Posts

Posted on

OK, We Won. But the Hobby Lobby Vote should have been 9 – 0. Wake up, America. Your liberty is on the line!

063014Okay, so we won today in the Supreme Court. The Hobby Lobby case went our way; score one for religious liberty.

But here’s a concern: why didn’t the Justices vote 9–0? To be even more clear, if religious liberty, a right given us by God and legally enshrined in the First Amendment, prevailed by only one vote where are we as a country? And how long will that one vote prevail? So, we can celebrate a narrow victory, but why was it narrow?

How have we reached the point in this country that those who hold a sincere religious belief contrary to the contraceptive mindset of the world, and who also sincerely oppose the killing of children through abortion, only narrowly escaped being required to both provide for and even pay for these sorts of things?

Where are all the liberals who march under the banners of tolerance? Where are the First Amendment zealots willing to stand with us? They are nowhere to be found, I suspect because it touches on abortion and contraception, which have become like sacraments for them.

I would like to think that, though I love the Scriptures and want everyone to have them, I would oppose in principle a law requiring every business to provide free bibles to all their employees or customers. I’d like to think that, if a Muslim business owner (or a pagan one for that matter) objected to being required to do this, I would stand with him in principle and oppose this requirement. Thus even if a non-Catholic doesn’t understand or agree with my principled opposition to contraception and abortifacients, is it really so much to ask that most justices (not just 5 out of 9) and most Americans agree that I ought not be required to provide and pay for these things?

Go with me to the Jewish delicatessen example of Bishop Lori some years ago as I adapt it just a bit. What if the current Administration or the Federal Government were to say to all Jewish deli owners, “It is just an outrage and downright un-American that you don’t sell pork sausage and hot dogs. Every American deli MUST provide these by law. And you must comply or face big fines”? Even though most Americans don’t understand or share the Jewish aversion to pork, I would think they would still be outraged by such an action.

Now suppose further that after the outrage the government proposed a compromise: “OK, you don’t have to provide the pork, but you must let us set up a kiosk inside your deli where we will offer it free of charge to your customers and employees, because, by gosh, whether you like it or not, you are going to offer pork in your Jewish deli!” Again, the outrageousness of such a stance would provoke great protests from most Americans regardless of how comfortable they are with eating pork themselves.

It is simply outrageous that four Supreme Court Justices, and many Americans, cannot see the clear and offensive proposition of the Government in this regard. And even if they don’t share our opposition, they ought to stand with us in principle.

But they do not. And this once again underscores the serious condition of our Nation and our Constitution. It is another example of the growing tyranny of relativism wherein reasoned recourse to agreed-upon principles is no longer possible. Thus, they win who are the most powerful, or have the most money, or have the most access. Granted, we won today, but barely, and by one vote; it could easily have gone differently.

Everyone, no matter his political or moral stance, should be very concerned about the growing intrusiveness and raw power of a government that thinks it can force people to act against their faith and to cooperate in what they think is evil. Catholic opposition to abortion and contraception is nothing new. It goes all the way back to Scripture, which condemned the use of “pharmakeia” (e.g., Gal 5:20, Rev 9:21, and 18:23). The Didache and countless documents of the Fathers and the Magisterium have always upheld these views. We have not changed, the culture has. To compel us to provide and even pay for what we consider evil is wrong and un-American. It is shocking that so few Americans understand or appreciate this.

But wake up, fellow Americans. You may even find it amusing for the Catholic Church or conservative Christians to be attacked. But if this can happen to us, it can happen to you. Think twice, and then think a third time too. You have every reason to stand with us, and only bigotry and the desires of the flesh to oppose us. Make no mistake; you will be next. The Government will not cease its encroachment on basic liberties at the exit door of the Catholic Church. The steamroller is heading for you next. Stand with us.

We won today, but barely. It should have been 9–0. Wake up, America; your religious and other liberties are hanging by the thread of one vote.

Posted on

Baptize but Be Discreet: On the Catholic Baptism of children presented by homosexual and other irregular parents

062914There has been some interesting coverage in the news recently regarding the Church’s stance on baptizing children conceived or reared in irregular situations.

In recent decades there has been an explosion in the number of children conceived and born outside of Holy Matrimony. The general approach of the Church has been to baptize these children as long as there is no evidence of an ongoing rejection of the Church teaching that sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage. While people may have fallen in weakness, the presumption was that they at least accepted the norm and were going to try to live by it.

If the “couple” in question were living together outside of marriage, the baptism was handled discreetly and the couple was counseled to cease fornication.

It is not certain that every pastor admonished couples as he should but this was (and is) the general policy.

Enter the new and ever more frequent problem of same sex “couples” presenting a child for baptism, and now the stakes get higher. Why? Because of the visibility of the sin involved. At the baptism ceremony, one can at least presume that a single mother has repented of fornication. But it is hard to presume that a homosexual “couple” living together openly, in a culture that has suddenly decided to “celebrate” their “lifestyle,” is making a similar admission of the wrongness of their past behavior. It is also difficult to presume that many who attend the baptism have clarity on the aberrance of homosexual acts.

