In the first reading this morning at Mass there was the familiar story of Moses’ encounter with God at the burning bush on Mount Horeb. Approaching the Theophany, and thus the presence of God Moses received the following instruction:
Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground. I am the God of your father,” he continued, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob. (Ex 3:4-5)
And here we see an ancient form of reverence. It is interesting that, to my knowledge, Jews no longer use this sign of reverence. But Muslims still do. I remember being outside the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and seeing hundred of pairs of shoes lined up on the patio outside. A Muslim would not think to enter the Mosque without first removing his shoes.
The Jews however are very strict in insisting that men, Jewish or not should not go before the Western Wall or pray with heads uncovered, and there are men nearby, at the Wall who enforce the rule strictly and provide carboard-like yarmulkes for men who did not bring one or some other head covering.
Here in America, the thought of taking off ones shoes or being in Church without shoes would be thought of as highly irreverent! And for a man to go into a Church without removing his hat is often scolded by an usher. It would also seem that the Gentile world had this norm since St Paul, though himself a Jew, wrote Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head…A man ought not to cover his head, (1 Cor 11:4,7). He further indicates in the same place that a woman ought to cover her head.
And thus we see that culture has influence on signs of reverence and, while there have been different forms of it here and there, some equivalent of “Remove the sandals from your feet…” has been observed. Until now.
Until now? Yes, it would seem that there is really no observable and/or agreed upon way in our modern American culture that we “take off our sandals” and show some sort of reverence and acknowledgemnt that we are on holy ground, when we come before the Lord in our parish churches.
It is not just that women have shed veils (sadly I would opine – more on that HERE and HERE). But beyond that, almost no one dresses in any special way for Church these days. “Extreme casual” would seem to be the norm of the day, to look in most parishes. Most people don’t even think to change their clothes for church, there is a “go as you are” mentality. Further, other signs of entering the Church such as sacred silence, and genuflecting are increasingly absent.
It was not always this way. Even in my own short life I remember when going to Mass on Sunday was a formal affair, at least before 1970. As a young boy and teenager I had special Sunday shoes, hard black ones, and would not dream of going to church in jeans or a t-shirt. We were expected to wear pressed trousers, a button down shirt and tie, along with a jacket in the cooler months. The ladies all wore dresses and veils. (See picture of a youth Mass from 1968 above right). Church was a special place, Mass was a sacred occasion. On entering Church we were expected to maintain a sacred silence, and, upon entering, to bless ourselves with Holy Water and genuflect on entering our pew. Silent prayer was expected of one prior to Mass.
These were ways we “removed our sandals” and acknowledged we were on holy ground and before the Presence of the Lord.
Today this seems all but gone. A few “old folks” keep the traditions, and, interestingly, some younger twenty-somes as well! But for the vast majority of Catholics today, at least here in America, there is little visible or tangible equivalent of removing the sandals from our feet.
I will not even argue that ALL the old traditions should return, (even though I would like that). But at least we ought to recover SOME way of signifiying that we are on holy ground and before the presence of the Holy One of Israel, the Lord of glory.
I am aware that I will get some who say all this “stuffiness” will “turn people off.” But of course Mass isn’t just about pleasing people, it is about adoring the Lord who is worthy of our praise and our reverence. I am also aware that some will take the critique I offer here further than I personally think we need to go.
All that is fine. Where exactly to reset the line is debatable, but the bottom line seems to be that there ought to be some culturally appropriate that we fulfill the admonition of God to “Remove your sandals for the ground on which you stand is holy, I am the God of your fathers.”
How say you? Perhaps we can together start a trend (old) trend.
Video: Mass in the 1940s, as artistically remembered. It is a wedding Mass, albeit, but people usually dressed close to this way on Sundays too (perhaps minus the corsages 😉 ), according to old pictures:
Back during Lent I turned off the Radio, which for me consisted mainly of News and talk radio. I also switched off cable TV news. It was the aftermath of the last election cycle, and all the franticness and severe partisan debate that talk radio and 24/7 news channels love to generate and I was exhausted, had felt ill-served and uniformed. Most of the talking heads I listened to had been dead wrong about the election and the mood of the American people.
