Posts

Posted on

Marriage Is About What Is Best For Children

As a kind of follow-up from yesterday’s Gospel on marriage, we do well to ponder where our focus on marriage is, both personally and nationally.

Finding our way back – Part of the essential work we must do in re-establishing a coherent vision for marriage rooted in tradition, Natural Law, and, for believers, Scripture, is to restore a proper reference point so that all the pieces of the discussion make sense.

What is this proper reference point? Marriage is essentially about children and what is best for them. It is not about civil rights; it is not about two adults being happy and fulfilled. If we use the proper starting point, a lot of other things begin to fall in place.

1. Marriage is a stable and lasting union – Children require 18+ years to come to maturity. A stable environment is obviously best for them. In too many cases, children are ferried back and forth between parents who are either divorced or never married in the first place. One weekend here, another there, one summer here, another there. The instability is devastating for children. Parents should seek, above all, to resolve their differences and stay married.

Living in a stable though imperfect home—and all homes are imperfect—is an important way that children learn values such as trust, commitment, forgiveness, tolerance, generosity, conflict resolution, love, loyalty, and integrity.  It inculcates in them a sense of true marriage and family, knits together important family ties on a multigenerational level, and sets them up to be able to form strong families themselves when they are older. They also learn proper dynamics between men and women: how to treat and regard members of the opposite sex.

Those who simply claim that the traditional, stable family is no better or worse than other arrangement are ignoring what long human experience has taught us in this regard. Scripture affirms the value of a stable family when it speaks of a husband clinging to his wife (Gen 2:24, Matt 19:1ff inter al) and when Jesus forbids divorce (Matt 5, Matt 19, Mark 10 inter al). Marriage is about what is best for children, and as a rule, stability is best.

2. Marriage is the union of two heterosexuals – Though heterosexual relations are obviously necessary for procreation, that is not the main point here, for many homosexuals argue that they can adopt children. The central point here is what is best in raising them.

The fact is that children are best raised by a mother and father together. In terms of simple human formation, children are best raised with both male and female influences. There are things that a father can say to and model for his children that are properly and best done by a father. Likewise, there are things that a mother can say to and model for her children that are properly and best done by a mother. This is what nature herself provides in linking procreation to both a father and a mother. Situations in which there are two fathers, or two mothers, or just one parent, are not ideal for children. As a rule, it is best for children to be raised in a traditional family setting.

There are times when death or illnesses make the ideal setting impossible. There are exceptional circumstances in which a father or mother is unfit, but in general a traditional heterosexual marriage is the ideal environment for children. It is what nature herself has set forth and, for believers, it is what God has set forth. In cases in which a parent is missing from the family, it is essential for the remaining parent to provide opportunities for children to interact in a proper way with mentors of the missing sex. This can be accomplished with aunts, uncles, grandparents, and the like.

The bottom line is that traditional heterosexual marriage is optimal for children and their human formation. All other arrangements are less than ideal. To the degree possible, children should be raised in the optimal setting that nature and nature’s God have set forth.

When placing children for adoption, married heterosexual couples should have priority over single parents and homosexual couples. This is not bigotry, it is what is best for children. There is typically no difficulty finding homes for infants. Sadly, it is more difficult to find homes for older children, but married heterosexual couples should still generally speaking be favored.

Again, the important thing is what is best for children, not whether certain adults may be offended by perceived bigotry, or whether the approach is politically correct.

3. Traditional, heterosexual marriage should enjoy the favor of law and recognition – One of the great battle lines in the marriage debate has been that married couples enjoy certain favors under law such as tax advantages, inheritance rights, and hospital visitation privileges. Most people see some room for give on these sorts of matters. On a case-by-case basis, it may make some sense to allow, under civil law, a greater ability for Americans to legally enact a wider variety of arrangements for power of attorney, inheritance, and the like.

However, if what is best for children remains our starting point, then it also follows that traditional heterosexual marriage should enjoy some legitimate favors. Strengthening traditional marriage is a worthwhile goal for public policy. Some tax provisions encourage forming and keeping traditional families. Granted, the degree to which such proactive policies should go is debatable. Even among supporters of traditional marriage there are some who have a libertarian view when it comes to any government involvement.

In the end, whether through tax breaks, other laws, or simply through special recognition, a strong support of and advocacy for traditional marriage is proper and good, for whatever strengthens the traditional family is good for children. Whatever we can do as a society to uphold traditional marriage, insist on fidelity, limit divorce, and give special recognition and honor to these families is good for children.

This also is why legal recognition of other types of unions as “marriage” is problematic. To use the same term, “marriage,” both for traditional heterosexual marriage and for gay unions implies an equality that is not true. Gay unions are not on the same footing with traditional marriage because they are not what is best for children. Traditional marriage is what is best for children and it should enjoy an elevated status because of this. Using the same word for the two blurs this and traditional marriage loses the favor it should have and the recognition is it should receive.

That’s enough said for now, but remember the fundamental point: Marriage is essentially about children and what is best for them. When we use the welfare of children as our starting point, it is clear that traditional marriage is proper and best. This starting point challenges not only advocates of gay “marriage” but also sometimes those of traditional marriage, for not all those in traditional marriages have what is best for children in the forefront of their minds either. Too often couples do not work at their marriage to overcome difficulties; many are too quick to rush to divorce court. What is best for children often takes a back seat in our culture.

 

Posted on

Marriage Is a Miracle! A Homily for the 27th Sunday of the Year

Both today’s first reading and the Gospel speak to us of the miracle of marriage. If your marriage is working even reasonably well, it is a miracle! We live in an age that is poisonous to marriage. Many people look for marriage to be ideal, and if there is any ordeal, they want a new deal. Our culture says, if it doesn’t work out, bail out. Marriages are also a miracle because they are, ultimately, a work of God.

Today’s readings bring before us some fundamental teachings on marriage. Let’s look at today’s Gospel in five stages.

I. Rejection – The Gospel opens with the Pharisees approaching Jesus and asking, somewhat rhetorically, “Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?” Jesus, aware of their hypocrisy (they do not really want an answer from Him on which to base their lives), asks them in return, “What did Moses command you?” They gleefully respond, in essence, that Moses permitted a husband to divorce his wife as long as he “filled out the paperwork,” if you will.

