Community in Mission

September 17, 2015September 18, 2015

The Church is God’s Lampstand in Dark Times – A Meditation on a Saying from St. Maximus

There is a helpful word of reminder given by Saint Maximus the Confessor, one of the Fathers of the Church, who was in the Breviary yesterday. I want to rework the order of what he wrote, if only for the purpose of applying it to the times in which we live. But for the sake of respect, here is the original quote:

This Word is most unwilling to be kept under a bushel; it wills to be set in a high place, upon the sublime beauty of the Church. For while the Word was hidden under the bushel, that is, under the letter of the law, it deprived all men of eternal light. For then it could not give spiritual contemplation to men striving to strip themselves of a sensuality that is illusory, capable only of deceit, and able to perceive only decadent bodies like their own. But the Word wills to be set upon a lampstand, the Church, where rational worship is offered in the Spirit, that it may enlighten all men. For the letter, when it is not spiritually understood, bears a carnal sense only, which restricts its expression and does not allow the real force of what is written to reach the hearer’s mind (from an inquiry addressed to Thalassius by Saint Maximus the Confessor, abbot (Quaest. 63: PG 90, 667-670)).

Let’s look at this teaching in three sections.

1. The Problem of the Flesh – St. Maximus explains well the deadening effects of the flesh in coming to grasp the beauty and sublimity of God’s Word, of His vision for our lives. He therefore speaks of those living in the flesh as indulging a sensuality that is illusory, capable only of deceit, and able to perceive only decadent bodies like their own.

We who live in the increasingly decadent and self-indulgent West need to be sober about these words, first of all for our very selves. All day long we are bombarded with temptations to sensuality, self-indulgence, and almost complete preoccupation with the flesh.

We must stay on our guard against the indulgence of the flesh that is so easily available today, lest we soon discover that our intellect is clouded and we find the clear light of God’s vision too strong or “harsh.” In excessive self-indulgence, any call to self-denial seems arduous, even repugnant. In excessive sensuality, any appeal to spiritual matters seems strange, foreign, even threatening.

This is what the Church is largely facing today in trying to preach to an increasingly decadent, excessively sensual world. While these proclivities can be ascribed to the fallen human condition, the tendency to indulge the flesh has never been greater. Almost endless and often instant self-gratifications and diversions are available to us. There are a wealth of comforts today that kings and queens of old never dreamed of.

Along with the onset of this extreme sensuality has come the darkening of the intellect such that some of us, who by God’s grace alone have been spared some of the worst trends of modern culture, often ask with dismay, “How can people get this confused?”

St. Maximus supplies the general answer: [They have indulged] a sensuality that is illusory, capable only of deceit, and able to perceive only decadent bodies like their own. In other words, the flesh cannot perceive the things of the spirit. He adds, For the letter [of the Law], when it is not spiritually understood, bears a carnal sense only, which restricts its expression and does not allow the real force of what is written to reach the hearer’s mind.

And thus the plainest and most beautiful utterances of God’s moral and spiritual vision have little effect on many moderns, who see God’s glorious call to human freedom from slavery to passions as intrusive, limiting, intolerant, and even hateful. No matter how deep the darkness of indulgent flesh gets, it seems that the proposed answer is always to further indulge the flesh. And herein is manifested the darkening of the intellect and human spirit brought about by the indulgence of the flesh. Paradoxically, indulging the physical senses leads us to have senseless minds.

2. The Passion of the Lord – In the face of this cancerous situation, what does the Lord want? St. Maximus says here, This Word is most unwilling to be kept under a bushel; it wills to be set in a high place, upon the sublime beauty of the Church.

And therefore God continues to speak forth His Word. He continues to let the light of His truth shine forth. He has a passion to call His wayward children home. Too easily we act like the foolish prodigal son, who wandered off. Yet his father never stopped looking for him. And when the foolish prodigal son took one step back, his father took two steps toward him and started running.

For just as once the Eternal Father uttered the Word of His Son, and through this one Word all creation came forth, thus this Logos (Word) imbued all creation with the logike (logic) or impression of His will and glory.

Sadly, in our fallen condition, many indulging the fallen flesh no longer love or appreciate the logike, the Logos, or the Father who utters the Logos.

Yet still the Father speaks the Word, the Logos. He has an endless passion to summon all His fallen children back to the glory of His Word. And His Word, Jesus, has a passion too. The Word must still go forth.

3. The Purpose of the Church – But how can the Word go forth? St. Maximus tells us how: This Word is most unwilling to be kept under a bushel; it wills to be set in a high place, upon the sublime beauty of the Church … the Word wills to be set upon a lampstand, the Church, where rational worship is offered in the Spirit, that it may enlighten all men.

As the Church, our role is to be the lampstand on which God sets His Word in order to enlighten all. And, as Maximus says, through our “rational worship” (a spiritual worship rooted in truth) we are to enlighten all.

Our mission is not to reflect worldly “lights,” but to set forth the LIGHT of the world, Jesus. We are to speak His Word, not parrot the passing words or “lights” of this world.

The Church must continue to set out the lamp of God’s Word, Jesus. And while light may bring different things to light, the Light itself never changes. And though translated into a thousand different languages, the Word Himself does not change or mutate.

Note, too, Maximus’ reference to liturgy, wherein we are formed by God unto “rational worship.” The sacred liturgy both forms and conforms us to the truth of God and the truth about ourselves. We become the Word we hear proclaimed, and the Word made Flesh, whom we receive. The Church must ever undertake her sacred liturgy with joy, reverence, and profound attentiveness. An old saying goes, “Save the Liturgy, save the World.”