As a kind of news junkie I new it would be hard. But I also knew that the all-too steady diet of that stuff was ruining my peace. Since Ash Wednesday, I haven’t gone back. When I have the radio on now, I listen to Catholic Radio. I also listen to podcasts more.
Frankly the news and talk radio world thrive on generating a sense of crisis, conflict and consternation. I gave up on them for the same reason I stopped reading newspapers ten years ago, I felt like I was being played. There seemed to be a desire to stir me up, get me angry, or manipulate my thinking and views more than to inform me. I am not sure I need to be told what to think. But it does help to know what is going on. But I wasn’t getting even that.
I was also being pelted with lots of dumb information that was not only useless but was quite annoying, such as what certain Hollywood people were doing, thinking, who they were dating, divorcing, or what strange things they were naming their kids or causes they supported, etc. This is not news, it is infotainment. And all the giggling on morning news shows but on TV and radio really annoys after awhile.
The news does not really seem to be the news. Either it is advocacy journalism, or it is simply trying to peddle crisis and controversy or just showing how shallow and debased our culture has become. The result for me was too much anger, anxiety, and even a sort of bitterness for “them” i.e. the people on the other side.
Yes, I was being played. And I didn’t like it. And most of the people who were trying to play me and sell increasingly insulting news do not share my faith and even feel free to ridicule what I find sacred, holy and valuable.
Dale Ahlquist in his book Common Sense 101 has some interesting insights that resonate with me. He himself is also reflecting on G.K Chesterton. Here are a few quotes along with some additional comments by me in red:
Modern man is staggering and losing his balance because he is being pelted with little pieces of alleged fact . . . which are native to the newspapers; Chesterton says that journalism consists of saying “Lord Jones is Dead” to people who never knew that Lord Jones was alive. The news is either irrelevant or irreverent….…..it is an insult to the common man to say that he is as vulgar and silly as most of the newspapers are.
Yes, at some point too much information is no information. We are simply overwhelmed with distractions and have trouble sorting it all out and prioritizing. And so much of what the news focuses on is banal, trivial and exotic. And all the infotainment stuff really is an insult.
The great weakness of the news industry is that it “must be a picture made up entirely of exceptions”. The newspapers, says Chesterton, cannot announce the happiness of mankind at all. They cannot describe all the forks that are not stolen, or all the marriages that are not dissolved, all the murders that are not committed. And so they do not give a normal picture of life at all. “They can only represent what is unusual.”
Exactly. The news is not really the news, it is the bad news, the strange news, the starling, odd, and exotic news. The news is biased, not only because it is left or right but because it leaves out the most important news of the day: that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead and is at the Father’s right hand interceding for us, and that we must prepare for his great second coming.
[And there is] the great fallacy that the press is somehow neutral. [This] has in turn fed the idea that neutrality itself is a great desirable quality, that not taking a stand is somehow admirable, that “tolerance” is the supreme virtue.
Of course we all know that that the idea of an unbiased press is and always has been a lie. Frankly most of it is left, and even those on the right, like to call themselves “Fair and Balanced.” Why not just come out and state what everyone really knows: The Washington Post: News from the left. MSNBC, news from the far left. Fox News: News from the right. Just say it!
And as Ahlquist points out, why is neutrality so prized anyway. We in the Church surely need to rediscover that to speak the truth is to stake out a position and to declare that the opposite of what we teach is false. We need to stop all this pretending that we’re just neutral and stand firmly for our sacred teachings without lots of bows to a supposed neutrality, which doesn’t exist anyway.
We live in an age of journalese. The very language that we are forced to use attacks our traditions, our morals, and our faith. Things that are degenerate and sinful are called “progressive” and “liberating”. Good words that were once pure and noble, like “choice” and “gay”, now have reprehensible meanings. Traditional religion, which has given light to millions across the world and across the centuries, is called dull and narrow.
It is amazing the power that wordsmithing has. The Times and Post have far too much power in this regard. The cultural left has this tactic down cold. We in the Church are real rookies when it comes to this.
We might be able to take the newspapers more seriously if they would not take themselves so seriously. Honesty always laughs, because things are so laughable.” the only reason to read the newspaper is to find out what the enemy is up to. Hah!
