something he has taught them about graciousness, kindness, and the blessing of strong family ties.

This movie is well worth seeing. Unlike me, it is not “preachy.” It gently suggests to us that we have lost some important things in the past 50 years or so: things like kindness, optimism, the value of traditional education, and the importance of parents teaching and raising their children. In many ways the movie intimates that we have become coarse and cynical—even vulgar. Family ties have often been severed and our culture has melted down to a more base level. Education is less thorough and broad. Simple things like learning to dance have been lost.

As I have already said, the early 1960s was not a perfect time. Many troublesome cultural trends were already well underway. These do not go unreported in the movie. But still the point remains: some things of great value have been lost. The family entered the shelter at the end of an era; when they emerge they step out of the past and are bewildered by what they find. Technology is impressive, but people seem lost and cynical. The world is hostile and disordered. Adam brings with him out of the shelter some healing balm, some of the best virtues of the past to remind us all that we have lost some important things along the way.

A bomb did go off—not an atomic bomb, but an even more devastating, cultural one. Rebuilding will take time.

Posted on

While Earth Rolls Onward into Light – A Beautiful Meditation on Time from an Old Hymn

ClocksMy blog is usually posted in the evening at about 21:00 (9:00 PM) U.S. Eastern Time. But in Sydney, Australia, it is 1:00 in the afternoon of the following day. As I prepare for bed, they are eating lunch on a day that has not even begun for me. And proceeding farther west from there, in the Philippines and Japan the afternoon is winding down and the workday is coming to an end!

Time. What could be simpler than for me to look at the clock and say that it is 9:00 PM on Wednesday, February 17th? But on the other hand, what could be more mysterious? Time is a human reckoning of a mysterious passage.

And yet the mystery is also beautiful. At any given time, some people are asleep in the night, while others are at midday. There is a wonderful verse in an old English hymn that says,

The sun that bids us rest is waking
Our brethren ‘neath the western sky,
And hour by hour fresh lips are making
Thy wondrous doings heard on high.

Here are two other beautiful verses from the same hymn:

We thank Thee that thy Church unsleeping,
While earth rolls onward into light,
Through all the world her watch is keeping,
And rests not now by day or night.

As o’er each continent and island,
The dawn leads on another day,
The voice of prayer is never silent,
nor dies the strain of praise away.

Magnificent lines! The hymn contains a beautiful and poetic description of the Church: always praising, always sighing, always at worship. Although some are asleep, the praises continue. One of the Psalms says, Let the name of the Lord be praised, both now and forevermore. From the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, the name of the Lord is to be praised. The Lord is exalted over all the nations (Psalm 113:2-4). The praises never end, for the sun is always rising somewhere even as it is setting somewhere else.

Malachi, prophesying the glory of the Mass celebrated worldwide says, My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations,” says the LORD Almighty (Mal 1:11). At any given time, Mass is surely being offered somewhere on this earth. The Liturgy of the Hours, too, always uttering forth from the lips of the faithful somewhere. Yes, in the mystery of time, this planet of ours is a place of perpetual praise. And our praises join the perpetual praises of Heaven, for as the Liturgy proclaims (in the words of the new translation), And so, Angels and Archangels, with Thrones and Dominions, and with all the host and Powers of heaven, as we sing the hymn of your glory, without end we acclaim: Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts …

Yes, the mystery of time and our praises caught up in the ever moving sweep of time. What St. Paul says to us as individuals is fulfilled by the worldwide Church. His advice is so simple and yet so profound. St. Paul says, Pray always (1 Thess 5:17).

Here is a rendition of the entirety of the hymn (The Day Thou Gavest, Lord, is Ended) that was quoted above. The complete lyrics are available here: The Day Thou Gavest.

 

Posted on

It’s Friday, but Sunday Is Coming! As Seen in Life and in a Powerful Video

2.4.16blogSome years ago in a previous parish assignment (St. Thomas More, in Washington D.C.) I was accustomed to taking a Friday afternoon walk in order to focus on my Sunday homily. At the beginning of the walk I’d often stop by the house of an elderly parishioner, Ms. Lillian, and give her Communion. Her mind was beginning to fail and it was difficult for her to get to Church.