Jesus will have none of it, telling them that Moses only permitted this regrettable thing called “divorce” because of their hardened hearts.

Among the rabbis of Jesus’ time, there was the belief that this seemingly lax provision permitting divorce resulted because Moses had reasoned that if he were to say to the men of his day that marriage was until death then some of them might very well have arranged for the death of their wives. So, in order to prevent homicide, Moses permitted the lesser evil of divorce. It was still an evil, however. God Himself says in the Book of Malachi,

And this again you do. You cover the Lord’s altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering … You ask, “Why does he not?” Because the Lord is witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Has not the one God made and sustained for us the spirit of life? And what does he desire? Godly offspring. So, take heed to yourselves, and let none be faithless to the wife of his youth. For I hate divorce, says the Lord, the God of Israel, and covering one’s garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. Yes … take heed to yourselves, and do not be faithless” (Malachi 2:13–16).

Thus, in the opening lines of today’s Gospel, Jesus highlights how the Pharisees and many other men of His time have rejected God’s fundamental teaching on marriage. Jesus is about to reiterate that teaching. For now, though, just note that the rejection evidenced in the question of the Pharisees is one that Jesus ascribes to hearts that have become hardened by sin, lack of forgiveness, and refusal to accept God’s plan.

God hates divorce not only because it intrinsically rejects what He has set forth but also because it is symptomatic of human hardness and sinfulness.

II. Restoration – Jesus, having encountered their hardened hearts, announces a restoration, a return to God’s original plan for marriage. The Lord quotes the Book of Genesis, saying,

But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. And for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.

Note that Jesus begins with the phrase, “but from the beginning of creation.” In other words, anything that may have happened in the aftermath of Original Sin, any compromises or arrangements that have emerged during the reign of sin, are now to be done away with in the reign of grace that will come as the result of Jesus’ saving death and resurrection.

On account of the grace that will be bestowed, we are now able, and expected, to return to God’s original plan for marriage: one man and one woman in a lifelong, stable relationship that is fruitful, bringing forth godly children for God and His kingdom. This is God’s plan, a plan that has no room for divorce, contraception, or anything other than fruitful, faithful, stable love.

In today’s Western culture there have been many attempts to redefine God’s original and perfect plan for marriage, substituting something erroneous, something humanly defined. While current attempts to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions are a particularly egregious example, they are not the first or only way in which God’s plan for marriage has been attacked.

The attempts began in the 1950s, when divorce began to occur among Hollywood celebrities (e.g., Ingrid Bergman). Many Americans, who seem to love and admire their Hollywood stars, began to justify divorce. “Don’t people deserve to be happy?” became the refrain. In this way marriage, which up to that point had as its essential focus what was best for children, began subtly but clearly to be centered on what was best for adults. The happiness of the adults began to take precedence over well-being of the children in the mind of most people.

During the 1950s and 1960s pressure began to build to make divorce easier. Until the late 1960s, divorces had been legally difficult to obtain in America; wealthier people often traveled to Mexico to secure them. In 1969, California Governor Ronald Reagan signed the first “no-fault” divorce law, making divorces fairly easy to obtain. Within ten years most states had similar laws. As a result, divorce rates skyrocketed.

This was the first redefinition of marriage. No longer was a man to leave his father and mother and “cling to his wife.” Now, at the first sign of trouble, men and women could just renege on their marriage vows, in direct contradiction to God’s plan. Thus, we engaged in what amounts to a redefinition of marriage.

The second redefinition of marriage occurred when the contraceptive mentality seized America. It began in the late 1950s and continues to this day. Though God said to the first couple, Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth … (Genesis 1:28), children have become more a way of “accessorizing” a marriage than an integral part and an expected fruit. Children are no longer seen as an essential purpose of marriage, but only an optional outcome based on the wishes of the adults. This directly contradicts God’s instruction to “be fruitful and multiply.”

The third redefinition of marriage—the current rage—is the attempt to extend it to include same-sex unions. The absurdity of this proposal flows from the sinful conclusions of the first two redefinitions, which in effect state that marriage is simply about two adults being happy and doing whatever pleases them.

If that is truly the case, then there seems little basis to protest same-sex couples getting “married,” or, frankly, any number of adults in any combination of sexes, getting “married.” (Polygamy and/or polyandry are surely coming next.)

The heterosexual community has misbehaved for over fifty year now, redefining essential aspects of marriage. The latest absurdity—and it is an absurdity—of gay “marriage” flows from this flawed and sinful redefinition. We have sown the wind; now we are reaping the whirlwind.

In the end, Jesus will have none of this. He rejects the attempts of the men of His time to redefine marriage. Through His Church, His living voice in the world today, He also rejects the sinful and absurd redefinitions that our culture proposes, be it divorce, contraception, or homosexual “marriage.”

God has set forth that a man should leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and that the two of them become one flesh. In making a suitable partner for Adam, God created Eve, not Steve; hence homosexual unions are excluded. A man is not a suitable partner for a man; a woman is not a suitable partner for a woman. Further, in making a suitable partner for Adam, God did not make Eve and Ellen and Jane and Sue and Beth. Hence, polygamy, though mentioned and tolerated for a time in the Bible (but always a source of trouble) is also not part of God’s plan.

God intends one man, for one woman, in a relationship of clinging; that is, in a stable relationship that bears the fruit of godly offspring.

This is the Lord’s plan; Jesus does not entertain any notion from the people of His day that will alter or compromise the original design for marriage. He thus announces a restoration of God’s original plan for marriage, as set forth in the book of Genesis.

III. Reality – As is true today, Jesus’ reassertion of traditional, biblical marriage was met with controversy. In Matthew’s account, many of the disciples react with disdain, saying, If that is a case of a man and his wife, it is better never to marry (Matt 19:10).

In today’s Gospel we see that the disciples are somewhat troubled by what Jesus says and ask Him about it again later. Jesus does not back down; He even intensifies His language, saying, Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.