All quotes are from Chapter 5: The Daily Truth
I realize that there is a danger in trying to stay away from the manipulation of the media. I do need to stay informed and have some idea what many of my parishioners are (sadly) being exposed to and listening to. Currently I depend a lot on others to throw items over my transom. I also hear some news on Catholic Radio, and over at sites like New Advent. But I do feel less aware about the “buzz” of modern culture. And that is good, but has drawbacks.
Here’s my question: do any of you know some good news sources that help one to stay informed but without all the deleterious, poisonous and trivial stuff mentioned above? Perhaps there are some good sources, Catholic and otherwise that can keep us informed but without all the poison. I tend to watch little T.V. and am more rooted in Catholic Radio and Internet.
At the end of the day, I want to stay more focused on God and be more immersed in my faith. The pull of culture has become so poisonous and troubling. But, as most of you know I am will and ready to make use of good things in culture and to comment on things that come to my attention. But too much raw exposure to it is not good for my soul. Yet I want and need to know the basics of what is being said and done in our all-too-distressing world. Any suggestions are appreciated and I suspect that we can also help each other find alternative sources for news.
Many of you are aware that last week the Texas Legislature passed historic legislation that significantly limits abortion in Texas and shows that the claim of the “Pro-Choice” abortion advocates that they mere want abortion “safe and legal.” For the Texas Law places significant requirements that so-called “clinics” must meet basic medical requirements and certification. All of these requirements will significantly enhance women’s safety from unsafe and shoddy medical practices all too common in abortion “clinics.”
Now, of course, pro-choice advocates, who have long marched under the banner of “safe and legal,” should hail the Texas decision since it goes a long way to ensure one of their two “pillar” positions (i.e. that abortion be “safe”). But of course they are not, they are howling in protest.
Yet as strong advocates for “women’s safety” they claim to look back in horror to the days of “coat-hanger” abortions and insist that those days must never return. So, surely, they will support measures to further protect women from the often unsafe, unsanitary and under-regulated women’s “clinics.” Many stories have recently surfaced that show just how unsafe these clinics are. For example
Well, you get the point. There are huge problems in the abortion “industry” regarding safety. The pro-choice advocates claim they want to have safe abortions available. Here comes Texas to the rescue with strong legislative protections for women who go to these so-called clinics. But as we can see from the reactions above, the “safe and legal” advocates are well prepared to sacrifice safety in order to keep abortion more legal.
It is clear that regulating abortion will limit its availability. Hence the “Safe” pillar, they claim to be at the foundation of their movement, has to give way for the legal pillar. Never mind that some women are butchered and even die.
It would seem it’s really the “legal” of “safe and legal” that matters. Or so it would seem. For all the talk about women’s safety, it would appear that such a concern is quite secondary.
Hence, the Texas Law puts the lie to the propaganda of the Pro-choice advocates. “Safe” for them appears to be more of an abstraction or a slogan. Real safety doesn’t seem to interest them, or at least, it seems to threaten them.
Without a doubt, the victory in Texas is a sad and ironic one. Focusing on women’s safety is a fine goal in itself. But, what of the safety of the unborn children? Well, step by step we’ll make this journey to recapture of the hearts of our countrymen. As for the safety of women, fine, but half of all babies killed are female. Would that Pro-Choice advocates really care about the safety of all women and children.
Here at least is a step to further exposing the hypocrisy of many who cry “safe and legal.” Here at least is a step in seeing that women who are often pressured to have abortions are not easily subjected to the horrors of an under-regulated “industry.”
Here is a video of the prayers on-going before an awful late term abortion clinic in Maryland. Take a few moments and watch. And while you watch, pray. One of those organizing the prayers says with confidence, “Carhart will leave soon.” And surely our prayers will help in not only that, but his conversion as well.
It is “chic” and, I would add, a “cliche” to hear many people say today, “I am spiritual but not religious.” There is a kind of self-congratulatory tone that often goes with this self description as well, and certainly a lot of cultural approval in the secular West for such dissociative talk.
There is even some acceptance of this notion among more theologically conservative evangelicals who, on account of their “low ecclesiology” also favor a kind decentralized and highly personal notion of faith, and entertain a kind of cynicism to “organized religion.”
The Washington Post had a column on the “spiritual but not religious” phenomenon this past Saturday by Michelle Boorstein entitled simply Religion. I would like to present a few excerpts and then discuss why I think we should not only retain the words “religion” and “religious,” but also be suitably proud of them.
