Category: Uncategorized

At daily Mass, we are reading the story of St. Paul’s arrest, beating, and imprisonment at Philippi. It serves as a kind of metaphor for the radical nature of true Christianity and why it so perturbs many in this world. The Christian faith, its message, and the transformation it can effect can be very unsettling to a world that literally and figuratively “banks on” sin. Let’s consider this lesser- known story and see what it ought to mean for us if we take our Christian faith seriously and do not try to “tame” it.

Philippi was the first “European” city that Paul evangelized when he came across from Asia Minor. Arriving at the port of Philippi in Macedonia, Paul and Silas went right to work evangelizing. One of their first converts was Lydia, a wealthy woman from Thyatira who was a dealer in purple cloth; other converts followed.

Once when we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit by which she predicted the future. She earned a great deal of money for her owners by fortune-telling. This girl followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved.” She kept this up for many days. Finally, Paul became so troubled that he turned around and said to the spirit, “In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!” At that moment the spirit left her.

When the owners of the slave girl realized that their hope of making money was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to face the authorities. They brought them before the magistrates and said, “These men are Jews, and are throwing our city into an uproar by advocating customs unlawful for us Romans to accept or practice.”

The crowd joined in the attack against Paul and Silas, and the magistrates ordered them to be stripped and beaten. After they had been severely flogged, they were thrown into prison, and the jailer was commanded to guard them carefully. Upon receiving such orders, he put them in the inner cell and fastened their feet in the stocks (Acts 16:16-24).

Note the heart of the problem: St. Paul, in setting the slave girl free of her demon has deprived her “owners” of the income they derived from her sad state. They were banking on her bad condition and profiting from her trouble. In the name and power of Jesus Christ, St. Paul sets her free. His action draws deep anger from the “owners.” He has rocked their world; he has touched their pocketbooks. They find the Christian message, for it is revolutionary, to be disconcerting, threatening, and deeply unsettling.

It is a threat not only to profit but to power. In having Paul and Silas arrested, they stir up the hatred and fear of others as well, accusing them not only of preaching some strange new religion but of advocating customs forbidden to Romans. The word translated here as “customs” is ἐθη (ethe) in Greek, and refers to “religious rites or forms of worship.” In De Legibus, ii. 8, Cicero wrote, “No person shall have any separate gods, or new ones; nor shall he privately worship any strange gods, unless they be publicly allowed.” While the Romans often overlooked the private worship of unapproved gods, publicly proclaiming new and unapproved deities was an occasion for dissension and controversy and was strictly forbidden.

Frankly, the charges against Paul and Silas are true enough. In the healing they brought about, they have hindered profit. Further, they were openly proclaiming that Jesus was Lord. To our ears that is a religious proclamation, but to Roman ears it was a provocative and revolutionary statement. It was directly contrary to their proclamation that Caesar was Lord. Yes, Paul, Silas, Luke, and the others were shaking the ground in Philippi! While they were not advocating the overthrow of any government, they were announcing a power greater than Caesar, a higher King who demanded our first loyalty.

This is not the “tame” proclamation of the faith so common today. This is not a faith that is adjusted to fit into worldly categories. This is not a faith tucked in after political, philosophical, and moral preferences. This is a faith that shakes the world and brings a revolutionary challenge to its priorities. Yes, Paul and Silas pose a serious threat.

What of us today? We have gone through a long period during which we have lived the faith quietly; it generally fit quite well into the world in which we lived. Harmony and “getting along” were highly prized. Particularly here in America, Catholics wanted to reassure the general populace that our faith in no way hindered us from being full participants in the American scene and that we could fit right in and be just like everyone else. With the election of the first Catholic president back in 1960, we could say that we had made it and had been fully accepted. Finally, we fit in.

Of course the culture was not in such disrepair in those days. There was still a fairly wide moral consensus rooted in the Judeo-Christian vision. Having finally “made it,” though, we have assumed room temperature; the fire of our distinctively Catholic culture seems to have faded away. At the same time, Western culture has also largely died. (Is that really a coincidence?)

In recent years, so-called Catholic universities and other Catholic institutions have begun caving in: giving marriage benefits to same-sex bedfellows and succumbing to the HHS mandates to provide contraceptives and abortifacients. It is sad, pathetic, wrong, and cowardly—hardly the revolutionary faith that got Paul arrested.

Now we are coming full circle. We must rediscover how revolutionary our Catholic faith truly is to this world gone mad. As we proclaim healing and an allegiance to something other than this world, however, we will become increasingly obnoxious to the world around us.

Let’s consider more thoroughly the two offenses for which Paul and Silas were beaten and imprisoned:

1. They ate away at profit – Paul drove a terrible demon out of a slave girl, a demon that afflicted her but profited her “owners.” There is a great deal of trafficking in sin and addiction today. Terrible demons afflict many people in the areas of sexuality, drugs, and alcohol. There’s a lot of money to be made peddling pornography; sex sells. Hollywood movie producers, purveyors of contraceptives, pimps, escort services, abortionists, and even traffickers in the sex slave industry also feed at the trough. Drugs and alcohol are big money makers as well. Huge numbers of products are sold using the demon of fear that says, “You’re not pretty enough,” “You’re not healthy enough,” “You’re getting old,” “You don’t drive the right car,” “You don’t wear the right clothes.” The demons of fear, low self-esteem, and greed all work together.