Yes, the Church is but the lampstand on which God sets His Light. It is God’s Light and it must shine. We can do no other. She is the pulpit from which He proclaims His Word.

St. Paul adds, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God (2 Cor 4:2).

Yes, we can do no other. The world has lately indulged the blindness of the flesh, but the Father has not stopped uttering His Word and setting forth the light of His truth. On account of this we can do no other. We are His instrument; we are His lampstand.

September 16, 2015

On Being the Adult in the Room

In the Letter to the Ephesians, St, Paul has this to say:

And [Christ] gave some as Apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers, to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, for building up the Body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood to the extent of the full stature of Christ, so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming. Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ (Eph 4:11-15).

Coming to maturity is a basic task in the Christian walk. We are expected grow and come to an adult faith. The Letter to the Hebrews has something very similar to say:

You are slow to learn. In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil (Heb 5:11-14).

However, we live in times and in a culture in which maturity is often significantly delayed. In fact there are many in our culture who never grow up. I have argued elsewhere that one of the defining characteristics of our culture is its fixation on the teenage years. In psychological terms, a person with a fixation is one who has not successfully navigated one of the stages of childhood and thus remains stuck to some degree in the thinking and patterns of that stage. Our culture’s fixation on teenage issues and attitudes is manifest in some of the following:

Irrational aversion to authority
Refusal to use legitimately use the authority one has
Titillation and irresponsibility regarding sexuality
General irresponsibility and a lack of personal accountability
Demanding all of one’s rights while avoiding most of one’s responsibilities
Blaming others for one’s own personal failings
Being dominated by one’s emotions and carried away easily by the passions
Obsession with fairness, evidenced by the frequent cry, “It’s not fair!”
Expecting others (including government agencies) to do for me what I should do for myself
Aversion to instruction
Irrational rejection of the wisdom of elders and tradition
Obsession with being and looking young, aversion to becoming or appearing old
Lack of respect for elders
Obsession with having thin, young-looking bodies
Glorification of irresponsible teenage idols
Inordinate delay of marriage and widespread preference for the single life

Now it is true that some of the items in the list above have proper adult versions. For example, the “obsession with fairness” can mature and become a commitment to work for justice; aversion to authority can mature to a healthy and respectful insistence that those in authority be accountable to those whom they serve. You may take issue with one of more of the above and may wish to add some distinctions. It is also true that not every teenager has all of the issues listed above. All that is fine, but the point here is that the culture in which we live seems stuck on a lot of teenage attitudes and maturity is significantly delayed on account of it.

Some may also allege a kind of arrogance in my description of our culture as “teenage.” I accept that it is a less-than-flattering portrait of our culture and welcome your discussion of it. But if you reject my categorization then how would you describe our culture? Do you think that we live in a healthy and mature culture?

The call to maturity and the role of the Church – In the midst of all this is God’s expectation (through His Scriptures) that we grow up, that we come to maturity, to the fullness of adult faith. Further, the Church is expected, as an essential part of her ministry, to bring this about in us through God’s grace. Notice that the Ephesians text says that Christ has given Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, to equip the holy ones unto this. The Church is thus expected to be “the adult in the room.” She is to summon us to live responsible, mature lives. She summons us to be accountable before others, to be sober, serious, and deeply respectful of God’s authority over us by living lives that are obedient to the faith. She teaches us, by God’s grace, to master our emotions and gain authority over our passions. She holds forth for us the wisdom of tradition and the teachings of the Scriptures, insisting on reverence for these. She insists on correct doctrine and (as the text from Ephesians says) that we no longer be infants, tossed by the waves of the latest fads and stinking thinking, and that we not be swept along by every wind of false teaching arising from human illusions. We are to be stable and mature in our faith and judge the world by it.

Yes, the Church has the rather unpleasant, but necessary, task of being the adult in the room when the world is mired in things teenage, often exhibiting aversion to authority and rules, and crying out that orthodox teaching is “unfair” or “old-fashioned.”

But here we encounter something of an internal problem. The Church has faced the grave temptation to “put on jeans” and adopt the teenage fixations. Sadly, not all leaders in the Church have taken seriously their obligation to “equip the holy ones for the work of ministry … until we all attain to the unity of faith and … to mature manhood and the … full stature of Christ.” Preferring popularity to the negative cries that our teachings are “unfair,” many teachers and pastors have succumbed to the temptation to water down the faith and to tolerate grave immaturity on the part of fellow Catholics. Although it would seem that things are improving, we have a long way to go in terms of vigorously reasserting the call to maturity within the Church. Corruptio optimi pessima (the corruption of the best is the worst). Clergy and other Church leaders, catechists, and teachers must insist on their own personal maturity and hold one other accountable in attaining it. We must fulfill our role of equipping the faithful unto mature faith by first journeying to an adult faith ourselves.

The Church is not composed only of clergy and religious. Lay people must also take up their proper role as mature, adult Christians, active in renewing the temporal order. Many already have done this magnificently. But more must follow and be formed in this way. Our culture is in dire need of well-formed Christians to restore greater maturity, sobriety, and responsibility to our culture.

By God’s grace, we are called to be the adult in the room.

I realize that this post may cause controversy. But remember, this is a discussion. I am not pontificating (even though my name is Pope). I am expressing my opinion and trying to initiate a discussion based on a text from Scripture. What do you think?