Thus the Church finds herself in a deeper quandary regarding how to baptize children being brought up in irregular situations that are far more public, situations that bespeak acceptance and even celebration of something the Church must oppose.

Discretion is the operative word. We still have every reason try to baptize children in these irregular situations; after all, it is not the fault of the child. However we must balance the common good of avoiding scandal with the individual good of each child by seeking to handle these baptisms discreetly, giving no opportunity for public confusion regarding what we must reasonably and biblically oppose (same-sex unions).

Here are some excerpts from an article that was in the Washington Post this past Saturday along with my comments in plain red text. (The full text of the article is here: New Battleground?.)

… Catholic leaders have carefully, if quietly, avoided doing anything to block gay couples from having their children baptized … And this is for the good of the child, who is not guilty of the sins of parents, guardians, or caretakers. It is not to be seen as an affirmation of the sins of the adults involved, whether this be due to homosexual acts, fornication, or adultery.

The default position for most bishops … is that if the parents pledge to raise the child Catholic, then no girl or boy should be refused baptism.

They generally let parish priests make the final call and let them administer the sacrament, though it is usually done in a private ceremony with the biological parent—not the adoptive mother or father—listed on the baptismal certificate.

The honest truth is that most priests have been so inundated by single mothers that we no longer handle the baptism of such children discreetly (as was done decades ago), but have held such baptisms publicly, and often alongside the baptisms of properly married parents. This must likely be reexamined. We have fallen prey to the normalization of fornication in our culture. And while not every priest has done so, it must be admitted that we have not properly distinguished between what ought to be discreet (because of the behavior of the parents) and what can be publicly celebrated. However, one was still able to presume the possibility that the parents had repented of fornication and were now living properly. This is often not the case with so called homosexual “couples” who often (but not always) wish to live in very public opposition to Church teaching.

[But a] new debate was prompted by the emergence of a memo—first reported by the Wisconsin State Journal—that was sent in early May to priests of the Madison Diocese by the top aide to Bishop Robert Morlino. In the memo, the vicar general of the diocese, Monsignor James Bartylla, says there are “a plethora of difficulties, challenges, and considerations associated with these unnatural unions (including scandal) linked with the baptism of a child, and such considerations touch upon theology, canon law, pastoral approach, liturgical adaptation, and sacramental recording.”

Yes, they are unnatural unions and present a host of difficulties to us. Even in the “single mother” scenarios that have recently troubled us, comes the listing of a “father” who is often absent or sometimes even unknown. I have often had to struggle with a woman who either did not want to disclose the father or did not even know who the father was.  There is always the option of writing Pater ignotus (father unknown) in the baptismal register, but it is generally desirable to indicate the biological father if he can be known. But at least the mother was known. Members of so called “gay” couples do not fit on either line. Which do we list? Who is the father? Who is the mother? It’s a mess. Further, the rites call for a blessing for mother and father. What do we do? What do we say? Its a mess, a big mess. 

Bartylla says that pastors must now coordinate any decision on baptizing the children of gay couples with his office and that “each case must be evaluated individually.” And this makes sense. When you’ve got a mess, and this is a real mess, it makes sense to adopt a uniform policy. If there are 100+ parishes in a diocese, there should not be 100+ policies in a matter as serious as this. The Bishop, who is chief legislator and liturgist, ought to set the norms.

A spokesman for the Madison Diocese, Brent King, said … “We want everyone to receive this most important sacrament, and we are dealing with this sensitive matter prudently, for the child’s sake and the integrity of this most sacred sacrament,” wrote King. Yes, we want to baptize every child we can. This mess is not their fault. But we have to do so in ways that protect  the common good by avoid scandal and confusion.

Officials at the USCCB said these decisions are left to local church leaders, and indicated there are no plans to formulate a national directive beyond the guidance offered in a 2006 statement on ministering to gay people. That document says that baptizing the children of gay parents is “a serious pastoral concern” but that the church should not refuse them access to the sacrament. OK, good, but I suspect that some national norms are going to be needed as well.

Since the bishops passed that document, however, an ongoing wave of victories for same-sex marriage advocates has continued to push the issue into the public arena. As more gay Catholics can marry, and can be open about their relationship, more gay couples may be presenting their children for baptism.

Exactly. What was once an abstract, even theoretical problem is now becoming more widespread. Further, the homosexual extremists are looking to embarrass us, to set us up. We need to consider carefully a way forward that respects our traditions, but does not give any credence to their unnatural unions.

“The question with gay couples is whether their opposition to the church’s teaching on marriage means that they do not in fact intend to raise the child in the faith,” said Rita Ferrone, the author of several books about liturgy and a consultant to U.S. dioceses on liturgical matters. “Gay parents may or may not be ideologically opposed to church teaching, but chances are they do not merely disobey but also reject the various norms they have transgressed,” Ferrone said.