In mild weather she would often be out on the front porch in her wheelchair. As approached she’d say, “Oh Father, it must be Sunday!” “No, Lillian,” I’d usually reply, “It’s actually Friday.” And then she’d usually respond, “Oh, I’m sorry to hear that.”

When I answered her I was thinking of the calendar, but she was long past worrying about what day the world said it was. And so, Friday after Friday, she’d keep asking me if it was Sunday. It was Friday, but she kept looking for Sunday. “Is it Sunday, Father?” “No, Ms. Lillian, today is Friday.”

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

When Ms. Lillian saw her priest she thought of Sunday; she thought of Jesus and Holy Communion. So, in a way, for her it was Sunday, if only for a moment. To be sure, Lillian was in the “Friday” of her life. She suffered from many of the crippling effects of old age: dementia, arthritis, weakness, poor hearing, and eyesight problems. “I’s gotten so ooooold, Father,” she’d say. Yes, Friday had surely come for Lillian.

At her funeral I could think of no better way to begin the Homily than by saying, “It’s Sunday Ms. Lillian; it’s Sunday.” And the congregation nodded. Some just hummed, while 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 through which the Lord wipes away the tears of all who have died (cf Rev 21:4) and 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, it’s Sunday, glorious Sunday, for all those who trust in the Lord. The Fridays of life will come, but if we trust in Him, Sunday will surely follow.

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

I thought of Ms. Lillian when I watched this video. I hope you’ll enjoy a little wisdom from the “Black Church.” Good preaching, good reminders, powerful video.

Posted on

From My Hidden Faults Acquit Me, O Lord! As Seen in a Commercial

blog.adw.org1.29The video below humorously illustrates a biblical principle of our hidden faults. We all have sins and behaviors that are apparent to others but of which we are unaware. And there are even deeper faults of which no one is aware except God Himself, who sees our innermost heart. Consider some of the following quotes:

By [your ordinances] your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward. But who can discern his errors? From my hidden faults acquit me, O Lord. Keep your servant also from willful sins; may they not rule over me (Psalm 19:11-13).

You have set our iniquities before you, our secret sins in the light of your presence (Psalm 90:8).

For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil (Eccl 12:14).

Mind you, I have nothing on my conscience, but I do not stand thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me (1 Cor 4:4).

The sins of some men are conspicuous, going before them to judgment, but the sins of others appear only later (1 Tim 5:24).

Call no man happy before he dies, for by how he ends, a man is known (Sirach 11:28).

Yes, some of our sins are obvious to us and we rightly work on them. But lest we sin through pride, we should always recall that we have sins and faults that are hidden from us. Others may see them, or perhaps only God.

At the end of the day, we’re all going to need a lot of grace and mercy!

Enjoy the commercial below that illustrates this fact well. And I hope you appreciate this little bit of humor; it’s been a tough week on the blog!

Posted on

Why Holy Days and the Sanctoral Cycle Are Important

Astronomical clock in Czech capital PragueIn last Sunday’s Mass we read from the eighth chapter of the Book of Nehemiah. I posted a lengthy commentary on it last week (On the Wonder of the Word of God). In today’s post I would like to ponder a rather surprising emphasis of that text. Let’s start with a little background.

In a stunning reversal for the Jewish people, the Babylonians invaded Jerusalem and destroyed not only the city, but the Temple as well! Prophet after prophet had warned the people of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and Judah that if they did not repent, God would permit punishments to come upon them in the form of destruction and exile. Those warnings were not heeded. The Northern Kingdom was destroyed in 721 B.C. and the end came for the Southern Kingdom of Judah in 587 B.C. The Temple of God lay in ruins and the survivors of the war were led captive into exile in Babylon. As they went they sang this song:

By the waters of Babylon,
there we sat down and wept,
when we remembered Zion.
On the willows there
we hung up our lyres.
For there our captors
required of us songs,
and our tormentors, mirth, saying,
“Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”

How shall we sing the Lord’s song
in a foreign land?
If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
let my right hand wither!
Let my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth,
if I do not remember you,
if I do not set Jerusalem
above my highest joy! (Psalm 137:1-6)

After 80 years the Lord lifted this exile by permitting Cyrus and the Persians to defeat the Babylonians. Not only did Cyrus allow the Jews to return to their land, he even offered monetary aid for the rebuilding of the city wall and the Temple.