First, a few excerpts from the article, along with a few very brief comment by me in plain red text. The full article is HERE.
We’re no longer “religious.” We’re “holy.” We’re “faithful.” We’re “spiritual.”….Diana Butler Bass, author of last year’s “Christianity After Religion,” who says the word “religion” is laden with negative, hurtful and political baggage. (Perhaps, but so is everything: Government, schools, medicine, science, etc. It would seem this is not unique to “religion” but is the human condition).
The 20 percent of Americans who now call themselves unaffiliated with any religious group see religion as much too focused on rules….(but rules and accepted practices are part of life. I wonder if these same Americans would be so pleased if their dentist or doctor threw rules, protocol or accepted medical practice to the winds? There is a place for “rules” that enshrine the collective wisdom of the ages!)
On the other side are people such as super-popular shock pastor and writer Mark Driscoll, an evangelical conservative whose sermons have such titles as “Why I hate religion.” He preaches that the institutional church has wrongly let people feel good about themselves for their actions (such as going to worship services) instead of what they believe (which should be the Bible’s literal truth, in his view)….(Yes, here is the “dark side” of evangelical Christianity and its “americaninst” designer-church mentality. At the end of the day, its extreme form is little different from any other modern deconstructionist, iconoclastic, existentialist, and nihilistic movement. The thinking is “away with anything I don’t like, away with anything that limits me in any way with “rules” that look to balance my little vision with the bigger picture. Away with anything I don’t like or think limits me from being…me”).
Polling shows that young Americans are considerably less apt to have religious affiliations than earlier generations were at the same age. (OK, but polls reflect what is, not what ought to be, or what is correct). They attend religious services less often, and fewer of them say religion is important in their lives. (OK, we have work to do! But that doesn’t make us wrong). But more than nine in 10 people believe in God, according to a recent Gallup poll, a statistic unchanged for decades….(but at some point we must ask if this means anything at all. It is good that they are not outright atheists, but sometimes indifference is a worse enemy than hatred). People are walking away from institutional expressions of church. They’re trying to renegotiate man’s relationship to God,” said David Kinnaman, president of the Barna Group, a major research firm on religion….Now more and more people look to their conscience, however it’s formed, to decide for themselves.” (more on this attitude below). Although some reject the word “religion,” others simply ignore it.
OK, a tough read. Not surprising, but still disturbing.
I want to argue that the very word “religion” so widely rejected by moderns, is the very word that we need to recapture as an antidote to the self-referential, self-congratulatory modern notions that fuel the “I’m spiritual but not religious” ideology.
Frankly, the attitudes expressed in the article and in our culture are not noble or praiseworthy. The increasingly pervasive attitude is a kind of Nietzsche-like nihilism, and existentialism that says, in effect:
“I will create my own reality (existentialism) and design my own god (idolatry). I will do what I want to do and I will decide if it is right or wrong (the pride of original sin). The world revolves around me and what I think, I am the center! (Anthropocentrism and egocentricism). It is really all about me, and what I think, and what I want, and what I say.”
Now if this seems harsh, I ask you, dear reader to tell me what is inaccurate? What we are really dealing with here is a collection of tired old heresies and apostasies. This is not a tall, intellectual argument at work here. It is not a brave new world at all. It is a rehashed collection of notions already tried and found wanting. It is a set of notions that tie in easily with Americanism, and an excessive notion of liberty, detached from truth or any moorings at all. It cannot sustain, or result in anything but further dilution of a sense of community or common ground, and it leads only to the further fractioning of our communities and nation into ever more isolated cells.
This then sets up as a perfect recipe for the cultural anarchy, and power struggle we already have, and will only cause it to deepen. It is ushers in the the “tyranny of relativism.” For if there is nothing outside of us (or “me”) to which we can all look to and agree, the only way to resolve differences is power struggle. At the end of the day, the one with the most power, money, influence, and access wins. Without truth to which we bind ourselves, there is tyranny.
And sadly it all marches under the banner of a kind of self congratulatory “tolerance.” Many people actually give themselves credit for saying, “It’s all about me, and what I think. Truth is what I say it is.” A steady diet of existentialism and nihilism has actually deluded people to the extent that they do not even perceive how vain and egocentric they sound. The majority just nod and say “Amen.” “Power to the People” etc. But its not really even “power to the people,” its really just “all about me.”