Sadly, these days the presumption is that many people, even beyond the “gay” community itself, not only approve of but even brazenly celebrate what God calls sin and abomination. Thus our presumption of good will is difficult to maintain.  Our operative presumption must become that we are being set up and pressured to approve what God does not approve. 

DeBernardo said the problem with a policy that focuses specifically on gay parents is that it “stigmatizes lesbian and gay couples as being more suspect than any other parents.” Sadly, though, many if not most gay parents want to live their sin publicly. It is not fair to ask us to be silent; we cannot do so.

“It is very likely that no parents that present a child for baptism are perfectly following all church rules,” he said. “Why single out only lesbian and gay parents for further scrutiny?” OK, but again the operative point is the public nature of the sin and the scandal given by its public nature. Some sins are just more obvious and public than others.

Countering any trend to curb baptisms, however, is the long-standing presumption, in church teaching and among even conservative church leaders, that no child should be denied baptism.

And herein lies the delicate balance: the good of the child vs. the common good to avoid scandal. The key going forward is discretion. More baptisms than in the past are going to need to be celebrated privately, in the presence only of the immediate family (i.e., parents or guardians and godparents). This will need to include fornicators and other irregular parents. We have become too lax and must now apply a norm consistently that has been poorly applied in the past.

And thus the bottom line seems clear: baptize these children, but do so discreetly. Further, we ought to regain more discretion as to how we baptize children in other irregular situations. The common good and the individual good of the children can and should be balanced, but they are not mutually exclusive.

Posted on

Five Facts of Faith from the Life of St. Peter – A Homily for the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul

062814Today’s Feast of Saints Peter and Paul honors two fundamental pillars of the early Church. While all the Apostles form the foundation, Peter and Paul stand out very profoundly in terms of influence and work. And while some have wished to suggest division between them, the Church insists that they must been seen together; hence their feast is set forth in this way.

Indeed, those who see division between them base it on only one text from Galatians (2:11) wherein St. Paul withstood Peter so as to correct him. Peter had taught rightly concerning the inclusion of the Gentiles but, at least according to St. Paul’s report, he struggled to associate with them more freely and was fearful of the Judaizers. Yes, even popes are not beyond reproach. We argue that popes are prevented from formally teaching error in faith or morals (Peter did not teach erroneously), not that they are sinless.

Nevertheless, the same Paul had gone to visit St. Peter in order to get to know him  (Gal 1:18) and later submitted his teachings to Peter and others in Jerusalem for scrutiny  (Gal 2:1-10). And at the Council of Jerusalem, Paul and Peter were allies (Acts 15).

Thus we ought not exaggerate differences beyond the evidence. The Church today bids us to celebrate them together.

Many different approaches to the reading could be taken today. But since the chief work of the Church and the Apostles is to draw us to faith, it behooves us to look in detail at the first reading from today’s Mass and see in it a kind of roadmap to growing in faith. Peter’s story and experience were not just for him; they were for us as well. Let’s see what we can learn as we focus on five facts of faith from the story of St. Peter in today’s first reading.

I. The Persecution of Faith – Persecution is the normal state of affairs for a Christian. Not every Christian suffers equally at every stage and place in history, but Jesus spoke often about the need to be willing to endure persecution for His sake. He said, A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also (Jn 15:20). He added, If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you (Jn 15:19). He said elsewhere, In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world (Jn 16:33). He also warns, Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets (Lk 6:26).

And therefore, persecution should be expected. If it is wholly absent, we may have some soul-searching to do as to whether we are witnessing to the Faith authentically.

And so, in this passage, we should not be surprised to see how the early Church was persecuted. In this Gospel is described the persecution, driven by Herod, that breaks out in Jerusalem. In this persecution, James, (of “Peter, James, and John” fame) is killed! Peter is also rounded up and slated for death. Sitting in prison, he awaits his fate.

Note the strange excessiveness of the persecution. Peter is secured with double chains and is forced to sleep between two soldiers. And outside there are even more guards keeping watch. Wowza! Here’s a persecution that is strangely excessive and obviously rooted in no small degree of fear!

And yet as we look at persecution today, we notice something similar. There seems to be a very special hatred for Christians, especially Catholics. Note for example that in the public school system it is permissible to speak about almost anything: how to use condoms, homosexuality, and even certain religions such as Islam. But if the name of Jesus is even mentioned, or Scripture is even obliquely referenced, lawsuits are threatened and television cameras appear! What is this strange fear and hatred for Christ? Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Zoroastrians, and even Methodists and Episcopalians do not face similar hostility!

While this animosity is somewhat mysterious, it does speak to us of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and particularly of the Church He founded: the Catholic Church. Satan surely inspires special hatred for Jesus and His Church. So in a certain sense, we can take it as a sign of credibility—even as a compliment. Perhaps too, it is the fact that deep down, they know that what Jesus and His Church teaches is right.

The prince of this world hates Jesus, and has always inspired his followers to do so as well, whether consciously or unconsciously. Yes, persecution is a natural, expected ordeal for a Christian.