Here’s a video (from a more mature time) on one aspect of maturity: proper self-reliance. It’s a little corny, but it does model something that is often lacking in families and in youth formation today. We should not usually do for others what they can and should do for themselves. Learning consequences as well as the value and need for hard work is part of maturing. And while there is an appropriate reliance to have on others and a complete reliance to have in God, there is also a proper self-reliance in coming to maturity.

September 15, 2015September 15, 2015

The Challenges Are Many but the Charge Remains the Same: Be Authentically Catholic – A Reflection on a Pastoral Letter of Donald Cardinal Wuerl

Recently Cardinal Donald Wuerl wrote a pastoral letter to the Archdiocese of Washington setting forth the need to be clear on our Catholic identity. It is entitled Catholic Identity in an Age of Challenge.

His essential message is that in an age of conflict and challenge we must be clearly and comfortably Catholic. In the introduction, he states that he does not refer to a merely superficial identity, but rather to an identity that is essential, enduring, and true. We must talk about the identity we receive in Baptism. It cannot be taken away from us.

For indeed there are many who would pressure us to be less than fully Catholic, or bid us to seek our identity in other sources. We cannot do so if we are to remain faithful to the call we have received.

In the context of the pastoral letter, Cardinal Wuerl concisely describes a number of cultural factors today that make our task of living, witnessing, and re-proposing the Gospel more difficult. Naming these factors and coming to know their shape and “moves” helps us to be clear, sober, and strategic as we live in and speak to an increasingly secular world.

In what follows, I list the Cardinal’s descriptions of these challenging factors, though not necessarily in the same order that he presents them (he interweaves the factors creatively with other themes). The summary statements (in bold, black text) are largely mine. The italicized texts are direct quotes from the Cardinal’s pastoral letter. The numbers referenced are the page and paragraph within the document. Because the Cardinal’s purpose was not to fully develop these challenges (but more to list them), I have included a few of my own contextual remarks in plain, red text.

I would encourage you to read the full document, which is available by clicking on the title in the first paragraph above.

Let’s consider the cultural challenges that Cardinal Wuerl lists:

I. Freedom is understood as absolute autonomy

Human freedom—or as sometimes framed in contemporary discourse, “freedom of choice”—when fully and rightly understood, does not mean absolute autonomy to do whatever you want to do. We encounter limits to freedom, some of which are natural and proper, and some of which are wrong. It is in truth, Jesus said, that we are set free (John 8:32). If we do not know or recognize what is true and what is false, then we cannot make an informed and intelligent choice, that is, a free choice. “Truth and freedom either go together hand in hand or together they perish in misery” (Fides et ratio, 90). If we live a lie, we are not free. Thus, we are free not to do whatever we want to do, but what we ought to do, that is, to do what is true to who we are as God made us to be. Freedom is not exercised in a vacuum. We coexist with others, and so freedom is necessarily a shared freedom. Invariably there will be conflicts of interest and belief (17.4-17.6). Autonomy convinces us that fidelity to faith only restricts us (22.1).

II. Disagreement is equated with discrimination

Disagreement simply cannot be denounced as discrimination. Some commentators see this situation as a uniquely American way to live both freedom and diversity. It rests upon the understanding that diversity is real and disagreement is not discrimination. Such freedom cannot be negated by a newly created definition of discrimination (18.1; 23.2-23.3). Clearly this is a huge problem today. Many expect and even demand approval for behaviors and lifestyles, taking any disagreement with them personally. It is a kind of identity politics wherein some draw their entire identity from a narrow range of behaviors (often related to sexuality). Having done this, they take disagreement very personally, taking offense where none was intended. They then go further to equate disagreement with unjust discrimination that might even demand legal punishment.

III. Secularism

Indifference, de-Christianization, and atheism are found in their most widespread form in secularism. Two generations of secularization have fashioned this time when some do not even know the foundational prayers, or understand the most basic of Catholic devotions. Still others do not sense a value in Mass attendance, fail to avail themselves of the Sacrament of Penance, and have often lost a sense of mystery (21.2).

IV. Materialism

The Cardinal lists this but does not develop it. Basically, materialism is inordinate concern with that which is physical and material, while that which is spiritual is labeled unreal or even non-existent. It is also related to scientism (the notion that the physical sciences alone are able to account for every reality) (cf. 21.2).

V. Individualism

Individualism demands that we rely on no one but ourselves and our personal needs always take first place (21.2). Individualism is also at the root of relativism, wherein many claim the right to define the world merely as they see it. This view posits that what I think or feel is a sufficient basis for my argument to hold true (at least for me).

VI. Consumerism

Consumerism suggests that our worth is found in the things we accumulate (21.4).

VII. “Sloganism”

Our society prefers to listen in sound bites, rather than in semesters. Slogans replace thoughtful explanations (20.3).

VIII. Indifferentism

Here, too, the Cardinal lists this but does develop it. Indifferentism is a kind of false egalitarianism, which sees one thing as no better than another. It is a notion by which one either refuses to distinguish that which is best from that which is merely good, or even equates that which is bad with that which is good. But if everything is true then nothing is true; if everything is good then nothing is ultimately good (cf 22.1).

IX. Skepticism (Scientism)

Skepticism pressures us to trust only what we can observe and measure, and purports to destroy the classical and time-tested relationship between faith and reason and threatens to reject the basic right to religious liberty and freedom of conscience (21.4).

X. The Sexual Revolution

Sexuality recast as casual and recreational—the attempt to recast human sexuality as casual and entirely recreational has led to an untold weakening of and continued assault on marriage and family life (21.4).