What would happen if the Church were to start effectively preaching unabridged Christianity? What if we started saying, “You don’t need to be afraid of your health, your age, or what people think of you. You can find serenity in Christ so that you won’t feel you need for those drugs. You can be set free from your enslavement to sex, take authority over your passions, and discover the beauty of traditional marriage.” What if we got back in the business of driving out demons?

Well, of course the answer is that we, like Paul, would be under attack. In fact, we are under attack. We are especially hated by the sex industry and the abortionists because that that issue has so much focus these days. To them we are public enemy number one. We threaten the vision, the addiction, and the despair that fills their coffers. If we are too successful (and for now our successes are meager) their profits might dry up. Yes, we must be dealt with.

We will only be effective if we preach the unabridged faith, not a faith that is adjusted, not a faith that is subordinated to worldly priorities, not a faith that insists on being “realistic,” not a faith that apologizes to the world no matter how much we water things down. The true faith is revolutionary in the freedom it offers from sin and demons.

Paul and Silas didn’t wind up in prison by preaching a watered-down, domesticated moral vision. They unabashedly drove out a demon that was afflicting a girl; in so doing they engaged in a revolutionary threat to a world that profits handsomely from sin.

2. They threatened power – Calling Jesus “Lord” was a revolutionary threat to the incumbent power that demanded first and full loyalty. Today, many try to make Catholics fit into tidy political categories. Both Republicans and Democrats want the Church to march in lockstep with their party platform. Even many Catholics in those parties want the Church to conform. Many Catholics in fact are more loyal to their party than to the Church; they are more passionate about their political views than their faith. If there is a conflict between Church teaching and the party line, guess which one usually gives way!

In the end, the Church will not just fit into some neat political category. The true faith is too revolutionary to fit into some worldly box.

Thus there is a lot of hatred and anger directed at the Church. Republicans say we’re too liberal; Democrats say we’re too conservative. More and more we are being shown the door, kicked to the curb; our very right to religious liberty is being threatened. Religious exemptions to increasingly pernicious laws are slowly being removed and lawsuits against Catholic institutions are increasing. It will surely get worse as secular systems demand increasing loyalty. The Church must refuse to give that loyalty.

Jesus (not the federal, state or local government) is Lord. Jesus is not Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. He is God, and the faith He announces cannot be watered down or compromised to fit into a friendship with the world.

No domesticated Christianity will change the world. When Paul preached, the people rioted. Modern preaching too often incites only yawns and indifference.

What should we learn from St. Paul’s arrest at Philippi? That the true faith is revolutionary and threatens the world right where it hurts: in the profit and power centers. As the world becomes increasingly secular, the revolutionary aspect of the faith will become more evident.

Are you ready?

One of the parts of the Ordinary Form of the Mass that was “restored” from antiquity is the Prayer of the Faithful. In my mind, however, there is a certain disappointing quality to the intentions as they are used today. They are either overly particular and ideological or, at the other end of the spectrum, perfunctory and flat. Peter Kwasniewski, in an article at New Liturgical Movement.org (here), summarizes the problem very well.

It is surely no exaggeration to say that throughout the world the quality of these intercessions has tended to be deplorable, ranging from trite and saccharine sentiments to political propaganda, from progressivist daydreams to downright heretical propositions to which no one could assent without offending God. Even when the content is doctrinally unobjectionable, all too often the literary style is dull, flaccid, rambling, or vague. … [There is] problematic content, poor writing, and [a] monotonous manner of delivery.

Additional problems occur when there are people of many different nationalities present and it is felt necessary to have the petitions read in multiple languages. The impression is given that the intentions are directed more to the congregation than to God, who knows all languages and thoughts. I have been at Mass in the Basilica here in Washington, D.C. when as many as nine different languages were used in the Prayer of the Faithful, despite the fact that the vast majority of those present spoke English and/or Spanish. I seriously doubt that there were more than five people in attendance who could speak only German, Mandarin, or one of the other languages used. It quickly gets very tedious as a line of people traipse back and forth to the microphone.

It is all so different in the Eastern Liturgies, in which the Great Litany is so artfully woven into the liturgical experience and beautifully sung as well. I have memorized the Great Litany from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (see video below).

In his article (here), Mr. Kwasniewski offers a variety of intercessions, and download links are provided. I have done so for my own use and you might wish to do the same.

I would also like to add that St. Peter Canisius composed intercessions for use in his time. Saints are certainly reputable sources of such things! Here is an article by Mark Woodruff (with a tip of the hat to Rev. James Bradley) that details those prayers.

The point is that much can be done to improve the quality of the Prayer of the Faithful, which has remained an amateur outing at best and an ideological hornet’s nest at worst.

Perhaps some benefit can be obtained from reviewing the norms and the history of this portion of the Mass.