II. The Prayer of Faith – In the midst of this, we note that the Church is described as praying fervently to God. The Greek word translated here as fervent is ἐκτενῶς (ektenos),  which means “fully stretched.” It is the image of a taught rope that is invoked. Here is prayer that is stretched out, that is costly, that involves more than a brief moment or two. Here is praying that is persevering. This sort of prayer involves more than an honorable mention in the Prayers of the Faithful at Mass. Here is the sort of prayer that involves long hours. Time is invested; effort is expended; energy is invested. It is the sort of prayer that nags God until the solution is at hand.

There is an expression in the African-American community, “by and by.” It refers to the need to be patient and persevering in prayer while waiting for God to answer “by and by.” In other words, God will answer in His own time. It is for us to keep praying. And here is prayer without ceasing; it does not give way to discouragement, but just keeps on praying.

III. The Prescription of Faith –  In the midst of this fervent prayer of the Church, a hidden process begins. An angel is dispatched from Heaven, enters the jail, and comes to Peter. His instructions to Peter amount to a kind a prescription for a life of faith, and we note it in four stages:

A. Rise! – The angel says, “Get up”. Here is a call to rise from death, to rise from despairing and doubt, to stand up! Every Christian must die to sin and rise to new life, must die to slavery and despair and rise as a free and active agent, ready to walk with God.

B. Restrain – The angel then tells him to put on his belt (or cincture).  The belt (cincture) is traditionally a sign of chastity and of continence (restraint). The Christian life cannot be riddled with unchasteness or with other excesses of this world such as greed, gluttony, and other forms of intemperance. These hinder the journey; they weigh us down. And thus the instruction to tighten our belt.

C. Ready – Peter is also told to put on his sandals. Here is a symbol of readiness to make a journey. When I was a child, my mother would often signal me by saying, “Put on your shoes and get ready to go.”  And thus Christians must be ready to make the journey with their feet shod with the gospel of peace, with their shoes on and ready to set out on the great pilgrimage with Jesus to Heaven. The pilgrimage goes up over the hill of Calvary and over into glory. Put your shoes on and get ready to go!

D. Righteous – Peter is then told to put on his cloak. The robe in Scripture is often equated with righteousness. For example the book of Revelation says it was given to the bride to be clothed in fine linen. The text goes on to say that the linen robe is the righteousness of the Saints (Rev 19:8). There is also the parable of the wedding guests, one of whom was not properly clothed, and was therefore thrown out (Mat 22:11). At a Baptism, the priest points to the white garment worn by the infant and tells everyone to see in this white garment the outward sign of his or her Christian dignity, and that the child is to bring this garment unstained to the great judgment seat of Christ. Thus the instruction of the angel reminds us that every Christian is to be clothed in righteousness, and is to be careful to keep this robe, given by God, unsoiled by the things of this world.

D. Run ! – Finally, there is the command of the angel to “Follow me.” In other words, run the race of faith. Toward the end of his life, St. Paul would say, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith” (2 Tim 4:7).  Jesus told his disciples, simply, “Follow me.”

IV. The Procession of Faith- Following this there comes a series of instructions from the angel to Peter (and also to us). These instructions amount to a type of direction to make the procession of faith. We see three things:

A. Not easy – The text says that they passed the first guard, then a second, and finally came to an iron gate. And thus in our journey, there are obstacles and dangers. We must recall that we live in paradise lost. Life is not easy; it is hard. There are hurdles and perils. We are not called to avoid them, we are called the face them with courage. God allows these in our life in order to test us, to see if we will follow Peter’s example and move past the one guard, then the second, and then the apparently locked gate (which God opens for us). Life is not easy, but God’s grace conquers the challenge, if we only trust Him.

B. Narrow – The text here describes a narrow alley through which Peter and the angel pass. Jesus spoke of the way that leads to salvation as a narrow way (e.g., Mat 7:14). Why is this so? Because the narrow way is the cross! Most are not interested in this difficult path, the path that is steep and narrow. Most look for the broad highway through the valley, the easy way. The world still insists that we live in paradise (which Adam rejected) and that life should be easy. It is a lie; the path now is over the hill of Calvary. It is a narrow and steep path,  but it is the only true way to glory. Avoid preachers who never mention sin, who never speak of repentance, who never speak of struggles and difficulties. Avoid them;  for the tuning fork, the A440 of the Gospel is the cross. There are glories and joys in this life to be sure, but the fundamental path to Heaven and glory is through the cross. It cannot be avoided. Walk the narrow way, the way of the cross. Do not listen to the “prosperity preachers” who exaggerate one truth, excluding all others.

C. Need an angel – As soon as Peter emerges from the prison and out into the openness of freedom, the angel disappears. But until this point, he needed an angel! And so do we. Though demons are roaming and patrolling this earth, so are God’s Angels. We all have an angel assigned to us, and many other angels along the way to help us. Never forget this. We do not journey alone. For every demon, there are two angels (Rev 9:15). Stop fearing demons and call on God’s angels, trusting in God’s grace.