There will be no apology from Jesus: divorce/remarriage is adultery. There may have been some in Jesus’ time (and today) who would hold up their divorce papers and say that they have a divorce decree. Jesus implies that He is not impressed with some papers signed by a human judge and is not bound by the decision of some secular authority. What God has joined together, no man must separate. Jesus once again establishes that once God has joined a couple in Holy Matrimony, the bond which God has effected is to be respected by all, including the couple.

Marriage has a reality beyond what mere humans bring to it or say of it. Marriage is a work of God; it has a reality and an existence that flows from God’s work, not man’s. All of our attempts to redefine, obfuscate, or alter marriage as God has set it forth are sinful and not recognized by God.

IV. Reemphasis – Now comes an interesting twist, which includes a reminder of one of the most essential purposes of marriage:

And people were bringing their little children to Jesus that he might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he became indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”

This is not a new element to the story; neither have we gone into a separate pericope. Rather, Jesus’ remarks about children remind us of the essential reason that marriage is structured the way it is. Why should marriage be between two heterosexuals? Why should it be stable? Why should it include a father and a mother rather than two fathers, or two mothers, or just a mother, or just a father?

The fundamental answer is that the essential work of marriage is to procreate and then raise those children. Because children are marriage’s most fundamental fruit, it makes sense that marriage should be structured based on what is best for them. The fact is, children are best raised in a stable, lasting environment in which their parents have committed to each other in mutual support and partnership in raising them. Further, it makes sense psychologically that a child should receive influence from both father and mother, the male parent and the female parent. There are things that a father can teach a child that a mother cannot; there are things that a mother can teach a child that a father cannot. Psycho-social development is best achieved in the environment that God and nature have set forth: every child growing up with both a father and a mother, a male and a female influence.

Anything else amounts to something that is less than ideal. To the degree that we intentionally impose the less-than-ideal on children, we are guilty of doing them an injustice. Bringing children into the world prior to marriage or apart from it, such that they will be raised in a single-parent home, is an injustice. It is even more unjust that children conceived under these promiscuous circumstances are far more likely to be aborted.

This preference for stable, lasting, heterosexual unions clearly excludes homosexual ones. Same-sex “parents” are far from ideal for a child. To raise children in such circumstances intentionally is an injustice, for it is to subject them to that which is unnatural and far from ideal.

Catholics have every obligation both to uphold and insist upon traditional marriage as what is right and just, not only because it is God’s plan, but because it is clearly what is best for children. Marriage is fundamentally about children. It is not simply religious sensibility that should lead us to this position; it is a position deeply rooted in natural law, common sense, and what is best for children.

Traditional marriage should be encouraged in every way. Becoming “fuzzier” about what marriage is, or “defining it down” does not help our culture to esteem traditional marriage. Traditional marriage has pride of place because it is focused on raising the next generation and is critical to the essential functioning of our society.

There is much talk today about the rights of people to do as they please. So-called gay “marriage” is presented within this framework. Sadly, many who discuss rights only refer to the rights of adults; they seem to care much less about what is best for children. What is good and right for children needs to have a much higher priority in our culture today than it currently does.

Jesus reemphasizes the teaching on marriage by pointing to the young children before them and telling the disciples not to hinder the children. One of the clearest ways we hinder children from finding their way to God and His kingdom is with our own bad behavior: promiscuous sexual acts (endangering children through abortion or single-parent households), divorce (placing children in divided situations and saddling them with confused loyalties), and insistence on adult rights taking precedence over what is best for children. To emphasize all of this bad behavior, Jesus points out the young children and says, “Do not hinder them.” Our bad behavior does hinder them.

V. Reassurance – To be sure, this teaching about marriage is to some degree “heavy weather.” Indeed, many in our culture have tried, and failed, to attain to the vision of marriage that the Lord teaches. There are complicated reasons, too many to note here, that so many people struggle to live this teaching today.

Whatever our own failures have been, we need to go to the Lord with a childlike trust, a trust that cries out for help. Jesus says at the conclusion of today’s Gospel, Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.

Children often feel overwhelmed, and when they do they run to their parents for help. It is in this spirit that the Lord asks us to receive this teaching. Indeed, many may well have to run to God and say “Abba, God, I don’t know how to live this teaching. My marriage is in ruins, and I don’t know how to save it. I’ve tried, but my spouse is unwilling. I can’t go back and undo what I did years ago.”

Note how the Lord embraces the child in this Gospel. He is willing to embrace us as well, in our failures and our difficulties. If we have failed, we should be like a young child and run to the Father. What we should avoid most is being relentlessly adult-like, digging in our heels and saying, “God is unreasonable; the Gospel is unreasonable!”

In the end, only God can accomplish strong marriages and strong families for us. We must run to Him as Father and seek His help. Even if one has failed in his/her marriage, one must still impart to the next generation what God teaches.

God’s plan remains His plan for everyone, no matter our personal failings. We have every obligation to run to Him, trust Him, and ask for His help. Even in the midst of our own personal failures, we can and must announce and celebrate the truth to others. In the end, God does not give us His teaching in order to burden us or to accuse us but rather to bless us. We must be assured of His mercy and His ability to write straight, even with the crooked lines of our lives.

If we in this generation have failed, and many of us have failed, we must still announce God’s plan for marriage to the next generation. We must not cease to hand on God’s perfect plan.

Posted on

On Bullies and Standing your Ground

There is a passage in the Sermon on the Mount that is often misunderstood:

But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. (Matt 5:39).

Many think this passage tells us that we should accept abuse—even death—at the hands of another. Pacifists often take the general advice of this passage and turn it into an absolute.

It is important to note that the attack described is not a deadly one. If it were, one might have an obligation to protect one’s life, even with deadly force if necessary. A slap on the cheek is not a mortal blow or even dangerous to one’s health. Rather, it is an attack on our dignity. It is not necessary to return insult for insult, even if we must protect our reputation.