The General Instruction in the Roman Missal (GIRM) has this to say about the Prayer of the Faithful:

In the Prayer of the Faithful, the people respond in a certain way to the word of God which they have welcomed in faith and, exercising the office of their baptismal priesthood, offer prayers to God for the salvation of all. It is fitting that such a prayer be included, as a rule, in Masses celebrated with a congregation, so that petitions will be offered for the holy Church, for civil authorities, for those weighed down by various needs, for all men and women, and for the salvation of the whole world. As a rule, the series of intentions is to be

1. For the needs of the Church;
   2. For public authorities and the salvation of the whole world;
   3. For those burdened by any kind of difficulty;
   4. For the local community.

Nevertheless, in a particular celebration, such as Confirmation, Marriage, or a Funeral, the series of intentions may reflect more closely the particular occasion.

It is for the priest celebrant to direct this prayer from the chair. He himself begins it with a brief introduction, by which he invites the faithful to pray, and likewise he concludes it with a prayer. The intentions announced should be sober, be composed freely but prudently, and be succinct, and they should express the prayer of the entire community (GIRM 69-71).

History – These intentions were very common in the early Church, occurring at about the same point in the Mass as today. They followed the Homily (note that in earlier days the Creed was typically not said). All of the Fathers of the Church make mention of them. In the beginning, this prayer was recited antiphonally by the priest and the assembly. Over time, the deacon assumed a more prominent role; he announced all the intentions and then the faithful responded with Kyrie eleison or some other acclamation. You can read the Kyrie Litany of Pope Gelasius here.

These intercessions endured until about the 9^th century, well past the close of the patristic period. Their disappearance seems to coincide with their evolution into a Kyrie litany and their transfer to the beginning of the Mass. They eventually came to be regarded as an unnecessary appendage and were phased out. In the West they were used only on Good Friday, though they endured for longer in certain particular areas. In the East they were never dropped. Today they have been restored to their original place in the Mass.

Further pastoral reflections – One reason that they are called “general intercessions” is that they extend beyond the needs and concerns of the local assembly. Please note that they are not called the particular intercessions. What sometimes happens in more extemporaneous settings is that certain very specific needs are expressed; the list can become quite long. It is not appropriate here to pray, “for my Aunt Sue’s friend, who is recovering from hip surgery and having a hard time due to her diabetes.” It is more appropriate to pray, “for all who are sick or struggling in at this time.” The point is to keep it general; this is not the time for a full medical update on everyone’s relatives or friends.

Calling it the “Prayer of the Faithful” has some historical merit because catechumens and others were dismissed before the proclaiming of the intentions. Another reason it is also common to call them “general intercessions” is that the whole Mass is really the prayer of the faithful. Through his opening prayer, the priest may link the intercessions to the reading, and through his closing prayer he may summarize them. This can help to place them in a clear context. Singing the intercessions is a beautiful option and is surely of ancient practice (cf Music in Catholic Worship # 74).

In the end, I think these intentions deserve better than we have given them. I realize that enthusiasts of the Traditional Latin Mass (of which I am one) may say, “Just get rid of them entirely,” but that is not realistic. They are here to stay, at least in our lifetime. Maybe we can try to do better by making use of multiple sources: ancient, Eastern, and modern yet elegant. I am interested in your thoughts and also any references to good additional sources.

The first readings at daily Mass this week recount the Council of Jerusalem, which scholars generally date to around 50 A.D. It was a pivotal moment in the history of the Church, because it would set forth an identity for Her that was independent of the culture of Judaism per se and would open wide the door of inculturation to the Gentiles. This surely had a significant effect on evangelization in the early Church.

Catholic ecclesiology is evident in this first council in that we have a very Catholic model of how a matter of significant pastoral practice and doctrine is properly dealt with. What we see here is the same model that the Catholic Church has continued to use right up to the present day. In this and all subsequent ecumenical councils, there is a gathering of the bishops, presided over by the Pope, that considers and may even debate a matter. In the event that consensus cannot be reached, the Pope resolves the debate. Once a decision is reached, it is considered binding and a letter is issued to the whole Church.

All of these elements are seen in this first council of the Church in Jerusalem, although in seminal form. Let’s consider this council, beginning with some background.