V. The Product of Faith –  There comes finally the product of faith wherein Peter is able to confidently assert, Now I know without a doubt that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me (Acts 12:11). Do you know this? Or is it only true because others have said so? Do you experience God’s saving glory? Have you experienced him rescue you? How? Do you have a testimony? The normal Christian life is to know and experience that our God can and does rescue us from this hell-bound, sin-soaked world. We have a God who can make a way out of no way, and can, as St. Paul says, Rescue us from this present evil age (Gal 1:4). Do you know this? Have you experienced this? Then tell someone! It is the product of faith!

Posted on

Thirst as an image for prayer, as seen on TV

062714Scripture often uses thirst as an image for prayer and desire for God. And thus we read passages such as these:

Oh, God you are my God, for you I long; for you my soul is thirsting … My body pines for you like a dry weary land without water ... (Psalm 63:1-2).

Like the deer that longs for running streams, so my soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When can I go and meet with God? (Psalm 42:2)

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled (Mat 5:6).

On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them” (Jn 7:37-38).

Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water” (Jn 4:10).

And there are many others besides those.

Thus thirst is a symbol for prayer and longing. And so when I see the commercial below, I know that although the guy says “Stay thirsty, my friend!” to make me want to buy beer, what he REALLY means to say is, “Get in touch with your longing for God and pray often, my friend!”

And so I say to you: “Stay thirsty, my friend!”

Posted on

From Simply Sentimental to Strong and Sure – A Consideration of Devotion to the Sacred Heart

062614I must say that in the past I was not always as on board as I should have been when it came to the Feast of the Sacred Heart. As a man, I have struggled especially with some of the Sacred Heart images of past years, especially from the 1940s into the 1970s that, frankly, made Jesus look like a bearded lady. Deep red lips, baby soft skin, “come-hither” look, “feminine” head tilt, long slender fingers, and strangely bent wrists all seemed too feminine for me.  See for example the image here:  Sacred Heart. Frankly, the feminized portrayal of Jesus made me cringe. “Maybe this works for some,” I thought, “but not for me.” Women are beautiful, but men shouldn’t look like women.

Then too, the whole notion of the heart has become rather distorted. The heart is thought of by most as the domain of sentimental feelings and romance. Stronger biblical notions of the heart were lost in favor of these sentimental and romantic ones.  So there was Jesus, pointing to His heart to indicate His love, but I experienced it through the current notion of sentimentality and romance. While the true teaching on the Sacred Heart was much richer and more proper, the version that reached me was distorted and had little appeal.

In recent years, I have tried to recover a more proper notion of the Feast of the Sacred Heart. I have done this by coming to understand the heart in a more biblical way. I have also done this by learning to understand the heart of Christ in a stronger way that is more helpful for me.

Recovering a more biblical understanding of the heart – In celebrating the heart of the Lord Jesus, we ought to see it in a more biblical way. In the biblical world, the heart did not exclude feelings, but feelings were thought of as more located in the gut. Things such as tenderness, mercy, love, and emotions were spoken of in terms more visceral than we are comfortable with today. Most of our modern translations do not render the Hebrew and Greek references, which speak of the “bowels of mercy”  in God or in the human person, literally.  Most modern translations render the Hebrew “bowels of mercy” as “tender mercy” and expressions such as “my bowels are moved within me” as “my heart is moved within me.” We just don’t talk about bowels today in polite company!

I say this to indicate that for the biblical writers, feelings, sentiment, and mercy were not usually located in the heart but elsewhere. You can see this if you get a rather literal rendering of the Hebrew and Greek such as the Douay Rheims or Young’s Literal Translation and refer to passages such as these: Gen 43:30; 1 Kings 3:26; Song 5:4; Is 63:15; Jer 31:20; Lam 2:11; 2 Cr 6:12; Phil 1:8; Phil 2:1; Col 3:12. While feelings such as anxiety, fear, romance, and tenderness were pondered in the heart, their real “place” was shifted down one level to the “gut” or viscera. We do have some vestiges of these ancient notions in expressions like “gut reaction” or “butterflies in my stomach.”

So what then IS the biblical notion of the heart? While not wholly excluding feelings, the “heart” in the Scriptures is the deepest part of us; it is where we “live.” It is where we deliberate, where our memories and thoughts are. It is where we process feelings and events. It is where we ponder what to do and then decide. It is where we reflect and consider the direction of our life and most deeply understand who we are and how we are related to God and others. It is the place of our decisions and where we set priorities. In short, it is the place where “I am” in the deepest sense. Most moderns locate this in the brain (or mind, a word that the Scriptures often use for a similar understanding), but the ancients located all this in the heart.