Nehemiah chapter 8, from which we read last Sunday, describes a gathering of the refugees who had returned at which there was a reading from Scripture that convicted them of their sin, explained the exile, and set forth blessings. The passage that seems to have been read was from the Book of Deuteronomy. Apparently this book had been neglected by the Jews in the decades prior to exile. Their forgetfulness of it proved fateful, for in it was described the blessings of keeping the law and the terrible curses that would befall those rejecting it. Among the consequences of rejecting the law were destruction and exile.

Standing there that bright morning at the water gate listening to the book being read to them, the people began to weep uncontrollably (Neh 8:9). They realized that they and their fathers could have avoided all the ensuing death and pain had they but heeded God’s Word.

But then comes the surprising focus of the second half of the chapter. Surely there were many infractions of the Law that they and their forbearers had committed: false worship, idolatry, sins against the truth, sexual sins, injustice to the poor, theft, greed, and murder. But none of these many was the focus of the summons to repentance that follows in Nehemiah 8:13ff. Rather, the focus was on a certain feast day that they had failed to celebrate.

Not celebrating a feast day? Really? Of all the sins to focus on; failing to celebrate a feast day? Yes.

The feast that they had been neglecting was the Feast of Booths (or the Feast of Tabernacles). It was a feast that commemorated their time in the desert and the giving of the Law by Moses.

Certainly it was an important feast; in a way it symbolized the whole Law. To our modern minds, though, the neglect of a feast hardly seems worth mentioning when compared to some of the other sins listed above that we human beings routinely commit.

So what’s going on here? Why are feast days important? 

Most of us moderns do not pay much attention to sanctoral cycle that makes up the Church’s calendar. On this calendar are the feasts of saints as well as feasts that commemorate God’s saving acts: Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, Corpus Christi, the Annunciation, and so forth. To us these seem to be mere commemorations of events in the distant past; we do not use them to mark the passage of time. But the feasts of the Lord and His saints have value in our lives.

Prior to modern chronographic devices, people measured time by what God set forth: the sun, the moon, and the stars in their courses. But the feasts of the Lord that were also integral to their sense of time. Passover was an important feast, but so were many others: Pentecost, Tabernacles, the Day of Atonement, Rosh Hashanah, and especially the weekly Sabbath. God was the clock of the ancients.

This pattern continued into Christendom, when Sundays were cherished and feast days framed the year: Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Lent, Easter, Pentecost, and the great feasts of the saints: Peter and Paul, John the Baptist, Joseph, Mother Mary, and many local saints. Indeed many words have come into our vocabulary that describe the Catholic Calendar: “Christmas” comes from Christ + mass. “Carnival” comes from the Latin carnis (meat) + vale (farewell) and signifies the great feast at which the last of the meat and fat were used up before Lent; Mardi Gras (Fat Tuesday) has a similar origin. “Holiday” comes from Holy Day.

With secularization these feasts have vanished into the background altogether. Holy Days were replaced by the secular mispronunciation “holidays” and became largely secular in focus. Today, Labor Day and Memorial Day mark the bookends of people’s summer more so than do the Feasts of the Sacred Heart (first Friday in June) and the Assumption (August 15). Christmas and Easter are still there, but they feature candy canes and Santa Claus, eggs and a bunny—not Jesus.

What does celebrating feast and Holy Days say? What it says is this:

God, you are central in our lives. We tell time by what you have done. Every week begins on Sunday in your house. In all the feasts we remember your saving works of the past and permit those acts to be present to us. We give you thanks for what you have done; we remember and we praise you. We celebrate your place in our life and we frame our lives around what you have done in our time and in our history. We love you, Lord, and not only do we celebrate what you have done, we celebrate you; we gather to praise you in your holy house and give you glory every Sunday and feast day. You are part of our lives, you are integral to them. We make room for you at our tables and on our calendar. You are ever before us. We also praise you for what you have done in the lives of the saints and we celebrate their lives, too. Our lives intersect with your salvation history. We tell time by you and what you have done.