Further, when the text says that we should not “resist,” it is important to understand the meaning of the word. The Greek word used is anthístēmi, which most literally means “to stand against.” Certainly, we are to resist evil, but we do not need to do so by returning blow for blow. The Lord advises us to stand our ground, neither becoming like our enemy by striking back, nor by running from him in fear. No, are to stand our ground (histemi) by looking him in the eye and saying, “I will not strike you back and become like you; neither will I flee from you and give your evil victory. You are going to have to live with me as I am.”

It is a kind of middle ground between fight and flight. We are to stand our ground before evil, remaining in our world of the Kingdom, not using the tactics of the kingdom of darkness.

Somehow this occurred to me when I watched this clip from The Andy Griffith Show, in which Barney Fife stands down two bullies who have refused to stop selling fruit illegally by the roadside:

Posted on

Recovering the Gospel from the Notion of Merely “Happy” or “Good” News

Luke gives a summation of the preaching of St. John the Baptist with a rather surprising and funny conclusion.

Then John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Therefore, produce fruit worthy of repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax lies ready at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.” … As the people were in expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Christ, John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” So with many other exhortations he preached good news to the people (Luke 3:7-9; 15-18).

It is Luke’s calling this “good news” that many people today would find surprising. Summoning people to repentance, calling them a brood of vipers, warning them of blazing fires of judgment, and speaking of axes ready at the roots of trees does not strike many of us as “good news.”

Indeed, St. John the Baptist seems to have missed the evangelization seminars in which we are told to be cheerful and “welcoming,” and advised that honey attracts more than does vinegar. He never heard that we are supposed to be nice and steer clear of unpleasant topics like sin; no, doing that might upset or alienate people.

Perhaps I exaggerate—but just a little. Frankly, we live in thin-skinned times. St. John the Baptist broke all the modern rules about effective evangelization (and so did Jesus). But note that crowds were going out into the desert to listen to him, while we, despite all our “niceness,” are seeing our churches grow emptier. Merely inviting people to a “welcoming community” isn’t going to get us very far. The local bar, lodge, and bowling league are also “welcoming communities.” Some of them do a better job of welcoming than we do. What we are supposed to do is to summon people to repentance and announce the soul-saving message of Jesus, who through word and sacrament is the only one who can save us from this present evil age and from the day of judgment.

Rather than engage in a lengthy discussion about how best to evangelize in our times, let’s simply note that St. Luke describes St. John’s approach as preaching the “good news.” Here are two brief observations about his description:

If you don’t know the bad news, the good news is no news. St. John lays out the bad news that sin has taken its toll and that we stand in desperate need of conversion, because a day of reckoning is coming for all sinners. However, he lays the foundation for the good news to shine forth even more brightly and with a sense of joy and relief. The good news is that the Messiah is coming who will baptize (wash) us with the Holy Spirit and purifying fire. Praise God! In effect St John says, “There is a doctor is the house and His name is Jesus. He has the power and will to save us; if we will give our lives over to Him, He can get us ready for the great judgment and lead us to God in righteousness. St. John the Baptist’s message is balanced; it supplies the bad or painful news that sets the stage for the good news to be really good!

Much of this eludes us (clergy and laity alike) in the modern Church; we seem afraid to lay out what ails people and to show that the cure is exciting and joyful news. Why bother taking the medicine of repentance, prayer and sacraments, if there is no proclaimed sense that I need them? We fail to make the case that sin is a false and unsatisfying lie; we allow others to live on in their denial. Evangelical efforts flounder because if we don’t know the bad news, the good news is no news.

The term “good news” (or gospel) used by St. Luke needs to be understood. For us today the term “gospel” needs to rescued from incomplete notions. The Greek word at the root of this phrase is Evangelion. As Pope Benedict XVI points out in his scriptural commentary Jesus of Nazareth, “good news” is an incomplete understanding of this Greek word. Evangelion, originally referred to proclamations of the emperor; the main point was not that they were necessarily good news, but that the utterances of the emperor were life-changing. Maybe he was going to pave a road, call for a census, or summon the people to war; but when the emperor issued a proclamation your life was going to change in some way. The news wasn’t always positive, but it was good to know what was going on.

This historical insight is important because when interpret the term “gospel” as simply meaning “good news,” it is easy to think of the gospel as only saying happy, pleasant things. Too easily the work of evangelization (proclaiming the gospel) is reduced to wearing a yellow smiley-face button or a name tag that says “All are welcome.”

What makes the gospel the gospel is that it is a life-changing message with plenary authority, not merely that it is pleasant or happy. Translating “gospel” (evangelion) as merely “good news” misses the main point. It is only good news if it can rescue us from the mess we’re in and can bring us out of darkness and confusion into light and truth.

That is what St. John the Baptist is doing here. He sets forth the gospel, a word of plenary authority that both gives the diagnosis and announces the cure: be baptized into Christ Jesus and allow Him to have authority in your life. Not everything St. John says is happy, pleasant, or affirming, but the Holy Spirit, writing through St. Luke, says of St. John: with many other exhortations he preached good news to the people.

We have a lot to learn from Luke’s brief description of true evangelization.

For a book-length treatment of the problem described here, I recommend reading The Old Evangelization, by Eric Sammons.

Posted on

Things we Can Learn From Dogs and Cats

With the Feast of St. Francis upon us we do well to thank God for many things. It is a tradition in many parishes to bless animals on this feast. It is also a good time to ponder what our pets and animals can “teach” us.

In the past I have shared a list of things we can learn from dogs. When I was growing up, we always had a dog, so although I did not compose the list below, I can vouch for its accuracy.

Over my years of city living as an adult, I have grown accustomed to having cats (they are great mousers in old rectories). So, I set my thoughts toward composing a similar list of what I have learned from cats. They are such independent and self-assured animals! They really let you know who’s boss but mitigate their arrogance somewhat with clownish play and affectionate head-butts.

God speaks to us in all of creation, including our pets, to whom we are often so close. What is God saying? Many things!