1. Bring in the Gentiles! Just prior to ascending, the Lord gave the Apostles the great commission: Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). The Gentiles were now to be summoned and included in the ranks of discipleship and of the Church.
2. The Church was mighty slow in beginning any outreach to the Gentiles. While it is true that on the day of Pentecost people from every nation heard Peter’s sermon, and more than 3000 converted, they were all Jews (Acts 2). In fact, there seems little evidence of the Church moving far from Jerusalem let alone to all the nations.
3. Perhaps as a swift kick in the pants, the Lord allowed a persecution to break out in Jerusalem after the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7). This caused the gospel to begin a northward trek, into Samaria at least. Samaritans, however, are not usually considered Gentiles, because they were a group that had intermarried with Jews in the 8th century B.C. There was also the baptism of an Ethiopian official, but he, too, was a Jew.
4. Fifteen Years? The timeline of Acts is a bit speculative. However, if we study it carefully and compare it to some of what Paul says (especially in Galatians), it would seem that it was between 12 and 15 years before the baptism of the first Gentile took place! If this is true, then another nudge or push from the Lord was surely needed. There was strong racial animosity between Jews and Gentiles, which may explain the slow response to Jesus’ commission. Although it may explain it, it does not excuse it. However, the Lord does not fail to guide His Church.
5. Time for another kick in the pants. This time the Lord goes to Peter, who was praying on a rooftop in Joppa, and by means of a vision teaches him that he should not call unclean what God calls clean. The Lord then sends to Peter an entourage from Cornelius, a high Roman military official seeking baptism. Cornelius, of course, is a Gentile. The entourage requests that Peter accompany them to meet Cornelius at Cesarea. At first, he is reluctant, but then recalling the vision (the kick in the pants) that God gave him, Peter decides to go. In Cesarea, he does something unthinkable: Peter, a Jew, enters the house of a Gentile. He has learned his lesson and as the first Pope has been guided by God to do what is right and just. After a conversation with Cornelius and the whole household as well as signs from the Holy Spirit, Peter baptizes them. Praise the Lord! It was about time. (All of this is detailed in Acts 10.)
6. Many are not happy with what Peter has done and they confront him about it. Peter explains his vision and also the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, insisting that this is how it is going to be. While it is true that these early Christians felt freer to question Peter than we would the Pope today, it is also a fact that what Peter has done is binding even if some of them don’t like it; what Peter has done will stand. Once Peter has answered them definitively, they reluctantly assent and declare somewhat cynically, “God has granted life giving repentance even to the Gentiles!” (Acts 11:18)
7. Trouble is brewing. The mission to the Gentiles is finally open, but that does not mean that the trouble is over. As Paul, Barnabas, and others begin to bring in large numbers of Gentile converts, some among the Jewish Christians begin to object that they are not like Jews and insist that the Gentiles must be circumcised and follow the whole of Jewish Law—not just the moral precepts but also the cultural norms, kosher diet, purification rites, etc. (That is where we picked up the story in yesterday’s Mass.)
8. The Council of Jerusalem – Luke, a master of understatement, says, “Because there arose no little dissension and debate …” (Acts 15:2) it was decided to ask the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem to gather and consider the matter. So the Apostles and some presbyters (priests) with them meet. Of course Peter is there as is James, who was especially prominent in Jerusalem among the Apostles and would later become bishop there. Once again, Luke rather humorously understates the matter by saying, “After much debate, Peter arose” (Acts 15:7).

Peter arises to settle the matter because, it would seem, the Apostles themselves were divided. Had not Peter received this charge from the Lord? The Lord had prophesied, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to sift you all like wheat but I have prayed for you Peter, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers (Luke 22:31-32). Peter now fulfills this text, as he will again in the future and as will every Pope after him. Peter clearly dismisses any notion that the Gentiles should be made to take up the whole burden of Jewish customs. Paul and Barnabas rise to support this. Then James (who it seems may have felt otherwise) rises to assent to the decision and asks that a letter be sent forth to all the Churches explaining the decision. He also asks for and obtains a few concessions.

So there it is, the first council of the Church. That council, like all the Church-wide councils that would follow, was a gathering of the bishops in the presence of Peter, who worked to unite them. At a council a decision is made and a decree binding on the whole Church is sent out—very Catholic, actually. We have kept this biblical model ever since that first council. Our Protestant brethren have departed from it because they have no pope to settle things when there is disagreement. They have split into tens of thousands of denominations and factions. When no one is pope, everyone is pope.

A final thought: Notice how the decree to the Churches is worded: It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us (Acts 15:28). In the end, we trust the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in matters of faith and morals. We trust that decrees and doctrines that issue forth from councils of the bishops with the Pope are inspired by and authored by the Holy Spirit Himself. There it is right in Scripture, the affirmation that when the Church speaks solemnly in this way, it is not just the bishops and the Pope speaking as men, it is the Holy Spirit speaking with them.

The Church—Catholic from the start!

The text from today’s Gospel (Wednesday of the Fifth Week of Easter) speaks of the need to remain in the Lord.

Remain in me, as I remain in you. Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing. Anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither.

In this short Gospel, the word “remain” occurs six times. Do you get the point? Remain! The Greek word μείνατε (meinate) is the plural imperative of the verb meno, meaning to abide. To abide means to remain habitually or to stay somewhere. It speaks of stability and persistence. I prefer “abide” as a translation because it suggests staying put. One can “remain” in a place for an hour and then leave, but abiding has a more ongoing sense.

It is clear that a branch must always stay attached to the vine or else it is doomed. Absolutely nothing is possible for a branch (except to wither and die) unless it is attached to the vine 24 x 7 x 365. It would appear that the analogy couldn’t be clearer.

And yet it seems very unclear to Jesus’ disciples, who walk away easily, finding abiding both tedious and difficult. And then we puzzle as to why our spiritual life is tepid and its fruits lackluster. We can’t have even a mediocre spiritual life apart from Christ; the text says we can’t do anything at all but be scattered.

How do we abide with and in the Lord? Scripture distinguishes four ways. We abide and experience union with the Lord through

1. His Word – If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you (Jn 15:7). Anyone who loves me will be true to my word and my Father will love him and we will come to him (Jn 14:22).
2. Holy Communion – He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him (Jn 6:56).
3. Prayer (especially communal prayer) – For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them (Matt 18:20).
4. Keeping His Commandments – Those who keep his commandments abide in him and He in them (1 John 3:22).