So feasts are important. And while restoring a lost feast day might not occur to us as the first thing to do based on the call to repentance in Nehemiah 8, perhaps now its symbolic meaning can shine more brightly.

What about us? It surely didn’t help that the bishops removed most of the feast days as days of obligation. But frankly, most Catholics had lost any sense that they were feasts at all, referring to them merely as “holy days of obligation.” Instead of being feasts that framed our lives and interpreted them, they became things that interfered with our lives. Instead of looking forward to Church feasts as days to celebrate, many found them more to be cursed for the obligation they imposed. We have become very busy—too busy for God. We are all in a big hurry; there’s not even any time to celebrate. God has been shoved to the margins in our culture. We tell time by artificial devices. Gone are the feasts. Gone from our hearts is the God to whom the feasts referred. Even the sun, moon, and stars are largely absent from our lives as we stare into our little devices.

In response to this forgetfulness of God, to this moving of Him to the margins, God sends this instruction through Nehemiah:

“This day is holy to the Lord your God; do not mourn or weep”—for all the people wept as they heard the words of the Law. Then he said to them, “Go your way. Eat the fat and drink sweet wine and send portions to anyone who has nothing ready, for this day is holy to our Lord. And do not be grieved, for the joy of the Lord is your strength” (Neh 8:9-10).

The text goes on to explain the reason for this instruction: it was the restoration of a lost feast.

[For] they found it written in the Law that the Lord had commanded by Moses that the people of Israel should dwell in booths during the feast of the seventh month … for from the days of Jeshua the son of Nun to that day the people of Israel had not done so. “Go out to the hills and bring branches of olive, wild olive, myrtle, palm, and other leafy trees to make booths, as it is written.” So the people went out and brought them and made booths for themselves, each on his roof, and in their courts … And all the assembly of those who had returned from the captivity made booths and lived in the booths … And there was very great rejoicing. … They kept the feast seven days, and on the eighth day there was a solemn assembly, according to the rule (Neh 8:14-19).

What feasts have we forgotten? What does that forgetfulness symbolize? Are we really so happy to be freed of the “burden” of keeping festival with the Lord? The people of the ancient world worked hard, probably a lot harder than we do. But they knew how to stop, rest, and enjoy the festivals of the Lord.

Our faith used to frame our lives, our culture, our calendar, and our whole sense of time.

Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine,
There’s always laughter and good red wine.
At least I’ve always found it so.
Benedicamus Domino!
-Hilaire Belloc

What good is life without feasts? We have lost our way in the bland, secular calendar of Monday holidays and having relegated God to the periphery. What joys and hopeful reminders we have lost!

To every Christian and to the Church seeking rebuild a darkened culture comes this instruction, this admonition from Nehemiah 8 to remember the feasts of the Lord:

This day is holy to the Lord your God … do not be grieved, for the joy of the Lord must be your strength! … And there was very great rejoicing.

Posted on

Late Have I Loved You – On the Delay of Marriage in Our Culture and the Flawed Notions That Underlie It

In football, if the offense takes more than thirty seconds between plays, they are penalized for “delay of game.” The result is lost yardage; they are now farther away from the goal line. The delay thus brings loss; progress toward the goal is hindered; victory becomes less likely, not more. I’m sure the offense would always like a little more time in the huddle in order to ensure that everyone knows exactly what to do. But there comes a moment when they must break out of the huddle and execute the play even if more time would have been ideal.

This also happens in “real life.” Deliberations have their place, but delay can be costly and can actually set us back from our goals. Life keeps moving forward even when we don’t feel prepared or completely certain of the outcome.

Related to this is an old saying, “If something is worth doing well, it’s worth doing poorly.” The point is not that we should plan to do something poorly, but rather that if it’s worth doing it’s worth doing, even if we wish we could have more time to plan/control better. One might have envisioned a nice cookout with steaks on the grill, but due to time constraints and limited funds it ends up being hot dogs and hamburgers. But it was still worth doing, and a nice time was had by all.