XI. Activism

The popular absorption with constant activity leads us to believe that unless we are always busy and hectic we are behind schedule. In this setting it becomes commonplace to treat the human person as an object to be used and to focus almost exclusively on material gain (22.1).

XII. Entertainment and Popular Culture

The swift decline in standards of entertainment has exposed our youngest children to repeated displays of intense violence (22.1). There is also the tragic robbery of their innocence through pornography and inappropriate sexual content. Added to this are distorted notions of family life and the ridicule of authority and tradition.

XIII. Growing legal pressures to comply

Historically, people have faced many challenges to freely live their religious identity. In many parts of the world, Christians and people of other faith communities simply are not free. For example, in the Middle East, Nigeria, India and elsewhere, churches are being destroyed and Christians are murdered simply because they are Christian. Closer to home, religious freedom is also violated by laws, policies, and practices which seek to restrict us in the exercise of our Catholic ministries. Here in the United States, for example, priests, professors and others on college campuses have already been threatened with disciplinary action for expressing Catholic teaching. Other forms of infringement of religious liberty include government or social demands that we act contrary to our faith (18.3 – 19.1).

XIV. Expansive (intrusive) Government

These contemporary views of life discussed here often seek to bleach out recognition of God and marginalize the Church and limit her freedom and ability to function and live out her Gospel mandate. Added to this are the challenges of direct government interference as well as in some parts of the world, social violence, and persecution (22.2).

XV. Internal Ecclesiological Concerns

When I was a young priest in the 1960s and 1970s, there was much experimentation and confusion in the Church. Teachers and clergy were encouraged by some to communicate an experience of God’s love, but to do it without reference to the Creed, the sacraments, or Church tradition. It did not work very well. Catholics grew up with the impression that their heritage was little more than warm, vaguely positive feelings about God. Those years of experimentation left many Catholics weak, spiritually and intellectually, and unable to withstand the tsunami of secularism that came in recent decades. We lost many people because we failed to teach them about right and wrong, about the common good, about the nature of the human person. This left many no longer able to admit that we are sinners who need Jesus because many no longer know what sin is. This lived experience of people not being fully or correctly presented the truth of the faith illustrates why we are called to the New Evangelization. It also demonstrates why it is so crucial that we reassert and strengthen our Catholic identity, and that our freedom to do so be respected in society and in law (16.1-16.3).

This is a lengthy and vigorous list to be sure, but it is immensely helpful. Our task remains the same, but it is clearer and more necessary than ever before: Teach, preach, and evangelize. Be Catholic—identifiably, authentically, consistently, and comfortably Catholic.

St. Paul gives this charge:

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the Word; be prepared to do so in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound doctrine, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. But as for you: always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

Cardinal Wuerl describes our charge:

We have received something in the Church that is not ours; it is the Lord’s. As his faithful stewards, we are accountable to the Lord, not to the contrary demands of the culture. We need to remain connected to Christ and be true to the mission he has entrusted to us. “Since faith is one, it must be professed in all its purity and integrity. Precisely because all the articles of faith are interconnected, to deny one of them, even of those that seem least important, is tantamount to distorting the whole,” explains Pope Francis. “Indeed, inasmuch as the unity of faith is the unity of the Church, to subtract something from the faith is to subtract something from the veracity of communion” (16.4-16.5).

Be Catholic—wholly, entirely, and integrally. Proclaim the faith Christ has given us. Proclaim it in its entirety, charitably, but without compromise. The world may change, but our charge remains the same: Be Catholic—identifiably, authentically, and completely Catholic.

September 14, 2015

What Has Happened to True, Deep, and Lasting Friendship in our Culture? Do You Have Close Friends? Really? Who?

One of the (many) troublesome aspects of the modern age is the demise of friendship. While the terms “friend” and “friendship” might be bandied about rather easily today, they do not usually mean friendship in its deeper and original sense. Rather, we use the terms to refer to “acquaintances” rather than friends. True friendship has a depth, history, and stability. It involves some sort of commonality of life and a deeper knowledge of the other.

Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, drawing on the Thomistic tradition, has this to say about friendship:

Every true friendship, St Thomas tells us, implies three qualities: it is first of all the love of benevolence. By which a man wishes good to another as to himself … [Further] Every true friendship presupposes the love of mutual benevolence, for it is not sufficient that it exist on the part of one person only …. Lastly … friendship requires a community of life (convivere). It implies that people know each other, love each other, live together, spiritually at least, by the exchange of most secret thoughts and feelings. Friendship thus conceived tends to a very close union of thought, feeling, willing, prayer, and action (Garrigou-Lagrange, The Three Ages of the Spiritual Life, Vol II, pp. 188-189 Tan Publications).

Notice the emphasis on sharing private thoughts and feelings, as well as the close union of thoughts, feelings, actions, prayers, and wills. True friendship involves more than the knowledge of acquaintances.

A director of a clinic for the treatment of psychological matters once recounted that as he conducted entrance interviews for those beginning an inpatient treatment program, he would ask them how many friends they had. He would often receive expressive answers such as “Oh, I have lots of friends!” Their answers indicated that they did not really understand what he meant. So he would rephrase the question: “How many people do you share deeply with? How many people on this planet know almost everything about you? How many know that you’re here at this treatment program and why? Did any of them help to get you here?” Questions like these tended to generate blank stares.

Fewer and fewer people have relationships of this deeper nature. True friendships, with all the qualities described above, are increasingly rare in our culture today.

There are many reasons for this.