But the chic “respectfulness” that such ego-maniacal talk generates also sets the stage for why the words “religion” and “religious” are so important to recover and insist on.
The word “religion” comes from the Latin religio which means to bind oneself, to constrain, or to be tied to another. As such, the virtue of religion calls us to look outside of ourselves, both upward to God, and outward to the great accumulated wisdom of our revealed faith.
One of the foolhardy presumptions of modern thinking is that the accumulated wisdom of some 5,000 years of human history and tradition in the Scriptures have little or nothing to say to us today. This is not only foolhardy, but prideful.
The virtue of religion acknowledges the experience of our ancestors as an important source of wisdom for us. And it is not merely their excellencies to which we look, but also their sins and struggles. The virtue of religion also acknowledges that God was in the conversation with our ancient forbearers and revealed important things to them; truthful things which withstood the test of time, and transcended cultures, nations, and empires. Yes, all those nations, culture and empires came and went but the faith perdured.
The virtue of religion recognizes that this ancient wisdom, both of human experience and divine revelation, is something to which we owe a humble hearing, and having heard it, that we should bind ourselves to it; to be tied to it in humble acceptance, such that we learn its wisdom and why it makes sense. It need not remain a simple blind obedience, but of a growing, thoughtful, careful, and humble acceptance. Religion and being religious accepts that there is a wisdom and knowledge that is bigger simply than what I think. And being open to this truth, to this teaching, and having thoughtfully assessed this wisdom, I bind myself to it, I base my life on it.
So, religion is rooted in the humility that there is something and someone bigger than what I think. It is a humility that says I should not necessarily believe everything I think. Religion is “other-centric” and it is Theocentric. By the virtue of religion we bind ourselves to the ancient, venerable and tested truths of God, in our holy Catholic, Christian and biblical faith.
More than ever in this prideful and egocentric modern age we must uphold the dignity and humble insight of the word “religion” and the reality it represents. There is someone wiser, more noble, more holy than I. And that someone we call God. And hearing his voice, we rightly bind ourselves to Him. And He, in a holy embrace binds himself to us.
This is religion. This is the embrace of the mutual binding of covenant love.
How different, more humble and noble is this, that the prideful attitude of so many in the modern world today who say, God is whatever I say he is, and he says what I say he says. In other words, I am God.
Religion looks to God as he has credibly revealed himself in the ancient and testified sources of the Old and New Testament. And listening at his feet we discover who He is as He has revealed himself, not merely as we wish him to be.
Finally, to those who say “Well I’m not really against religion, just organized religion”, this is a false category. There’s no such thing as unorganized religion. True religion is ultimately a communal summons by God for people to walk with Him, not just individuals living in separate stovepipes, but in communion with others. God establishes faith to be the organizing principle of a people, of a culture, even a nation.
We moderns maybe petulantly down on “institutions,” but there are very few entities that are not institutions, it is just which institution we’re down on that we like to dis. For those who sniff at the “institution” of the Church, still join the “institutions” of political parties, or work for large firms, or government entities, and get services from medical institutions such as hospitals and medical practicums. So the claim that “I’m spiritual, not religious” just means a person is down on “institutional religion is neither credible nor does it comport with reality. Religion, by its nature is institutional.
Thus, Religion, both the word and its practice is noble, it must be insisted upon as a magnificent description of what faith really is. Is a clinging to God as he has revealed himself; it is a binding of oneself to the revealed truth of that loving God who embraces us and clings to us in the mutual binding of covenant love. It is a humble submission to one who is greater and wiser, who is indeed the Creator and Sustainer of all things; it is a wise and reasonable accepting of the fact that there is someone greater than I, to whom I ought to be bound in a and loving and humble submission.
I am spiritual, but I am also religious, and you can quote me on that.
In this video, Cardinal Dolan reminds, “You can’t have Jesus without his body, the Church.
If we are not careful, the Gospel today could easily be reduced to a kind of moralism which says, in effect, “Help people in trouble….be kind to strangers…etc.” While these are certainly good thoughts, this gospel, I would argue, is about far deeper things than mere human kindness or ethics. This is a gospel about the transformative power of God’s love and of our need to receive it.It is not a gospel that can be understood as a demand of the flesh, it is a Gospel that describes the transformative power of God’s love.