With this in mind, I’d like to discuss an increasingly large problem in our culture: the delay of marriage by young people. Many today are in their thirties by the time they marry. There are many reasons for this that are beyond the young adults themselves, but the bottom line is that delayed marriage is not indicative of a healthy culture. Marriage and family are the foundation of a healthy culture, and the lack of this anchor causes many to drift into unhealthy and counterproductive attitudes and behaviors. This “delay of game” brings penalties, both personal and societal, that cause us to “lose yardage” and make victory less likely.

Marrying and raising children within a family is demonstrably better for men and women than remaining single. Those in traditional marriages are on average healthier, happier, more affluent, and mature more quickly. It is also better for the culture when young people get married. Getting married and having children help men and women to become more responsible, more mature, and to make better decisions that are less wasteful and selfish. It helps them to think of others, and to learn to settle down into more stable, frugal, generous lives. All of this is good for culture and society.

A recent article by Dennis Prager in National Review speaks to the flawed thinking that has given rise to the delay of marriage. He does not deny, nor do I, that young adults today face many personal and cultural obstacles. But he also thinks that the obstacles are often overstated, and that it is time for all of us to work more at facilitating earlier marriages by encouraging young adults to be more intent on this goal.

I have presented Prager’s remarks in bold, black italics; my remarks are in plain, red text.

The statement “I’m not ready to get married” … said by more and more Americans between the ages of 21 and 40 (and some who are older than that) … usually qualifies as both meaningless and untrue. … So, here’s a truth that young Americans need to hear: Most people become “ready to get married” when they get married. Throughout history most people got married at a much younger age than people today. They were hardly “ready.” They got married because society and/or their religion expected them to. And then, once married, they tended to rise to the occasion.

Here is the opening salvo: it is always be possible to be more ready to do something. But the trap is that when you can always be more ready, you’re never quite ready enough.

For me, there is nothing like a deadline to help me accomplish a task. But the expectation in our culture today that young people should marry is so weak that few sense any urgency or “deadline” until they are well into their thirties. And it’s usually more the women than the men feel it. The biological starts to loom large for a woman when she hits her mid-thirties, but for a man it doesn’t. Thus there is little to no expectation that binds men and women equally to set about the task of looking for a spouse and getting married.

At one time we thought it was the most natural thing in the world for men and women to want to marry each other; apparently that is no longer the case.

A promiscuous culture has taken away one very central lure of marriage: approved access to sexual intimacy. Further, there is the notion that a marriage is supposed to be a perfect union and that the ideal mate must be found. Add to this the ordinary fear that getting married has always provoked.

I remember as a boy being up on the high diving board at the local pool. Standing up there on my own looking down at the water so far below caused me to freeze up. A few things “unfroze” me: someone coming up the ladder behind me, my friends down below encouraging me, and everyone else expecting me to go ahead and make the dive and chiding me for my delay. I felt unprepared, but off the board I went. I “got ready” by just doing it.

… at least two bad things happen the longer you wait to get “ready” to be married. One is that, if you are a woman, the number of quality single men declines. … as Susan Patton, a Princeton graduate, wrote … “Find a husband on campus before you graduate … You will never again be surrounded by this concentration of men who are worthy of you.”

In a big pool there are lots of fish; in a smaller pool, fewer fish.

The other bad thing that happens when people wait until they are “ready” to get married is that they often end up waiting longer and longer. After a certain point, being single becomes the norm and the thought of marrying becomes less, not more, appealing. So over time you can actually become less “ready” to get married.

Yes, we are very invested in the familiar, even if it has hardships. Further, it gets harder to change as we age. Those who are older are less willing and able to adjust to the changes that marriage brings.

And one more thing: If you’re 25 and not ready … [saying] “I’m not ready to get married” means “I’m not ready to stop being preoccupied with myself,” or, to put it as directly as possible, “I’m not ready to grow up.”

You may think Prager unkind here. And perhaps he generalizes a bit too much. But let’s admit that we live in a narcissistic culture, one in which most people take a long time to grow up and some never do.

I would argue that our whole culture is fixated on teenage issues. We are titillated by and immature about sex; we demand rights but refuse responsibility; we rebel against authority; we act like “know-it-alls”; we are forever crying about how unfair things are and how mean some people can be. This is teenage stuff, but our culture seems stuck in this mode.