Yes, abiding is accomplished through prayer, Scripture, sacraments, fellowship, and walking uprightly. This Gospel could not be clearer: abide, abide, abide, abide, abide, abide. Six times the word is used.

Do you get it? Abide. Abide persistently.

The first reading in today’s Mass (Tuesday of the 5th week of Easter) is very Catholic, and it’s too informative to just pass by. It presents the early Church as rather highly organized and possessed of some of the structures we know today in full form. Granted, some of these structures are in seminal form, but they are there.

We will also notice some qualities of the original kerygma that are at variance with what some modern thinkers declare should be the methodology of the Church. The soft Christianity of those who replace the cross with a pillow and who insist upon inclusion and affirmation to the exclusion of all else is strangely absent in this early setting.

Let’s examine the reading (Acts 14:21-27) and see there the true path of priests, teachers, and leaders in the Church. Four steps can be prescribed for our consideration, by noting that they went forth announcing, admonishing, appointing, and accounting.

I. Announcing – After Paul and Barnabas had proclaimed the good news to that city and made a considerable number of disciples …

Notice that happiness is linked to the harvest of disciples. By proclaiming the good news, they yield a great harvest. As Catholics, we are not sent out merely to proclaim a list of duties; we are sent to proclaim the Gospel. The Gospel is this: God so loved the world that He sent His Son, who by dying and rising from the dead purchased for us a whole new life, free from sin and the obsessions of this world. He is victorious over all the death-directed drives of this world. Simply put, he has triumphed over these forces and enabled us to walk in newness of life.

So, we are sent to announce a new life, a life free from the bondage of sin, rebellion, sensuality, greed, lust, domination, and revenge. We are sent to announce a life of joy, confidence, purity, chastity, generosity, and devotion to the truth rooted in love.

Yes, here is a joyful announcement rooted in the cry, Anastasis (Resurrection)! New Life! The old order of sin is gone and a new life of freedom from sin is here!

Did everyone accept this as “good” news? No. Some, indeed many, were offended and sought to convict Christians as “disturbers of the peace.” Many people don’t like to have their sin and bondage called out. They prefer bondage, sin, and darkness to light, holiness, and freedom.

As Catholics, we announce what is intrinsically good news. We ought to start sounding like it by proclaiming it with joy! We must proclaim it without the bitterness and anger that are indicative of those who are more interested in winning an argument than in joyfully announcing something wonderful, freeing, and true.

II. Admonishing – … they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch. They strengthened the spirits of the disciples and exhorted them to persevere in the faith, saying, “It is necessary for us to undergo many hardships to enter the kingdom of God.”

Preaching/teaching is a process. You don’t just preach or teach once and then move on; you return and reiterate. Paul and Barnabas are retracing their steps back through towns they have already evangelized. They do not just come, have a tent revival, and move on. They return and, as we shall see, they establish the Church.

Notice what they do:

1. Encourage – They strengthen the spirits of the disciples.
2. Exhort – They exhort them to persevere in the faith.
3. Explain – They explain by saying, “It is necessary for us to undergo many hardships to enter the kingdom of God.”

Let’s focus especially on the explanation. Paul and Barnabas teach that if you’re not willing to endure the cross, no crown will come your way. If you can’t stand a little disappointment, if you can’t stand being talked about, if you think you should always be up and never down, then I’ve come to remind you that there’s no crown without a cross.

Yes, beware of “cross-less” Christianity. We do have good news to proclaim but there is also the truth that we get to the resurrection and the glory through the cross. There is a test in every testimony, a trial in every triumph. There are demands of discipleship, requirements for renewal, laws of love, and sufferings set forth for saints.

Good preaching combines the hardship and the happiness in one message. It is a joy to follow in the footsteps of our Lord, who endured hostility, hardship, and the horrors of the cross but still triumphed and showed that the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. Yes, He caught the wise in their craftiness and showed that the thoughts of the wise in this word are futile (cf 1 Cor 3:20). He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them (paradoxically) by the cross (cf Col 2:15).

Thus, St. Paul and Barnabas announce the cross, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles (cf 1 Cor 1:23). Many people today insist want the Church to soft-pedal the cross, to use honey instead of vinegar. No can do! We must joyfully announce and uphold the paradox of the cross. We must be willing to be a sign of contradiction to this world, which sees the way forward as only pleasure and the indulgence of sinful drives, which exalts freedom without truth or obedience, and which calls good what God calls sinful.

And so we announce the cross not merely as suffering, but as life, power, and love. By the power of the cross, it is possible to live without sin, to overcome rebellion, pride, lust, and greed; it is possible to learn to forgive and to live the truth in love.

The world will hate us for this, but such hardships, such crosses, are necessary preludes to the hallelujah of Heaven. The Church can do no less than to point to the cross. The center of our faith is a cross, not a pillow, and the cross is our only hope (Ave Crux spes unica nostra (Hail, O Cross, our only hope)). Yes, the Church announces the cross and admonishes a world obsessed with pleasure and with passing, fake happiness.