First, many people today are quite mobile. It is not unusual for people to move several times during their life. Fewer and fewer people grow up, live, and die in the same town. And even those who do have long roots in a certain community will tell you how dramatically it has changed over the years.
We are also very mobile in terms of our daily activity. Because of the automobile, trains, and especially planes, many no longer limit their activities to their home town or places nearby. They may commute a couple of hours each day and be involved in activities far away from their neighborhood churches, schools, doctors, and hospitals. They may not even frequent the neighborhood shopping centers. It seems there is little opportunity or need to interact with people who live close by.
And then there is the pace of life. We all seem to be in a big hurry to get somewhere else. The idea of lingering over a cup of coffee seems rare. The few times we do take our time to converse and such things, it is usually in loud bars where communication is actually quite difficult. And if perchance we are in a setting where we are in the presence of others for a lengthy period (e.g., a subway, train, or plane) most people are focused on their cell phones. We seem more interested in information about people far away, many of whom we have never even met.

None of these factors is the stuff that leads to the development of deep, lasting friendships. Most people in our lives are merely acquaintances. We know very little about most of the people we interact with, even those we encounter every day. Even family relationships are often cursory and shallow. Long dinners or extended conversations are rare as family members run off to practices, meetings, shopping, and work.

The lack of deep friendships in the true sense of the word causes many issues. True friends help form our personalities, completing what we lack. True friends rebuke sins and other troublesome quirks we can develop. True friends encourage and enrich us. Without true friends we remain incomplete. Without the necessary rebuke that friends can give, we suffer from pride and other egotistical character defects.

Scripture both commends friendship and warns against regarding mere acquaintances as friends.

Woe to the solitary man! For if he should fall, he has no one to lift him up (Ecclesiastes 4:11).
Let your acquaintances be many, but your advisers one in a thousand (Sirach 6:5-6).
A faithful friend is a sure shelter, whoever finds one has found a rare treasure. A faithful friend is something beyond price, there is no measuring his worth. A faithful friend is the elixir of life, and those who fear the Lord will find one. Whoever fears the Lord makes true friends, for as a man is, so is his friend (Sirach 6:14-17).
Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy (Prov 27:6)
A true friend loves at all times, And a brother is born for adversity (Prov 17:17).
A man of too many friends comes to ruin, But there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother (Prov 18:24).
Better is a neighbor who is near than a brother who is far away (Prov 27:10).

Therefore our friends should not necessarily be numerous. We ought to be selective in what we share with whom. But all the more reason, then, that we should have close friends with whom we share almost everything.

Do you have close friends?

Are there people who know almost everything about you?
Are there people who can rebuke you, correct you, or summon you to humility?
Are there people about whom you know almost everything and whom you can rebuke with love for their own good?
Is there anyone who looks to you for advice, and who can turn to you for necessary encouragement?
Is there anyone whom you love and esteem for his or her own sake, not merely for what you can get?
Is there anyone whom you are not anxious to impress, to whom you can speak the truth, and who will speak to you truthfully?
Is there anyone who would care enough about you to be present with you in great adversity?
Is there anyone whom you would gladly assist in his or her time of need?

If so, who? Please consider naming your true friends in your heart.

I pray that you do have true friends. But true friendship is rare in this changing, hurried, and polemic culture. Consider well the need for true friends, for deep friendships that are stable and lasting. We all need friends for the reasons stated and more.

What has happened to friendship in our culture? How do you see it?

This song is a rather good description of true friendship.

September 13, 2015September 13, 2015

The Sanctus – A Far More Remarkable Prayer than You Might Imagine. A Reflection on a Teaching of Joseph Ratzinger

What we call the Sanctus, or the Holy, Holy, Holy of the Mass is not one prayer or one acclamation, but two. And this fact presents a teachable moment for us as well as providing a defense of a practice that is often scorned by modern liturgists.

The two parts of the Sanctus are as follows:

The Sanctus – Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts. Heaven and Earth are full of your Glory.
The Benedictus – Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the Highest.

The first part comes from the Book of Isaiah:

I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” (Is 6:1b-3)

And thus this acclamation is that of the highest heavens and the highest rank of the angels, the Seraphim (“burning ones”), who stand before the throne of God in Heaven. It is their acclamation that Isaiah overheard in the vision he felt utterly unworthy to experience.

That we, mere mortals, take up this acclamation is bold indeed. We are enabled to sing it only on account of the saving ministry of Jesus, our savior. Through Jesus, and as members of His Body, we now have access to the Holy of Holies in Heaven!

Scripture says,

But when Christ appeared as high priest of the good things that have come, passing through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption (Heb 9:11-12).

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water (Heb 10:19-22).

Yes our singing of this great acclamation of the highest angels is bold, but our boldness is only in Jesus. Otherwise, how could we dare to enter the Holy of Holies in Heaven and take up the song that only angels of the highest rank sing?

At every Mass, the priest (in the Preface Dialogue) bids us, Sursum Corda (Lift up your hearts). In other words: Brethren we are now in Heaven with Christ our Head and are swept up into the heavenly Liturgy. Therefore we give thanks to the Father through Christ His Son and our Lord. And with the Cherubim, the Seraphim, and all the heavenly hosts we, with one voice, proclaim, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts … This is an acclamation of great ascent of the Lord into the Holy Place.

The second half of the Sanctus is a very different acclamation. It is far more earth-bound and comes from a completely different Scripture. It is the song of the Hebrew children, who greeted Jesus as the Messiah when he entered Jerusalem, meek and humble, riding on a donkey:

Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest heaven! (Mk 11:9-10)

How different this second half is! It is an acclamation of praise, but by men not angels. And though it resonates to the highest Heaven, it is an acclamation from the earth. It is in praise of the Lord, who has descended in the incarnation and is entering the earthly Jerusalem.