Here is my list of what I have heard God say through the cats I have loved over the years: Tupac, Katy Bell, Jenny June, Gracie Girl, Rita Hayworth, Ellen Bayne, Jerry McGuire, Benedict (Benny), Daniel, and Jewel. Some of them lived in the alley and a few in the house, but they have all taught me things. Here some pearls of wisdom they conveyed:

  1. If you can’t get your way, lie across the keyboard until you do. (Be persistent.)
  2. Keep them guessing with meows and long looks to keep their attention. (Mystery attracts.)
  3. When you’re hungry, meow loudly so they feed you just to shut you up. (Get your needs met.)
  4. Always find a good patch of sun to lie in. (Simple pleasures have their place.)
  5. Life is hard and then you nap. (Be well-rested.)
  6. Climb your way to the top; that’s why the curtains are there. (Be resourceful and creative.)
  7. We are Siamese if you please. We are Siamese if you don’t please. (Be yourself.)
  8. Purr often and use head-butts judiciously. (Express gratitude.)
  9. Sleep on their clothes and personal items so as to leave your scent. (Forget-me-nots have their place.)
  10. Use your litter box. (Be clean and polite.)
  11. Be a mouser. (Earn your keep.)
  12. Clown around and do silly stuff. (Be humble.)
  13. Run around wildly for no apparent reason; chase toys and laser pointers. (Exercise often.)
  14. Rest in hidden places. (Solitude has its place.)

The following list of things we can learn from dogs has been making the rounds on the Internet for years, but it really is rather instructive. Dogs do have a lot to teach us, and I thank God for the dogs to whom I have been close over the years: Prince, Missy, Molly, Taco, Salsa, Chili, Kaila, Lucy, Clancy, and many others. And again, although others compiled this second list, I can affirm through much experience how true it is!

Fifteen things we can learn from dogs:

  1. Never pass up the opportunity to go for a joy ride.
  2. Allow the experience of fresh air and the wind in your face to be pure ecstasy.
  3. When loved ones come home, always run to greet them.
  4. Let others know when they’ve invaded your territory.
  5. Take naps and stretch before rising.
  6. Run, romp, and play daily.
  7. Eat with gusto and enthusiasm.
  8. Be loyal.
  9. If what you want lies buried, dig until you find it.
  10. When someone is having a bad day, be silent. Sit close by and nuzzle them gently.
  11. Thrive on attention and let people touch you.
  12. Avoid biting when a simple growl will do.
  13. When you’re happy, dance around and wag your entire body.
  14. No matter how often you’re scolded, don’t buy into the guilt thing and pout. Instead, run right back and make friends.
  15. Delight in the simple joys of a long walk.

Happy Feast of St. Francis!

All creatures of our God and king
Lift up your voice and with us sing,
Alleluia! Alleluia!

Posted on

Don’t Name Your Guardian Angel

Guardian Angel Protecting Child, Domenico Fetti (1615-18)

The Feast of the Guardian Angels, celebrated on Tuesday, seems an appropriate time to point out that the common practice of naming one’s guardian angel should be avoided.

A document authored by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in 2001 states, “The practice of assigning names to the holy angels should be discouraged, except in the cases of Gabriel, Raphael, and Michael, whose names are contained in Holy Scripture” (Directory on Popular Piety in the Liturgy: Principles and Guidelines, # 127).

While the Congregation does not offer reasons for discouraging the practice, I would like to offer two of my own.

First, there is the understanding of what a name is. For most of us in the modern Western world, a name is simply a sound by which we are addressed. In the ancient biblical world, and even in many places today, a name has a far deeper meaning; it describes something of the essence of the person. This helps to explain the ancient Jewish practice of naming an infant on the eighth day. The delay gave the parents some time to observe the baby’s nature before deciding on a name. Most biblical names are deeply meaningful and descriptive. It is presumptuous to think that we can know enough of the essence of a particular angel that we can assign a name. Hence, naming our guardian angel seems inappropriate.

Second, assigning a name indicates some superiority over the one named. Parents rightly name their children because they have superiority over them. Angels, however, are superior to us. Even though we often speak of angels as serving us, they do this on account of their superior power and to act as our guardians. Thus, God commands us to heed the voice of our guardian angel (cf Ex 23:20-21).

Whenever I mention this admonition to refrain from naming guardian angels, it seems to stir up controversy. Nevertheless, naming an angel seems problematic and is to be discouraged. As for the name being revealed to you, let me respectfully offer that this is not likely the case. It seems unlikely that an angel or the Holy Spirit would act contrary to the directive of the Church herself, graced to speak for Christ. Further, I would be willing to bet that we could not even pronounce the true names of our angels because their names are mysterious!

Consider, too, the silence in the following Scripture passage, when Jacob asked the name of the angel who wrestled with him: Then Jacob asked him, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?” And there he blessed him (Gen 32:29).

In other words, if you ask the name of your angel the likely response is a rebuke followed by silence. There are some things we need not know.

Interestingly enough, God entrusts us with His name and some of His titles. Enjoy this old classic, but notice that the actual name of God, יְהֹוָה, is not uttered.

Posted on

Of the Angels and of the Mysterious Providence of God

Angels Accompanying Tobit, Francesco Botticini (1470)

God most often works through His angels; He mediates His presence through them. Why is this? He is of course all-powerful and therefore does not need the mediation of the angels, but He does seem to will it. It is common in both Scripture and doctrinal traditions to ascribe to the angels the work of mediating God’s presence and messages.

Scriptures assert this. At times, such as when Jacob wrestles with God, it is not clear whether it is an angel or God (Genesis 32:22-32); Abram greats three angels but calls them “Lord” (Genesis 18). At other times, it is clearly an angel that people such as Joshua (Joshua 5:13-15), Tobit (Tobit 12), and Mary (Luke 1) encounter. These angels speak for God and mediate His presence but are not God. Throughout the Book of Revelation, angels are sent forth to mediate God’s justice. In many places in Scripture, we are told by the Lord heed the voice of the angels who are sent to guard and guide us.

In the sacred Liturgy (Roman canon), the ministry of the angels is spoken of in connecting our sacrifice to the true altar in Heaven. The Book of Revelation describes how the heavenly and earthly liturgy is the work of angels and men. Angels bring the prayers of the saints before God and minister at the altar of incense.