Having been brought up on a steady diet of this sort, young adults (understandably) are going to have a harder time breaking free of narcissism and immaturity. But recognizing the problems is a first step toward getting better and getting ready.

People didn’t marry in the past only because they fell in love. And people can fall in love and don’t marry—as happens frequently today. People married because it was a primary societal value. People understood that it was better for society and for the vast majority of its members that as many individuals as possible commit to someone and take care of that person.

I would only add here that in the past people married in order to survive. They had children to survive. There was no Social Security and no retirement plans. Your children were your Social Security.

I do not argue for a dismantling of the whole Social Security system or of retirement plans, but I do argue that they have had unintended effects: the government has increasingly taken on a role that families once filled. People used to take care of those in their family, and this respected the principle of subsidiarity. Today, this has responsibility has been shifted to an impersonal government body. The “welfare system” (personal and corporate) has created an unhealthy dependence on government. This has the dual effect of reducing the perceived need for family ties and interfering with them when they do exist.

The argument [is invalid] that the older people are when they marry, the less likely they are to divorce. … The latest data are that those who marry in their early thirties are more likely to divorce than those who marry in their late twenties.

People may be more mature in their thirties but they are also more settled in their ways and more accustomed to the single life.

And then there is the economic argument. Many single men, for example, say they are not ready to get married because they don’t have the income … In fact, marriage may be the best way to increase one’s income. Men’s income rises after marriage. They have less time to waste, and someone to help support—two spurs to hard work and ambition, not to mention that most employers prefer men who are married. And can’t two people live on less money than they would need if they lived each on his or her own, paying for two apartments?

Frankly there is just more to work for when one is married. And combined resources, financial and otherwise, lead to a more “diversified portfolio.”

In addition to economic benefits, the vast majority of human beings do better when they have someone to come home to, someone to care for, and someone to care for them. And, no matter how much feminists and other progressives deny it, children do best when raised by a married couple.

This is just plain common sense.

Throughout history, and in every society, people married not when they were “ready” to marry but when they reached marriageable age and were expected to assume adult responsibilities.

Yep! And we err by not insisting on these things. People at every stage of life need a little pressure to encourage them to make beneficial moves.

The “greatest generation,” which lived through the depression and fought in WWII, did indeed make enormous sacrifices. But it would seem that they failed to pass on to their children the notion of duty and sacrifice. The baby boom generation thus ended up self-absorbed and under-disciplined. They threw a miserable revolution in the late 1960s. The tsunami-like devastation wrought by this revolution afflicts us to this day and has a lot to do with the demise of marriage, family, and (healthy) disciplined sexuality in the culture.

Finally, this [situation] reflects another negative trend in society—that of people being guided by feelings rather than by standards or obligations. In life, behavior shapes feelings. Act happy, you’ll become happy. Act like you’re single, you’ll remain single. Act like you’re ready for marriage, you’ll become ready for marriage. Do it, in other words. Then you’ll be “ready.”

Yes, other things being equal, this is true. Now please, don’t treat this as an absolute and consequently reject it. Understand that it is a general principle. There are times when other factors are involved; the correlation is not 100%. But I know (as I think you do) that when I do right and I do good, I “feel” better.

Finally, a disclaimer: I have written a lot on this blog about issues related to the delay of marriage, to the vocation, and so forth. And whenever I do, I find that some readers take articles like this one very personally and get offended. This piece is a commentary on cultural trends, not on your personal life. There are always going to be specific, individual factors that affect the outcome in a particular situation; those cannot reasonably be included in wide-ranging column addressed to thousands. If you are in your thirties and unmarried, there may be good reason for that. But this article is not about you; it is about an overall trend that is not healthy for a culture. Young adults today are not wholly to blame for marrying later in life. The adults in their lives, and institutions like schools and the Church, also bear some responsibility. These negative effects flowed from what we have done and what we have failed to do, individually and collectively. This is about all of us. I pray that this disclaimer will avoid the posting of angry and bitter responses in the comments section that bespeak readers who take personally what is not meant personally.