The first part of the Sanctus was of angels to the Lord who dwells in highest Heaven. The second half, the Benedictus, is of men to the Lord, who descended to these lower realms of our earth.

Thus what we call the Sanctus is a complex combination of two very different prayers, two very different scriptural acclamations, two very different contexts.

For this reason it was common in the Traditional Latin Mass (today, the Extraordinary Form of the Mass) to split the Sanctus, singing part one before the consecration and part two after it. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, speaking in 1996 at Regensburg, mentioned this practice and explained it in the following manner:

Whereas the Sanctus evolved from Isaiah 6 and was then transferred from the heavenly to the earthly Jerusalem and so became the song of the Church, the Benedictus is based on a New Testament rereading of Psalm 118:26. In the Old Testament text this verse is a blessing at the arrival of the festive procession in the Temple. On Palm Sunday it received a new meaning … When the youths of Jerusalem shout this verse to Jesus, they are greeting him as the Messiah, as the King of the last days who enters the Holy City.

[So] the Sanctus is ordered to the eternal glory of God; in contrast, the Benedictus refers to the advent of the incarnate God in our midst. For this reason the Benedictus is meaningful both as an approach to the consecration and as an acclamation to the Lord who has become present in the Eucharistic Species (Joseph Ratzinger, Collected Works, Vol XI “Theology of the Liturgy” Ignatius Press, p. 477).

And thus the Lord, who dwells in the Highest Heaven, descends at the consecration to dwell humbly among us as our food. So, in the Old Latin Mass, it was considered the appropriate time to sing, “Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.” Yes, blessed is He who has descended from the highest Heaven and is now present among us in the Eucharist upon our Altar. May the highest praises be His!

It seems such a glorious acclamation in this sense and with this background. And so it’s no wonder that the united text of the Sanctus was “paused” midway and the second half routinely sung after the consecration.

In a way it is sad that this was altogether lost in the Ordinary Form. This seemingly perfect acclamation was replaced by newly composed acclamations called “The Mystery of Faith,” which imitate the Eastern Liturgies. They are not bad in themselves, but they wholly replaced something that was beautiful and also adequate. Most liturgists insisted that the old practice of splitting the Sanctus in two was to be stopped without exception. Cardinal Ratzinger continues,

The reformers of the Liturgy, following the Byzantine rite, composed an acclamation of the people “We proclaim your death, O Lord …” But the question of other possible acclamations … has been proposed.

It is evident to me that there is no more appropriate or more profound acclamation, or one that is more rooted in tradition than precisely this one: Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.

The pedantic proscription of such a split … should be forgotten as quickly as possible (Ibid, p. 478).

Most liturgists would severely frown on eliminating one of the Mystery of Faith acclamations from the Ordinary Form of the Mass in favor of splitting the Sanctus. But as the Cardinal, now Pope Emeritus, opines, we might wish to consider it as an option. For now, the option exists only in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

Yet in the end, much is gained by reflecting on the text of the Sanctus. It is actually two texts, and shows the remarkable and beautiful tension of ascension and condescension, of transcendence and immanence, of the heavenly Jerusalem and the earthly one, of angels and men.

Two texts, two songs, one Sanctus. A remarkable moment in the Liturgy!

Here is a polyphonic and an orchestral Sanctus:

September 12, 2015

Not Your Average Messiah – A Homily for the 24th Sunday of the Year

Jesus is Messiah and Lord, but He confounds every notion we have ever had about these titles. His power reaches perfection in “weakness” and He reigns from the Cross. To the world this is utter absurdity. But today the Lord insists that we meet Him at the Cross. And thus He chooses the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; He chooses the weak things of the world to shame the strong; He chooses the lowly things of the world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are (cf 1 Cor 1:27-28). Let us journey to the Cross and meet Him there; let us endure a little of His “folly.”

Our Journey begins at Cesarea Philippi, a town “way up yonder” in pagan territory.

I. Confusion – Jesus begins by asking the disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” They said in reply, “John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others one of the prophets.”

First, we ought to note that not only are many opinions put forth, all of them are wrong.

There are many today who think it advisable for the Church to adapt and change her teachings based on what “the people” are saying or think is “right.” Yes, we should just take a poll and find out what the people want! So often we are called “out-of-date,” or “passé́” because we do not conform to current (passing) opinions.

The premise, of course, is that we live in “enlightened” times and that if only the Church would just conform to current “wisdom” her halls would be full. Any look at most of the mainline liberal Protestant denominations puts the lie to the “filled halls” notion. They, for all their conformity to modern “sensibilities,” are far emptier than any Catholic church (or those of the Evangelical denominations).

Further, the “polls” results delivered by the disciples in this gospel are all wrong—every one of them. Collecting everyone’s opinion does not produce the truth of the matter.

Thus we ought to acknowledge that there is a lot of confusion and divided opinion in the world and be careful before taking cues from the world when it comes to religious, moral, and lasting truth. Even in the physical sciences, which claim to be so objective, there is a considerable shifting of even fundamental premises over time. Further, there is much division among scientists and medical experts over many basic matters.

We do well to approach this world’s teachings and claims with considerable sobriety, realizing that even in worldly matters, let alone religious ones, the world is divided and sometimes just plain wrong.

But our question remains: Who is Jesus Christ? And how will the answer be given? Thus we proceed to the next stage on our way to the Cross.