Lets look at the Gospel in three stages.
I. The Radical Requirements of Love– As the Gospel opens there is a discussion between Jesus and a scholar of the Law as to a basic summation of the Law. The text says, There was a scholar of the law who stood up to test him and said, “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read it?” He said in reply, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.
The Shema, a summary of the Law, known to every Jew is quoted by the lawyer here. And it will be noted how often the word “all” occurs. There is a radicality to the call of love that cannot be avoided. When it comes to love there is no mere call to give what is reasonable, to give, a little, perhaps even a tithe. No, the call is to give God ALL our heart, mind, being and strength. And we are to love our neighbor as though thy were our very self.
Now as we shall see in a minute, our flesh recoils at this sort of open demand and wants immediately to qualify and quantify it somehow.The flesh seeks refuge in law and says, “What is the minimum, what is the bottom line, what is the least I can do to meet the requirements and qualify?”
But love is, by its nature open-ended and generous. Love is extravagant and wants to do more. Love seeks the beloved and wants to please, wants to care. A young man who loves his fiance does not say, “What is the cheapest gift I can get you for your birthday?” Rather no, he will see an opportunity to show his love and may even spend too much. Love does not think, “What is the least I can do?” Love says, “What more can I do?” Love is expansive and extravagant.
And thus the great Shema speaks to the open-ended and extravagant quality of love.
But as we have already noted, the flesh, that fallen and sin soaked part of our nature recoils at such expansive talk and, as we shall now see, brings the stingy lawyer out in us that negotiates for lesser terms.
II. The Reductionism that Resists Love –Having given the beautiful answer of love our lawyer (and there is a lawyer in all of us) now reverts to form and speaks out of his flesh. The text says, But because he wished to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
In other words, “Look, if I have to love my neighbor, lets get this category as small and manageable as possible.”
Note how quickly he has retreated into a kind of fearful reaction to the broad expanse of love. His fear is likely rooted in the fact that he has reduced the Shema into a moralism, as if he, out of his own flesh power had to pull the whole thing off. And thus he recoils and demands terms of surrender. Since he thinks he has to do, he need to get its scope into the range of something HE can do. And thus perhaps he is willing to consider the people on his block to be his neighbor. But two or three blocks away, well that is just too much.
So the fearful lawyer in him has started negotiating a kind of “debt relief” where he seeks to “define down” the category “neighbor.” As we shall see, the Lord is not buying it, and will expand it even farther than the Jewish notions of his day.
Now, to be fair to the lawyer in this passage, there is a lawyer in all of us suing for terms of settlement. And while it is not wrong for us to ask for guidance in specifying the law a bit, we all know that “the lawyer ” in all of us is really seeking more to evade the demands, than fulfill them.
In a way we are all like the typical teenager. Every teenager, without having gone to law school is a natural lawyer. Give a teenager a rule, and they will parse every nuance of it to seek to avoid its demands, or to water it down in some sense.
Some years ago I was teaching 7th grade religion in our Catholic school. I told the kids, “Do your work, and no talking.” Within moments a young lady started singing. Interestingly her name was “Carmen” (which means “song” in Latin). When I rebuked her for breaking the no-talking rule she replied, “I wasn’t talking, I was singing…and you didn’t say anything about singing.” Yes, a natural born lawyer.
I remember too my thoughts in high school that I couldn’t break the 6th commandment (forbidding adultery) since I wasn’t married and certainly wouldn’t be intimate with a married woman since they were all “old.” Yes, the lawyer at work in me, but answered by Jesus in Matt 5:27-30.
And this is how we are in our rebellious, fearful and resentful flesh. Hearing a law, we go to work at once and seek to hyper-specify it, parse every word, seek every nuance and try to evade its vision in every way possible. If we are going to follow it at all, we seek the minimum possible outlay of effort.
So often Catholics and other Christians talk more like lawyers than lovers: “Do I have to go to confession? How often? Do I have to pray, how long!? Do I have to give to the poor? How much? How come I can’t do something? It’s not so bad…everyone else is doing it…..”