There are numerous other passages and teachings that I could present, but suffice it to say that God, though almighty, all-powerful, and omniscient, most often chooses to mediate His presence to creation through the work of the angels.

An example may help to illustrate a likely reason. The laptop computer on which I am typing is not plugged directly into the wall outlet; its delicate circuitry cannot endure the 110-120 volt alternating current; it would blow out. Instead, an adaptor between the laptop and the wall outlet mediates, reducing the voltage to 19 V. direct current. Similarly, direct encounters with God may well be impossible for us on this side of the veil unless God hides His face or mediates His presence through the angels and/or the sacraments.

For us and for all of His creation, the ministry of the angels is a great mercy of God. Doctrinal traditions emphasize the ministry of the angels in mediating all of God’s providence. The highest angels minister in God’s Heaven, other ranks of angels minster the cosmos, and still other ranks minister here on earth. Nations, cities, local churches, and individuals have presiding angels. The Book of Revelation describes angels controlling winds and earthquakes as well as executing God’s justice and authority over history and events. Angels mediate God’s providence and sustenance throughout the whole of creation. We seldom talk or even think this way today.

Let’s consider another example. In explaining how a large passenger airplane rises off the runway, a scientist would speak of lift and thrust. The angle of the wing creates an area of lower air pressure above the wing and higher pressure beneath. Combine this with enough thrust to overcome gravity and you have the lift required for the plane to take off. However, a theologian from the Middle Ages might simply say, “the angels lift the plane.” In a certain sense both explanations are correct. If God sustains all of creation, and if He mediates His actions through the angels, it is not incorrect to say that the angels lift the plane, just as they serve God in all His creation. The theologian speaks to the metaphysical while the physicist speaks to the physical/material.

Yet there are many today, even among believers, who scoff at ascribing so much (or anything at all) to angels. To them one must point out that physics and mechanics alone cannot fully answer the legitimate questions that arise as we watch the plane take off into the sky. Science is good at answering mechanical questions and quantifying things such as force and lift but it is not able to answer deeper questions such as why, from what, or for what ultimate reason things exist. Why are things the way they are and not some other way? Where does the order and intelligibility of the material world come from? How is the world sustained in a steady-enough state that we can interact with it reliably and depend upon its laws and order? In fact, why is there anything at all?

There are deeper realities to things than the mere mechanics, and many of the mechanics are not even fully explained or understood. Science still has not explained all the physical mysteries of a plane’s vertical rise.

Perhaps the deepest mystery at the physical level is gravity. We can quantify this force, but its presence in the physical order is mysterious and even counterintuitive. Why do objects attract one another? How does this attractive force work? Are there invisible strings that pull us toward the earth or other large bodies? What is it about gravity that affects time, as it seems that it does? There are not definitive answers. That gravity exists and can be measured is clear, but precisely what it is and how it works is not.

We may one day uncover gravity’s secrets, but this still does not satisfy our legitimate metaphysical questions. Simply scoffing at or being dismissive of the ministry and existence of angels (or demons, for that matter) does not do away with our questions. The existence of order, intelligibility, and predictability present questions that cannot be sidestepped. Who or what ordered creation so that we can discover its order and its laws? If creation can speak to our intelligence by its intelligibility, what intelligence introduced it there to be discovered? If creation moves from simplicity to complexity, how do we explain this when it seemingly violates the physical principle that entropy always increases?

Granted, simply saying, “the angels do this” amounts to a kind of “God of the gaps” argument (wherein every unknown thing is simply ascribed to God), but completely dismissing the role of the angels (and ultimately the role of God) is to fall into the opposite error of scientism, which holds that everything can and must be explained by physical/mechanical causes. This cannot explain why things exist at all, nor can it speak to metaphysical concepts that are real but nonphysical such as justice, beauty, infinite longing, or our sense of good and evil.

God interacts with His creation. It is revealed to us that He does this most often, if not exclusively, through His angels. This is not to deny that the material order has observed laws and that chains of material causalities can be measured and observed. The theological world would remind us to reverence all the orders of creation: physical and metaphysical, material and spiritual.

Blessed be God, who created all things through His Word, His Son Jesus, who holds all creation together in Himself (Col 1:17). Blessed, too, be the angels, who mediate God’s interaction with His creation and are His ministers. Blessed also is the created world, from the tiniest parts of atoms to the largest galaxies. Yes, blessed be God, all His angels and saints, and all that He has ordered and sustained. Blessed are we, who by God’s gift of our intellect, can observe and understand the beauty, order, and laws of His creation.

May you, O Lord, keep us humble and fill us with wonder and awe. Help us remember that knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. (1 Cor 8:1). Thank you for your angels. Keep us mindful that although they are hidden from our eyes, myriad angels mediate your presence to this world and are at work all about us in your creation and unto your highest heavens. May Raphael and all the angels witness to our prayers and actions before you, and may they bring your graces to us swiftly. May the angels one day lead us to paradise.

Posted on

Learning to Name Sins Is to Have More Power Over Them – Part Two

Recently I wrote about the need to recover a vocabulary of sin and posted an example related to lying. A good number of readers asked for the other lists I have been compiling. I include them here along with introductory material similar to that in the first post. These lists are always a work in progress, so please feel free to send me any additions you have.

Indeed, over the years we have steadily been losing the vocabulary of sin. Saying “I have sinned” is often replaced by “I made a mistake,” or “I made a poor decision,” or “I’m sorry if my behavior was hurtful in some way.”

Not only are we slow to say we have sinned, we are also ignorant of the subtleties of sin, in part because our vocabulary about sin is so limited. In this state we lose a certain advantage over sin because to name something is the beginning of isolating it and having increasing authority over it. When I can name something, I can focus on it and work on it. It moves from the realm of the abstract and theoretical to the real world.

Over the years I have been compiling lists of the names for various sins. I do this as an outgrowth of deliverance ministry, in which the importance of naming demons cannot be overestimated. Most demons resist disclosing their names mightily because once the exorcist knows the name of a demon, his authority over it is magnified in Jesus.

This is also true in the ordinary situations of life, where demons tempt us, and where the world and our own flesh compound the problem. The more we can name the subtleties of sin the less difficult it is to gain mastery over them.