II. Committee – Having rejected poll results as a valid determiner of truth, Jesus now tries to sample the experts. Surely even if the general populace cannot supply the answer, the experts can. Hence the question now gets put to the “blue-ribbon panel,” which is the College of the twelve Apostles: And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?”

Now we may wish to rush ahead to Peter’s answer, but first let us note that, as a body, the “blue-ribbon panel” is not able to return a verdict. What we get is silence. And this leads finally to God’s solution in returning an answer.

III. Confession – Finally the correct answer comes forth: Peter said to him in reply, “You are the Christ.” Then [Jesus] warned them not to tell anyone about him.

The manner in which God provides the correct answer to us is developed more fully in Matthew’s version, which adds, Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt 16:17-19).

Hence we are taught that God the Father anointed Peter with this knowledge and inspired him to speak it for the others. And this is the basis of our confidence that Peter and his successors, the popes, are inspired to proclaim the faith infallibly, not on account of their own learning, but on account of the grace of God. And while the pope generally works with the college of bishops, his affirmation of their deliberations is essential for formal teachings on faith or morals.

Now, as we shall see, Peter’s declaration is true and correct. Jesus is the Christ. But as we shall also see, Peter and the others still need to grow to a deeper understanding of the full implications of the true Faith. And just as Jesus will lead them to understand it, so too has he led the Church to deeper understanding of the true Faith over the centuries.

IV. Clarification – Thus Jesus draws them to deeper understanding: He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer greatly and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and rise after three days. He spoke this openly.

Now though Peter has spoken rightly, calling Jesus the Messiah, the term “Messiah” was widely misunderstood at the time of Jesus. The misunderstanding was rooted in a merely partial reading of messianic prophecy. Most Jews of the time thought of the Messiah as a powerful military figure who would usher in a bloodbath, a career of conquest against the Romans; that is how this “Messiah” would reestablish the Kingdom of David in all its glory. It was a very worldly and political view of the Messiah, one which Jesus rejected. Instead, He would more likely refer to passages such as these:

The Lord GOD opens my ear that I may hear; and I have not rebelled, have not turned back. I gave my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who plucked my beard; my face I did not shield from buffets and spitting. The Lord GOD is my help, therefore I am not disgraced; I have set my face like flint, knowing that I shall not be put to shame. He is near who upholds my right; if anyone wishes to oppose me, let us appear together. Who disputes my right? Let that man confront me. See, the Lord GOD is my help; who will prove me wrong? (Is 50:5-9)

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. (Is 53:5)

Thus Jesus clarifies what the Messiah must be: a suffering servant who dies so His people don’t have to.

But now things are going to get personal!

V. The Cross – Things get tense for a moment as we read, Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. At this he turned around and, looking at his disciples, rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” He summoned the crowd with his disciples and said to them, “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the gospel will save it.”

Thus Peter, correct just a moment ago, now needs rebuke; but Jesus is willing to work with him. He was right that Jesus was Messiah, but now he needs to understand more deeply what that really means. Thus the Lord calls him away from the world’s notions and the opinions of sinful humanity.

After this, Jesus gets personal. He now tells them that not only will he take up a cross, but so must they.

Talk about not taking an opinion poll! Nothing could rate lower on an opinion poll than the Cross! Indeed, if one were to take a poll today, there would likely be no crosses in our churches at all, only pillows and buffet tables.

But there it is, the Cross, a paradox if there ever was one. And what is the paradox? That from the Cross comes life.

Now even the world once had some notion of this. For what do we have (that we value) that does not come at some sacrifice? Be it a college degree, a career, children, a home, or a TV. All of them are the fruit of labor, of sacrifice. Yet too many today have forgotten this and want blessings without sacrifice. So we “charge it.” We spend money we don’t have in order to possess things we did not earn. Welcome to $13 trillion in U.S. household debt. And of course no one should have to “suffer” to pay down this debt. Indeed, the Cross has been set aside.

But not for Jesus and not for us. To be true Christians we must embrace the Cross. What this means is no abstraction. It means, often times, doing what is hard. It is easy to give way to temptation; it is harder to withstand it. It is easy to be greedy, it is harder to be generous. It is easy to fornicate, it is harder to be chaste. It is easier to file for divorce; it is harder to stay put and work things out. It is easier to be popular; it is harder to be a witness or a martyr. It is easier to do what is sinful and self-serving; it is harder to do what is right.

Yes indeed, the Cross is what it is—hard. But there is life that comes from it. I am a witness (and I hope you are too) that to the degree I have embraced the often-harder choice of following God’s way, I have been blessed. Indeed, the chaste avoid lust’s fires; not to mention child support, alimony payments, and sexually transmitted diseases. The generous have powerful friends in the poor, not to mention being less addicted to money and possessions. Those who fear the Lord have simpler lives than those who must ingratiate themselves to often-contradictory crowds, compromising at every moment.

In today’s gospel we have been led to a deeper understanding of Jesus Christ. And who is He? Does He hold a worldly kingdom and offer merely passing prosperity? Is He just a divine butler who “steps and fetches” to meet our needs? Or is he the Lord, whom we must obey and who tells us to meet Him at the Cross? Ask the martyrs; inquire of the saints. They will tell you of the Cross, but they will also shout of the victory.

Jesus is Lord and Messiah. But He will not fight on the world’s terms. He conquers darkness with light, hatred with love, and pride with humility. He gives life by dying and bestows joy by sacrifice. He is Messiah, but not on our terms, on His. And His “weakness” conquers the strong; His “folly” confounds the learned and clever.