III. Appointing – They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith. Then they traveled through Pisidia and reached Pamphylia. After proclaiming the word at Perga they went down to Attalia.

Thus we see the ordination of priest leaders in every place. “Priest” is just an English mispronunciation of the word “presbyter.” Paul and Barnabas did not simply go about vaguely preaching and then moving on. They established local churches with a structure of authority. The whole Pauline corpus of writings indicates the need to continue oversight of these local churches and to stay in touch with the priest leaders established to lead these local parishes.

Later, St. Paul spoke of the need for this structure in other places, when he wrote to Titus: This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint presbyters in every town as I directed you (Titus 1:5).

This appointment was done through the laying on of hands and is called ordination today. It was a way of establishing order and office in the Church, in order to make sure that the work continued and that the Church was governed by order. This is why we call the sacrament involved here the “Sacrament of Holy Orders.”

Note, too, that a critical task for leaders in the Church is to develop and train new leaders. Too many parishes today depend on individual charismatic and gifted leaders, whose inevitable departure leaves a void rather than an ongoing ministry or organization. This should not happen. Good leaders train new leaders.

IV. Accounting – From there they sailed to Antioch, where they had been commended to the grace of God for the work they had now accomplished. And when they arrived, they called the church together and reported what God had done with them and how he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles.

Note that Paul and Barnabas are now returning to render an account for what they have done. Accountability is part of a healthy Church. Every priest should render an account to his bishop, and every bishop to his metropolitan and to the Pope. Today’s ad limina visits of bishops to the Pope is the way this is done. Further, priests are accountable to their bishop through various mechanisms such as yearly reports and other meetings.

A further background to this text is that Paul and Barnabas are returning to Antioch because it was from there that they were sent forth by the local bishops and priests on this missionary task.

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off (Acts 13:2).

Thus, St. Paul was not the lone ranger that some think him to be. He was sent and was accountable.

But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days (Gal 1:15-18).

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain (Gal 2:1).

The preacher and teacher must be accountable: For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.” So each of us shall give account of himself to God (Rom 14:10-12).

And thus we see some paths for priests, preachers, teachers, and leaders. We must announce the Gospel as good news, with joy and confidence. We must admonish a world obsessed with pleasures to embrace the cross as our only hope. We must continue to develop, train, and appoint leaders to follow after us; and we must be accountable to one another.

Here is a nice, quick portrait of some healthy traits for the Church!

By His resurrection, Jesus has brought us from death to life. He has snatched us from this present evil age (Gal 1:4) and from the death-directed desires of our body (Rom 6:12), and made us into a new and living creation (2 Cor 5:17). As such, we have exchanged the tombstones that once indicated we were dead in our sins and have become living stones in the spiritual edifice that is the Body of Christ and also the Church.

In the Epistle for today’s Mass (1 Peter 2:4-9), we are summoned to this new life and told what some of its characteristics are. Let’s take a look at how we go from being tombstones to living stones by considering this text in three sections.

1. The Call of Salvation – Come to him, a living stone, rejected by human beings but chosen and precious in the sight of God, and, like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house.

Notice first the invitation that is made: Come to Him! Let yourself be built! The entire Christian life is based on our response to an invitation to accept Jesus Christ and to let Him transform our life. We are to say, “yes,” not only to Jesus, but also to what He can do for us. He will take our broken, crumbling lives and rebuild them. In what sense will He do this? Two images are offered:

Living Stones – A stone is an odd image for life. There doesn’t seem to be anything less living than a stone! What does it mean to be a “living stone”? First, it means to be alive, to be full of life! Second, it means that some of the better qualities of stone are to be ours. A stone is firm, weighty, not easily moved, and able to withstand a heavy load. Thus we too are to be strong and firm in our faith, not easily moved about by the currents of the world or tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes (Eph 4:14). Stable and firm, we are also able to carry the weight and bear the difficulties imposed by this world. We are able to support and carry others in their time of need, sharing their burdens. Yes, living stones—strong, firm, not easily moved, and alive, quite alive!

A Spiritual House – The image implies that in a spiritual sense, we as living stones make up the walls of the Church. We are fitted together like stones into a wall that is strong and sure. We are not saved merely unto ourselves, but also for the sake of others. By God’s grace, we depend upon one another, each of us carrying his share of the burden. Each stone in the wall does its part. Remove one stone and the whole wall is weakened. Only together is the wall solid and sure.

2. The Choice for Salvation – whoever believes in it shall not be put to shame. Therefore, its value is for you who have faith, but for those without faith: The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone, and a stone that will make people stumble, and a rock that will make them fall. They stumble by disobeying the word, as is their destiny.

Simply put, we have a choice to make. That choice will determine if Jesus is the cornerstone who supports us or a stumbling block over which we trip and fall. It is an interesting phenomenon that when a person is being rescued at sea, sometimes the victim will reach out and grab the life ring that is tossed to them, while others will resist attempts to save them, seeing it as something that will further endanger them.