There are not many people who will call themselves sinners easily. They have very little awareness of subtleties of sin. Most will say things like this: “I don’t tell lies—at least not big ones,” “I’m not really that prideful,” or “I’m not that narcissistic, at least not as much as so-and-so is.” In the case of fear or low self-esteem, many don’t see it as sinful at all. We consider ourselves victims of these drives and fail to recognize how many sinful actions proceed from them. It’s hard to get far into these lists without realizing that such drives are alarmingly common to us, even if by other means and words. Don’t be discouraged; pick a few and work on overcoming them. Naming them gives us focus and power; by God’s grace, progress can be made by naming the demons that serve these evils.

Pray this prayer: “All evil thoughts and demon-spirits, we name you and reject you in the name of Jesus. We ask every grace from God to be rooted in His truth about who we are and out of this proper vision to do and say what is right, not what is evil, self-serving, or harmful. Jesus, you said, ‘I am the Truth.’ Live in us and drive from us all that is not true.”

Many exorcists use lists like the ones below against demons that refuse to state their name. In effect, the exorcist says, “If you won’t tell me your name then I will name you.” This typically causes the demon great pain in addition to that caused by the reading of the Rite of Exorcism itself.

For all of us, naming the drives of sin has a similar effect. It brings them out of obscurity and into the light of reason where their darkness can be scattered. It takes time, but these drives will surely diminish if we name them and consistently rebuke them when they arise.

Here, then, are all the lists of words and phrases I am currently compiling:

Pride:

Boasting, Conceit, Bragging, Haughtiness, Arrogance, Detraction, Aggrandizement, Braggadocio, Puffery, Grandiosity, Self-importance, Imposing, Obdurate, Judgmental, Wrath at God, Pride of vocation, Pride of place, Nursing wounds, Insolence, Rudeness, Vanity, Vainglory, Superiority, Indignation, Self-righteousness, Resistance, Non-submissive, Repelling, Open ears to evil, Politicizing, Polarization, Supremacy, Preeminence, Defiance, Challenge, Opposition, Antagonism, Spoiled, Snooty, Incorrigible, Willfulness, Worldly success, Worldly achievement, Prowess, Fanaticism, Radicalism, Self-magnification, Self-satisfied, Overconfident, Opinionated, Machismo, Egotism, Unspiritual, Competitive, Bloated, Controlling, Manipulative, Dominating, Domineering, Raw power, Exalted feelings, Scheming, Plotting, Dishonoring, Disproving, Discrediting, Argumentative, Contrarian, Playing devil’s advocate, Cunning, Conniving, Condescending, Idolatry, Intellectualizing, Self-actualization, Self-elevation, Comparison, Envy, Party factions, Minimization of sin, Unruly, Wild, Shocking, Ostentatious, Portentous, Pretentious, Showy, Free-spirited, Indignation, Spiritual superiority, Supervisory, Regulatory, Grandiose, “It’s beneath my dignity,” Self-justification, Refusal to forgive, Indiscriminate sermonizing, Excessive correction of others, Touchy, Hypercritical, Sacrilegious, Blithe, Unconcerned, Dismissive, Disdainful, Disrespectful, Flippant, Trivializing, Exorbitant, Scornful, Poverty of Judas, Pharisaical, Sanctimonious, Contemptuous, Smug, Lawlessness, Supercilious, Grudging, Big-headed, Patronizing, Pompous, Stubborn, Immovable, Inflexible, Intransigent, Obstinate, Uncompromising, Unyielding, Controlling, “Only I can do it,” Workaholic, Arrogant expertise, Sinful curiosity, Demand to know, Insistent on rights, Bullying, Aggressive, Pig-headed, Impatient, Refusing to wait, “I am more important,” Bigotry, Racism, Chauvinism, Inconsiderate, Careless, Intolerant of others’ weaknesses and foibles, Noncompliant, Dissenting, Recalcitrant, Incorrigible, Unreasonable, Ungrateful, Arbitrary, Churlish, Coarse, Impolite, Truculent, Aggressively defiant, Self-Absorbed, Sociopathic, Know-it-all, Blustering, Vociferous, Loudmouth, Boor, Unrepentant, Shameless, Unremorseful, Unapologetic, Irresponsible, Unaware.

All pride and prideful spirits depart!

Narcissism:

Egotistical, Insistent, Picky, Fussy, Choosy, Particular, Demanding, Nitpicking, Hyper-independence, Hypersensitivity, Antipathy, Daintiness, Thin-skinned, Pettiness, Willfulness, Preconceived notions, Presumptions, “Because I say so,” “That’s not fair,” “Me first,” “Why are you taking so long?”, “Who do you think you are?”, “It’s not my fault,” “I can do it myself,” “Gimme,” “Mine,” Unreflective, Unapologetic, Unashamed, Unrepentant, Perfectionism, Rigidity, Paranoia, Suspicion, Irrationality, Instability, Fickle, Immovable, Moody, Unpredictable, Inconsistent, Careless, Complex, Unbalanced, Deaf, Distorted hearing, Perverted judgment, Perverted (selfish) thinking, Refusal to be taught, Ill-formed conscience, Spiritual blindness, Hardness of heart, Duality, Imprudence, Impulsiveness, Compulsiveness, Recklessness, Interruption, Cutting off, Dismissal, Entrenchment, Excessively self-aware, Excessive self-love, Self-seeking, Self-gratification, Self-glorification, Self-aggrandizement, Self-absorbency, Self-idolatry, Self-indulgence, Self-reliance, Self-sufficiency, Self-promotion, Self-importance.

All narcissistic demons, depart!