A broader and stronger notion of the heart – Hence, as we ponder the Heart of Christ on this feast of the Sacred Heart we do not wholly exclude His tender feelings for us. But we must also broaden our notions of what it means to celebrate the Heart of Christ. The Heart of Christ is where He lives and is most essentially His very self. Hence His human heart is a heart that first of all worships and obeys His Father. It is in His heart that He ponders His Father’s will and sets out to obey it. It was in His heart that He set his face like flint for Jerusalem (Lk 9:51) and said to this apostles, “the world must know that I love the Father and that I do just as the Father has commanded me” (John 14:31). It is in His heart that He decides to lay down His life for us: No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again. This command I have received from my Father (Jn 10:18). Isaiah had said of Jesus, Oblatus est quia ipse voluit (He was offered because he himself willed it) (Is 53:7). It is ultimately by Christ’s obedience that we are saved, and this was determined in His heart. His love was manifested by His decision to both obey His Father and die for us. This is deeper than emotion or feeling, though it does not exclude them. When the solider thrust a lance in His chest and heaved it open, there was revealed the human heart of Christ who resolutely chose to save us. There was also revealed the very heart of God, who loves us infinitely.

A heart tender but also strong – On this Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, we celebrate not just that He loves us in an emotional sense, but even more, that He decided to die for us. He freely pondered what our salvation would cost Him and took up the cross. He chose to obey the Father for us. His love is tender but it is also decisive. The warmth of His love is sure but the wounds of His obedience also speak of a love that is strong and enduring unto the end.

Sentiment has its place but (perhaps because I am a man) I need more. On this Feast of the Sacred Heart, I am glad to point to a love that is strong, obedient, loyal, and sacrificial; a love that engages the battle on my behalf and summons me to follow; a  love that is not just visceral but is of the true and deep Heart of Christ, a heart tender but also strong.

This video has many images of Jesus (some better than others). Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us!

Posted on

On the Paradoxical Freedom of Poverty as Taught by St. John Chrysostom

062514There is a saying that you cannot steal from a man who has nothing, and you cannot threaten a man who has nothing to lose. Of Jesus, the Son of Man who had no where to lay his head (Matt 8:20), this was surely true. The world had no claim on him, nothing to hook him or claim his loyalty. Even his life could not be taken from him for he had already laid it down freely (cf Jn 10:18).

St. John Chrysostom spoke of it boldly in a sermon that paints well the paradoxical freedom of poverty and the enslavement of riches and possessions.  More on that in a moment…

But first, consider that the heart of the slavery most of us experience comes from our attachments to this world. So easily do we sell our souls to its allurements; so easily does the world ensnare us with its empty promises and trinkets that so quickly become duties, distractions, and requirements. In our heart, we know how the things of the world weigh us down. But even knowing this, our addiction to things draws us further into the endless cycle of ever-deepening desires and the increasing inability to live without many burdensome things.

And it isn’t just things. The world hooks us with the mesmerizing promise of popularity, promotion, even fame. And in our desperate addiction to being popular, we come too easily to the point that we will do almost anything and make almost any compromise for popularity and advancement.

Jesus says, No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money (Matt 6:24).

Scripture elsewhere says,

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him (1 John 2:15).

Adulterers! Do you not know that the love of this world is hatred toward God? Therefore whoever chooses to be a friend of this world is an enemy of God (James 4:4).

But in the end, most of our slavery and anxiety is rooted in our love for this world and our fear of losing its pleasures, and its promises of power and popularity. It is without doubt the greatest of human struggles to get free from this world’s hooks and shackles and to become utterly free—free to follow the Lord unreservedly and with no fear of what the world might do in retaliation.

In one of his sermons, St. John Chrysostom describes well the human being who is utterly free. It is a magnificent portrait, and one he was largely able to exhibit not merely by his words but by his very life.

Born in 344 at Antioch, he became a young man very much admired for his brilliance and oratorical skills. In 374 he fled to the mountains to live quietly and to break the hold that the world had on him. After six years of “holy silence,” he worked quietly as a priest. But in 398, he was summoned to be bishop of Constantinople. He was beloved for his powerful capacity to preach and received the name “Chrysostom” (Golden mouth). Yet not all appreciated the freedom with which he preached, a freedom that led him to denounce vice openly, no matter who was doing it. He was exiled twice (in 403 and 407) by powerful enemies. And though his enemies tried to break his spirit and rob him of his joy, they could not prevail. Although he died on his way to his final exile (during a miserable journey in terrible weather), he died with joy, saying, “Glory be to God for all things. Amen.”

The world could not prevail over him; he did not fear it, for he owned nothing of it, and owed nothing to it. It had no hold on him.

And thus speaking not only from Scripture but from experience as he was being led into exile, St. John Chrysostom said,

The waters have risen and severe storms are upon us, but we do not fear drowning, for we stand firmly upon a rock. Let the sea rage, it cannot break the rock. Let the waves rise, they cannot sink the boat of Jesus. What are we to fear? Death? Life to me means Christ, and death is gain. Exile? The earth and its fullness belong to the Lord. The confiscation of goods? We brought nothing into this world, and we shall surely take nothing from it. I have only contempt for the world’s threats, I find its blessings laughable. I have no fear of poverty, no desire for wealth. I am not afraid of death nor do I long to live, except for your good. I concentrate therefore on the present situation, and I urge you, my friends, to have confidence …

Let the world be in upheaval. I hold to his promise and read his message; that is my protecting wall and garrison. What message? Know that I am with you always, until the end of the world!