What is meant by the “cornerstone”? It usually brings to mind a ceremonial stone with an inscription and possibly some historical things embedded. Here, though, it refers more to the stone at the bottom of an arch or the row of bricks that supports the whole arch. It had to be a very carefully crafted stone since all the other stones depended on its integrity and perfect shape to support them. This is Jesus Christ for us. We are all leaning on Him; He is the perfect stone who carries our weight.

But for those who reject Christ, He is a stone over which they trip and fall. Surely Jesus wants to save us all, but some reject Him and for them He becomes a stumbling block. We cannot remain neutral about Jesus. We must decide one way or the other about Him: yes means salvation; no means condemnation. He will either be a cornerstone or a stumbling block; there is no third way. To those who knowingly reject Him, He is a stumbling block. This image also explains some of the venomous attacks on Christ and Christianity from the world. When one trips over something and falls, one tends to curse what caused the fall.

The choice is ours. May it be Christ and may He be our cornerstone—the only One on whom we can lean and rely with certainty. Only this will take us from being tombstones to living stones.

3. The Characteristics of Salvation – You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may announce the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

Notice four characteristics of those who are no longer tombstones, but are living stones:

Our Pedigree – The text calls us a “chosen race.” We’ve reflected on making Christ our choice, but here we are reminded that before we chose Him, He chose us. If we received an invitation to the White House, many of us would feel that we had “made it” and would proudly tell our friends of the great honor. Yet we take little notice that we are chosen by God and invited to the great Wedding Feast of the Lamb. Yes, we are chosen; we have a pedigree. We are of the household of God. This is greater than any worldly dignity and it is able to overcome any indignity that the world heaps upon us.

Our Priesthood – Each of us who is baptized into Christ Jesus is made priest, prophet, and king. This “royal” priesthood, while different from the ministerial priesthood, has this similarity: every priest is enabled to offer a sacrifice pleasing to God. In the Old Testament, priests offered up something distinct from them, usually an animal. But in the priesthood of Jesus Christ, the priest and the victim are one and the same. Jesus offered Himself. All of the baptized are equipped by God to offer the pleasing sacrifice of their very selves to God. Here is a very great dignity given to us by Jesus: to have a perfect right to stand in His Father’s presence, praise Him, and offer a fitting sacrifice. Only ministerial priests of the Church can bring us the sacraments, but all baptized believers share in the royal priesthood, wherein they freely offer themselves to God.

Our Place – The text calls us a “holy nation.” To be holy means to be set apart. Hence we are called out from among the many to be a people that is set apart for God. While all are invited to Christ, only those who accept the invitation receive the grace to be called a holy nation. As such, we should understand that our role is not to “fit in” with this sin-soaked world, but rather to stand apart from it, to be recognizably distinct from it. Our behavior, priorities, love, joy, and charity should be obvious to all. To be a holy nation is a great honor, but also a great responsibility. May this curse of Scripture never be said about us: As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you” (Rom 2:24).

Our Proclamation – The text says that the Lord has acted in our life so that you may announce the praises of him, who called you out of darkness into his own, wonderful light. Yes, the Lord has been good to us and is changing our lives! If you are faithful, then you know what He has done for you and you have a testimony to give. Scripture says that we were made for the praise of his glory (Eph 1:6). Do people hear you praise the Lord? Have you glorified His name among the Gentiles? (Rom 15:9) Do people know of your gratitude? Have they heard of your witness to the Lord? Can you articulate how God has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light? You ought to be a witness for the Lord! This is a necessary characteristic of those who are no longer tombstones, but living stones.

Are you a tombstone or a living stone?

Consider the commercial below. It says, “Focus on what you love.” It presents a man who, having laid eyes on his beloved, sees only her; all others vanish. The accompanying song speaks of the woman as being oblivious to his faults, as represented by “the funny way you wear your hair.”

There are truths here to ponder. With God, we must look beyond all else and see, finally, only Him; we must see everything in reference to Him. Likewise, in marriage, should not a husband and wife each only be taken with the other? Love also helps us to be less angry at the imperfections of others. Indeed, love blinds us to many of the things that can produce quick annoyance if/when love cools and the “I do” becomes “You’d better!” Would that our love would make us more willing to endure foibles and wait upon the other to grow toward greater perfection.

There are also errors to ponder. As the crowds of people disappear in the commercial, we see the modern tendency to conceive of happiness apart from human community. Jean-Paul Sartre famously said, “Hell is other people.”

Consider just a few of the amazing blessings that come to us from and through others. We dwell in cities built by others. We dine at restaurants supported by a whole chain of people, beginning with the farmer and fisherman, the harvester, food processors, distributors, and extending to the cooks and the wait staff who serve us. We use technologies like cell phones and cameras, which were designed and developed by others. We traverse roads and cross bridges constructed by others and paid for by many. The list could go on and on. The young man who loves his young lady would not have her were it not for her parents, grandparents, and generations stretching back to God Himself. Yes, most of the things we enjoy come from God through other people.

Enjoy this commercial as well as the pleasant song that accompanies it. Ponder the truths and errors as you watch and listen.

The discussion and debate of issues is problematic today for many reasons, among them the use of flawed logic, the tendency to engage in identity politics, and the widespread rejection of natural law. I would like to highlight three issues in particular that commonly interfere with discourse on the Internet, including the “Comments” section of blogs such as this one.