Lying:

Pretension, Affectation, Posing, Posturing, Finessing, Unreality, Denial, Disavowal, Delusion, Labyrinth, Convoluted thinking, Cheating, Deliberate omission, Duplicity, Deceit, Dishonesty, Neglect of duty, Irreverence, Circumvention, Folly, Concealment, Suppression, Rationalization, Covering up, Blindness of spirit, Evasiveness, Caginess, Equivocation, Untruthfulness, Avoidance, Masking, Game-playing, Deception, Trickery, Sham, Illusion, Wishful thinking, Diversion, Entertaining error, Drama, Falsifying, Farce, Hallucination and dreaminess, Smoke and mirrors, Imitation, Aping, Phoniness, Fakery, Fraud, Scamming, Swindling, Libel, Slander, Defamation, Coyness, Cunning, Wiliness, Pretense, Calculating, Crafty, Undermining, Setting up false dichotomy, Distraction, Diversion, Changing the subject, Euphemisms, Understating, Overstating, Embellishment, Taking out of context, Absolutizing, Falsifying, Manipulating, Preconception, Prejudice, Rash judgment, Flattery, Fawning, Ingratiating, Insincerity, Artificiality, Hypocrisy, Sycophancy, Hedging, Juggling, Altering, Misrepresenting , Disguising, Vincible ignorance, Façade, Boasting, Showmanship, Theatrics, Acting, Trickery, Mockery, Appearances, Fantasy, Heresy, Deviance, Dissent, sheep’s clothing, Subversive, Cunning, Secretive, Substituting, Enigmatic, Irony, Mimicry, Mendacity, Fabrication, False witness, Spreading rumors, Evasion, Side-stepping, Dodging, Unreliable, Undependable, Unpredictable, Untrustworthy, Skirting, Shirking, Fudging, Ducking, Partial truth, Inaccuracy, Careless with the facts, Prevaricating, Stonewalling, Obstructing, Complicating.

All lies and lying spirits, depart!

Fear:

Restless, Agitated, Edgy, Terror, Fright, Worry, Apprehension, Trepidation, Dismay, Shock, Anguish, Anxiety, Uneasiness, Darkness, Grief, Trauma, Troubled, Weeping, Oppression, Conflict, Morbidity, Fixation, Nervousness, Jumpiness, Mania, Hysteria, Obsession, Preoccupation, Helplessness, Vulnerability, Feeling naked and exposed, Defenseless, Hopeless, Insomnia, Nightmares, Commotion, Disturbances, Disorders, Troubles,  Shaky, Tense, Excitement, Turmoil, Confusion, Mayhem, Horror, Overcome, Over my head, Dread, Disgust, Gloom and doom, Desperation, Disappointment, Distraction, Negativity, Tremors, Tension, Headaches, Roaming around, Rumination, Nervous habits, Shackled, Bound, Pressured, Squeezed, Captive, Frozen, Isolated, Restricted, Paralyzed, Immobilized, Shut down, Walls, Coldness, Listlessness, Sluggishness, Sleepiness, Stress, Fatigue, Lethargy, Withdrawal from others and God, Discouragement, Loneliness, Foreboding, Ominous, Threatening, Ruining, Sadness, Despair, Despondency, Distressed, Disheartened, Powerless, Melancholy, Joyless, Crisis, Implosion, Recoiling, “I’m not able,” “I’m not worthy,” Self-condemnation, Perfectionism, Fear of pain, Fear of the cross, Fear of being hurt, Repression, Depression, Panic, Hurt, Rehearsing trouble, Paranoia, Suspicion, Fear of condemnation, Fear of judgment, Scrupulosity, Disordered fear of God, Excessive fear of Hell, Pessimism, Filtering out good news, Ingratitude, Discounting blessings and praise, Staying alone, Abandonment, Betrayal, Untrusting, Indifference, Blockages, Numbness, Closed up/in, Shut up/in, Locked up/in, Stupor, Separation anxiety, Strangulation, Suffocation, “Leave me alone,” Heaviness, Neglect, Loss, Defeat, Weakness of will, Excessive sentimentality, Drama, Blues, Bondage, Bound and gagged, Overly serious, Tied up in knots, Chained, Caught, Snared, Barbed wire, Imprisoned, Impossible, Nettling, Webbing, Avoidance, Humiliation, Inability to overcome, “All is lost.”

Phobias related to Heights, Crowds, Bridges, Planes, Water, Elevators, Hospitals, Close spaces, etc.

All demons and spirits of fear, depart!

Low self-esteem:

Insecurity, Ineptness, Shy, Nervous, Wary, Inhibited, Lonely, Cowardly, Inability to accept or give love, Inability to accept praise, Shame, Embarrassment, Humiliation, Guilt, Feeling accused or blamed, Feeling ugly, Aversion, Avoidance, Feeling unloved, Feeling unwanted, Pessimism, Indifference, No pity, Lukewarmness, Defeat, Inadequacy, Labor, Toil, Drudgery, Self-rejection, Self-pity, Self-contempt, Self-destruction, Self-doubt, Self-abandonment, Lack of confidence, Poor self-image, Self-deprecation, Inferiority, Feeling useless, Disordered or excessive feelings of responsibility, Disordered or misplaced compassion, Introspection, Incredulity at Praise or accomplishment, Unforgiving of self and God, Indecisiveness, Scrupulosity, Sloth, Procrastination, Postponement, Anesthetized, Numbness, Building walls, Dazed, Forgetful, Indecision, Obstruction, Hyper-analytical, Distorted thinking, Wounded heart, Disconnectedness of thoughts and feelings, Disjointed spirit, Past wounds, Paralysis, Passivity, Forgetfulness, Attention deficit, Memory lapse, Memory loss, Obsessive-compulsive, Hesitancy, Compromise, Drama, Transferred feelings, Projection, Negativity, Noncreative, Dimorphic, Preoccupation with appearance, Overly focused on body, Controlling, Overly concerned with things out of one’s control, Passive-aggressive, Dead end, Holding in, Hiding, Avoiding, Dodging, Masks, Resentments, “I must be punished,” “I’m not allowed,” “This can’t happen for me,” “I’m not worthy,” “I can’t,” “I won’t,” “God can’t,” “God won’t,” “You can’t help me,” “I can’t be healed,” “They don’t like me,” “I’m not as able,” “I’m not as good”, “I’m not as attractive,” “They’re all laughing at me,” “I’m unwanted.”

Demons of low self-esteem, depart! I am a gifted child of God; even my weaknesses serve His purposes. I reject your defeatism!