No, He’s not your average Messiah.

This song says, “If you can’t stand a little disappointment … if you think you should always be up and never down, I’ve come to remind you: No Cross, no Crown.”

September 11, 2015September 11, 2015

The Story of the Samaritan Woman, as Beautifully Retold in a Movie Clip

There is a story in the Gospel of John that you surely remember: the Samaritan Woman at the Well. She was a woman with a “past.” She’d had five failed marriages, and was now just “shacked up.”

And Jesus reached out to her in that searing noonday heat. He reached out to her across the barriers of race and sex. He endured her initial anger and stayed in a conversation with her. He spoke to her of her struggle with sin; as she recounted it, “He told me everything I ever did” (John 4:2). Yet despite this she did not feel rejected.

Jesus reached her soul that day and she realized that the “well” of this world could never really satisfy her. In a glorious sign of newfound freedom from sin and detachment from the world, she “left her water jar” and ran to town to tell others of her healing. “Come and see,” she told the townsfolk.

And the procession began.

That procession of a woman leading many lost souls across a field to Christ is beautifully show in the video clip below, from the movie The Color Purple. It features a woman named “Shug” (Sugar), who has lived a sexually indulgent life and pridefully absorbed the attention of many men as well as the accolades of her fans (she was a singer). But suddenly, after another night of carousing in a backwater speakeasy, she hears the distant sound of an old hymn: “God is trying to tell you something.”

And the procession began.

Just like the Samaritan woman of old, “Shug” set out for Jesus. Her fans and lovers fell in behind her, down the path and across the field.

Of that ancient procession of Samaritans coming across the field, Jesus beautifully told His disciples,

Do you not have a saying, “Four months then the harvest”? But I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest (Jn 4:35).

You’ll see that same procession in the video below. It is set in the Deep South, but it’s the same procession. Behold, a beautiful picture of evangelization! Look at the fields; they are ripe for harvest.

September 10, 2015

Only What You Do For Christ Will Last – A Meditation on the Poverty of this World’s Riches

In fourth chapter of Mark’s Gospel we find the following saying of the Lord:

To the one who has, more will be given; from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away (Mk 4:25).

The rich get richer? To one who reads this text from a worldly perspective, it might seem that the Lord is saying, in some fatalistic sense, that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. But such an interpretation would be incorrect, because it fails to understand that the Lord Jesus is speaking of the Kingdom of God, not the kingdom of this world. Indeed, the fuller context of Mark Chapter 4 is the memorable parable of the seed (of the Word) that falls either on the path, on rocky ground, among thorns, or on good soil. Those who have more are those who hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirtyfold, sixtyfold, and a hundredfold (Mk 4:20).

Thus, the one who has more is the one who has the Kingdom of God, who has faith, who (by faith) has the Lord and the justice of the Lord, and who stands to inherit all of Heaven. He or she is the one who has more.

Note too how the “more” keeps building. To have faith is to have the Lord. To have the Lord is to have saving grace and mercy. To have saving grace and mercy is to grow in holiness and experience greater and greater healing. And to experience this transformation and share in God’s holiness is to be made ready for Heaven.

Yes, those who have the Kingdom are the ones who are rich! They may not have the fancy house, the expensive car, the six-figure salary, the big ego, or the well-coiffed hair. But they are rich in the only way that really matters or lasts: they are rich in the Kingdom.

So who are those who have not? They are the ones who have rejected the Kingdom of God, the Word of God, the grace and mercy of God. They “have not” the Kingdom. And they do not have it not because it hasn’t been offered but because they have rejected it. These are the people who are truly poor, who “have not.”

But notice that the passage says that the “have not” still does have something, for the text says, even what he has will be taken away. Now this means that he has something, but it will not be his for long. For what he has is this world and its vain, passing riches. It is his now, but like sand slipping through his fingers, it will soon be gone. It cannot last no matter how large a fortune he amasses.

Consider carefully what the Lord says here: the world’s riches cannot last. Further, they are all but nothing compared to the riches of the Kingdom of Heaven. The ones who have the Kingdom are those who have and will get more. By comparison, the ones who have this world really have nothing at all, and the little they do have will be taken from them.

Think of a billionaire with numerous homes, corporate jets, luxury yachts, even private islands. He may have amassed a fortune on this planet and own more real estate than even some governments!

But really, what he has is ultimately so little! If you were to go out into space, in fact not all that far into space, you wouldn’t even be able to see Earth. Our billionaire may have amassed a fortune, but it is only a portion of a speck of dust, for Earth is but speck of dust compared to the immensity of everything God has made.

Do you get the point? We tend to get very impressed by what is really very little in the end. And our billionaire possesses this wealth for but a fleeting moment in cosmic time. When his little moment is up, even the little he has will be taken from him.

There is only one way to be truly rich and that is to receive the gift of God and His Kingdom. Only this will last. Only in coming to possess this do we really have something that amounts to anything. Only this will grow until we are truly rich. Only those who have the Kingdom are rich in any true sense of the word. All that others have amounts to very little, and what little they have, since it is of the world, will be taken from them.

This song says, “Only what you do for Christ will last.” Here are some excerpts:

You may build great cathedrals large or small, you can build skyscrapers grand and tall, but only what you do for Christ will last

You may seek earthly power and fame, the world might be impressed by your great name, soon the glories of this life will all be past, but only what you do for Christ will last.

Remember only what you do for Christ will last.

Only what you do for Him will be counted at the end; only what you do for Christ will last.