I. The internet is “tone-deaf.” Any discussion that occurs in writing misses such personal elements as tone of voice, facial expression, and body language. A light-hearted delivery or a smile can change how words are understood. For example, the words, “You’re crazy!” can seem accusatory and harsh in writing, but accompanied by a smile or a joking tone, the words can be understood as playful. Sometimes the person’s tone can demonstrate irony: You’re crazy all right, but in a good way. You’re with God, but to the world you’re crazy.” Maybe calling someone crazy is a challenge, but the tone is gentle, asking for clarification more than making an accusation.

The point is that a written text seldom conveys the subtleties of human conversation. Many people take offense when none was intended or when the other party was merely trying to pose a question in a friendly rather than accusatory manner.

II. Reading things as absolutes – There is a tendency to interpret a point that is made in writing in an absolute way, thinking that the author means what he says without exception or that nothing else should be considered as a factor.

For example, earlier this week, in my blog on recent parish closings I wrote, “Bishops don’t close parishes, people do.” My purpose was to be artful and memorable, to provoke thought with a smidge of hyperbole.

I clarified that it was true in a juridical sense that bishops close parishes (by withdrawing their canonical status as a parish with an assigned pastor), but that bishops don’t routinely look around for parishes to close. Other things being equal, they want parishes to thrive and stay open. When a parish closes, the bishop is usually responding to what amounts to a lack of people. Generally, the parishes that are closed or merged are financially challenged. Perhaps they have old buildings that cannot be maintained cost effectively, or critical staff (including the pastor) can no longer be afforded. The lack of financial resources is usually tied to a lack of human resources: parishioners. In relatively rare cases, a financially sound parish is merged with others for the common good and to share resources effectively.

The primary driving force behind parish closings, however, comes down to a lack of people. It is not just that the mean old bishop is closing down parishes for no good reason. So, intending to make a short but memorable comment, I wrote, “Bishops don’t close parishes, people do.”

I do not mean this absolutely. I am not saying that the closing of every single parish is the direct fault of the people and the poor bishop is only doing what he must. Yet it is clear from the comments that many thought I did mean it absolutely, that I was saying that all parish closings are entirely the fault of God’s people and that bishops and clergy are completely innocent. Never mind that I went on to point out a number of other factors in church closings as well; surely I did not intend to imply that I’d made an exhaustive treatment of every possible cause.

Many also expanded my reflection by drifting from my restricted notion of cause to a wider notion of blame. That low attendance is a numerical cause for many parish closings is demonstrably true. Blame, by which I mean moral responsibility, for low attendance is a deeper and more complex issue.

I think there is plenty of blame for the clergy in this. We have not consistently preached the need to attend Mass. There has been poor catechesis and even outright error from members of the clergy. But there is also rebellion in the ranks that the clergy are no more responsible for than are parents for every poor decision of their adult children. The fact is, there is shared blame for the falling away from the faith. Clerical leaders are an important—but not the only—source of the problems today.

My point here is not to write another article on Church closings; it is to assert that interpreting everything in an absolute sense, a form of all-or-nothing thinking, can lead to strident reactions that produce much heat but little light. Interpreting a point that the writer (in this case me) makes in an absolute way, when it was not intended in that way, usually incites anger. The responder creates a straw man and then angrily denounces it. It is a straw man because it isn’t even the point that was made but rather an exaggerated version of it. The whole exchange goes south from there and doesn’t even end up being about the point that was actually made. This is bad argumentation.

III. Taking things personally – Many today take argumentation very personally; identity politics is a likely explanation. “Identity politics” is a reductionist mode in which people link their opinions with their very person. “This is who I am, and if you don’t agree with what I assert, you are offending me personally.” People also do this with group identities (e.g., sex, race, sexual orientation).

In such a climate, it is difficult to have productive debate because people take the disagreement personally and “shut down” rather than considering the counterpoints thoughtfully. They feel personally attacked rather than sensing that they are being challenged to reconsider or to better explain their view. Interestingly, they then tend to respond with a personal attack!

This was also evident in some of the comments on the post earlier this week. The “logic” of some respondents seems to have been this: Laity are being critiqued; I am a lay person; Therefore, I am being critiqued.” Well, maybe, but not all lay people are alike. More than likely, if someone is even reading this blog, he still goes to Mass and supports the mission of the Church. The laity includes a smaller number of Catholics (15-30%) who attend Mass faithfully and largely accept Catholic teaching, but a much a larger number (70-85%) who do not.

One can use a term such as “laity” and mean it generally, not as a personal attack on every single member of the large, diverse group. By interpreting the comments about the laity as applying to you personally, and rejecting them as not applicable, you may miss consideration of many of the points.

Anyway, this is my take on why discourse, especially in cyberspace is often so strident. Remember, I do not mean all of these points absolutely, and I might not actually have you in mind, even if you are a member of some of the groups I mention! For example, not all people who read and comment on my blog possess every trait that I mention here. A few people might even be an exception to everything I’ve said! You never know, especially if you presume good will on the part of the author. 😊