If Christ is with me, whom shall I fear? Though the waves and the sea and the anger of princes are roused against me, they are less to me than a spider’s web … For I always say: Lord, your will be done; not what this fellow or that would have me do, but what you want me to do. That is my strong tower, my immovable rock, my staff that never gives way. If God wants something, let it be done! If he wants me to stay here, I am grateful. But wherever he wants me to be, I am no less grateful …

For though my body die, my soul will live and be mindful of my people (Ante exsilium, nn. 1-3).

Here is freedom. You cannot steal from a man who owns nothing, and you cannot threaten a man who has nothing to lose; you cannot deprive a man who has Jesus Christ.

Pray for this freedom.

Posted on

First the Bait, Then the Hook – a Sober Meditation on Temptation

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Satan, it would seem, does not act in an arbitrary manner when trying to tempt us. Rather, he is more of a master hunter carefully setting traps, or a skilled fisherman who carefully studies behavior in order to choose the most effective bait. Satan is calculating and clever.

Sadly, most of us are far less calculating and clever in seeking to avoid temptation and sin. We seem more often to engage in the wishful thinking that no trouble will befall us, and our strategy seems to depend more on “dumb luck.” Would that we were as ingenious in holiness as Satan is in trying to trap us! Jesus sadly and ironically observed, For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light (Luke 16:8).

Let us consider for a moment the notion of bait and hook, to use imagery from the fishing world.

Let’s consider first the bait. It is of course the purpose of bait to be alluring, to be attractive. If a fisherman were to lower an empty hook, or a hook with a rock attached to it, no fish would come near. So he chooses a bait that appeals to the fish: perhaps an insect, or some other morsel that promises a meal.

Thus in choosing a bait to attach to his hook, Satan will strive to render it appealing, even beautiful to us. He often casts a spell to hide the ugliness of sin and to distract us from the presence of the hook.

In our time especially, Satan cloaks ugly sins in exalted language, speaking of them as ways of giving us “freedom,” or “fulfilling ourselves.” Abortion is not the killing of a baby, it is “reproductive choice,” or “reproductive freedom.” Many exalt sinful acts by cloaking them in the language of tolerance, acceptance, etc. Still others exude a false compassion in declaring it licit to actively kill the suffering or to terminate the lives of children in the womb who have been given a poor prenatal diagnosis.

In ways like these, evil masquerades as good. Sins once thought of as clearly awful and ugly are now presented as good and even beautiful.

Of course other more traditional bait is still used by Satan as well: sex, money, glory, power, and so forth. Not all these things are bad in themselves, but they are presented in excess or in the wrong context. And how tasty, how attractive, how beautiful, how desirable they can seem!

And thus the bait: attractive, beautiful, and tasty. Scripture describes Eve’s assessment of the forbidden tree: the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it (Genesis 3:6).

But then comes the hook—there’s always the hook with Satan. Never forget this: the hook is always there with Satan. No matter how beautiful, reasonable, or desirable the bait may seem, there is always the hook.

With the bait of illicit sexual union dangled before us comes the hook. Perhaps it is addiction to pornography, ruined marriages, sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS, teenage pregnancy, single motherhood, absent fathers, abortion, higher divorce rates, broken families, improperly formed families, and terrible injustice to children.

With the bait of gluttony comes the hook of obesity, heart disease, high cholesterol, hypertension, arthritis, addiction to alcohol or drugs, and even death.

With the bait of greed for more and more possessions comes the hook. Perhaps it is credit card bills we cannot pay, perhaps it is slavery to a lifestyle we think we cannot live without but which drives us to need two incomes and work long hours. And thus we never really know our children or even enjoy the things we think we need. Perhaps it is the supreme frustration in realizing that no matter how much more we have, it will never be enough. Our eyes are never really satisfied with seeing, or our ears with hearing, or our will with amassing. For we seem to be insatiable; we want more and more as the hook of greed drives deeper within us, snaring our hearts so that Satan reels us in.

But there is always the hook; never forget that no matter how pleasing the bait may seem, there is always the hook.

We moderns are perhaps more foolish than those who came before us, for we live in a culture that is rather successful in at least temporarily hiding the consequences of many things. And thus our medicines and technologies may temporarily stave off the effects of too much food and drink or the diseases that come with sexually irresponsibility. So-called government safety nets, many of them well-intentioned and in some degree necessary, also expand to create the illusion of no consequences. Too easily and too repeatedly, many are bailed out from poor and foolish decisions. Thus we are just a little more able to maintain the illusion that the hook isn’t really there.

But the hook is there. There is always a hook with the bait.

Just a simple reminder: don’t forget the hook. With the bait comes the hook. The bait is about the hook. First the bait, then the hook; always the hook.

Posted on

25 Years a Priest. And a Wondrous Answer to a Question Both Ancient and Modern.

062314Today is the Feast of the Birth of John the Baptist. And twenty-five years ago today, on a blazing hot summer morning in Washington D.C. at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, I was ordained a priest.

May I tell you a strange truth? I remember nothing of it. I  have seen footage of it, but have no personal memory of the event. I don’t know why my memory is dead in this matter. Perhaps it is the implausibility of the former agnostic in me saying that I would obey the Cardinal Archbishop of Washington and all his successors. Perhaps it is the hippie of a teenager who listened only to The Who and Arrowsmith accepting the laying on of hands as the Gregorian Veni Creator was sung. Perhaps it is the cynical, stubborn, stiff-necked college student with the brass forehead saying that he accepted the mysteries of the faith and would base his life on them.

But of course there have been more dramatic moments in history. Surely the strange event of John the Baptist pointing to Jesus, a full grown man, and calling him the “Lamb of God” must rank up there with the stranger moments in history.

Yes, even more, on this Feast of the Birth of St. John the Baptist we celebrate the birth of the final prophet of the Old Testament. He stood at the culmination of the Old Covenant and emphatically pointed to the new. He drew back the curtain on all that the ancient prophets longed to see. His birth is a great harbinger of a new epoch, the final age of Man. When he points to Christ and then steps back, we see the Old Covenant yield to the new. One era is ending; another is beginning. This birthday bespeaks a coming sea change: something is ending, but something greater is beginning. Types, symbols, and shadows are about to give way to the true reality they signified.

A great and dramatic moment in this “old giving way to the new” occurs when the two meet by the riverside. (It is true, they had already met in utero, as Mary and Elizabeth shared company. John prefigured this riverside meeting by dancing for joy in his mother’s womb at the nearness of Christ). But the drama of this moment at the riverside cannot be overstated, for John supplies a strange and wonderful answer to a question asked 2,000 years before. And the answer he supplies to this question signals that the new has arrived.

To understand the moment we must go back in time to approximately 1900 BC. The place is a hillside called Moriah where Jerusalem would later be built. Abraham has been commanded there by God and has been told to prepare to kill his son, Isaac, in sacrifice. The text says that, upon arriving at the foot of Moriah,

Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, “Father?”  “Yes, my son?” Abraham replied. “The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb?” (Gen 22:6-8)

Do not miss the great foreshadowing here: a long-promised son, about to die, carrying wood upon his shoulders, ascending the very hillside where Jerusalem and Golgotha will one day be located. Yes this is a wondrous foreshadowing.

And then comes the great question to his father: “But where is the Lamb?” Yes indeed, where is the Lamb who will die so that I don’t have to? Where is the Lamb whose blood will save my life? Where is the Lamb?

Now you know the rest of that story: an angel stopped Abraham and then pointed to a ram with its horns caught in a thicket. And you may be excused for saying, “Aha, God did provide the lamb—end of story.” But truth be told, this ram, this lamb cannot really save Isaac “Because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb 10:4). Isaac’s death is merely postponed and then it is off to Sheol with him where he will lie and wait for the True Lamb who alone can give eternal life.

And so that question got wafted up onto the breeze and echoed down through the centuries that followed: “But where is the Lamb … where is the Lamb?”

And now we are standing by the banks of the Jordan River 19 centuries later. John the Baptist sees a full grown man coming toward him and says a very strange thing: “Look! There is the Lamb of God!” (Jn 1:29). Yes, there is the  true Lamb who alone can take away our sins. John the Baptist supplies a strange and wonderful, though long-delayed, answer to a question Isaac asked 1,900 years before: “Where is the Lamb?”  “THERE is the Lamb!”

Happy birthday of John the Baptist. His birth is the culmination of an age, an era, a Covenant. He is the last of the Old Testament prophets. His birth signals an end and a beginning. The Book of Hebrews says, By calling this covenant “new,” [God] has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear (Hebrews 8:13). Hence John would later say, “The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. He must increase; I must decrease (John 3:29-30).

And happy anniversary for me, a strange stand-in for Jesus, but somehow chosen by Him and ordained by Him 25 years ago today.  I do not answer the question “Where is the Lamb?” but rather, “What is He doing here?” At the end of the day, the answer can only be rooted in the mercy of God, who takes away the sins of the world, and of Charles Pope of whom He says, “You’ll do, though it will take a lot of grace.” I know only this: I am unfit to untie His sandal.

May God be praised for the mystery of His plan and the surprise of how He fulfills ancient promises: even me Lord, a strange stand-in for the Lamb of God, but here I am. I’m not sure I signal the beginning or end of anything, just a continuation of the ministry of the Lamb of God, who answered an age-old question and fulfilled an ancient dispensation. And just like John, who pointed to Jesus, here I am doing the same. Thank you, Jesus. The bride is all yours; I am but a worthless groomsman. But do have pity on me and help me to rejoice with you in your bride.

Go to the 3 minute mark to begin the footage of my ordination.