Sometimes too we seek to reduce holiness to perfunctory religious observance. Look, I go to Mass, I put something in the collection, I said my prayers….what more do you want? Perhaps we think, in a way, that if we do certain ritual observances which are good in themselves and required, that we have bought God off and do not need to look at other matters in our life. And thus the thinking is that since I go to Mass and say a few prayers, I have checked off the “God-box” and don’t really need to look at my lack of forgiveness, my harsh tongue, or lack of generosity.
This is reductionism. It is the lawyer at work in all of us seeking to evade the extravagance of love by hiding behind some legal minimalism. It emerges from a kind of fear generated by the notion that I, by my own unaided flesh power, am supposed to pull this whole thing off. No, actually you can’t. But God can, and this is why he commands it of us.
Our fleshly notions have to die, and our spirit must come alive with the virtue of hope that relies trustingly on God’s grace to bring a vigorous and loving response alive in us. Law and the flesh say, “What are the minimum requirements?” Love says, “What more can I do?”
Here is the gift of a loving heart that we must seek. And of this gift, the lord now paints a picture.
III. The Response that Reflects Love – The Lord then paints a picture of what his love and grace can do in someone. The text says, Jesus replied,”A man fell victim to robbers as he went down from Jerusalem to Jericho. They stripped and beat him and went off leaving him half-dead. A priest happened to be going down that road, but when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side. Likewise a Levite came to the place, and when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side. But a Samaritan traveler who came upon him was moved with compassion at the sight. He approached the victim, poured oil and wine over his wounds and bandaged them. Then he lifted him up on his own animal, took him to an inn, and cared for him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper with the instruction, ‘Take care of him. If you spend more than what I have given you, I shall repay you on my way back.’ Which of these three, in your opinion, was neighbor to the robbers’ victim?” He answered, “The one who treated him with mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.
Now, there is a very important phrase that must not be missed, for it gives the key to the Samaritan man’s actions. The phrase is “was moved.” Note that the verb “was moved” is in the passive voice, he WAS moved. That is to say it was not so much he who acted, but that he was acted upon.
More specifically, Love and grace have moved within him and are moving him. The Greek verb here is ἐσπλαγχνίσθη (esplagchnisthe), a third person singular passive verb, meaning “to be deeply moved,” or “to be moved to compassion.” The verb is also in the aorist tense signifying something that has happened but also has a kind of on-going action.
Why is this phrase “was moved” so important? Because it indicates for us the gift of grace. So many of our fears about what God asks, and love demands, are rooted in a notion that we must do them out of our own flesh. No, that is not the gospel. In the New Covenant the keeping of the Law is received, not achieved. The keeping of the Commandments is a work of God in us to which we yield. To keep the commandments and fulfill the Law is the result of love, not the cause of it.
We do not know the Samaritan’s history, the Lord does not supply it, and since this is only a story, the Samaritan is only a literary figure.
But for us, the teaching must be clear: Our receiving and experiencing of Love is and must be the basis of our keeping of the Law. Having experienced and received God’s love for us equips, empowers and enables us to respond extravagantly as joyful lovers, rather than fearful lawyers.
Love lightens every load. When we love God, and when we love people, we want to do what love requires. And even if there are difficulties involved, love makes us eager to respond anyway.
Many years ago in the 7th grade I found myself quite taken by a pretty girl named Shelly. Yes, I was quite “in-love.” One day she was in the hall trying to carry a lot of books to the library and I saw my chance! I offered to carry those books at once. Now I was skinny as a rail, no muscles at all in those days, and those books were heavy! But I was glad to do it despite the effort. Love does that, it lightens every load and makes us eager to help, even at great cost.
A silly story perhaps of a dorky teenager (me), but in far more significant ways, love does this! It “moves” us to be generous, kind, merciful, patient and even extravagant. AND, we don’t do what we do because we have to, but because we want to.
The Samaritan in this story, was “moved” with and by love to overcome race and nation, fear and danger. He generously gave his time and money to save a brother and fellow traveler.
And so too for us, Let love lift you. Let it empower you, equip you and enable you! Go to the Lord and pray for a deeper experience of His love. Open the door of your heart and let the Love of God in. Go to the foot of the cross and remember what the Lord has done for you. Let what he has done be so present in your mind and heart that you are grateful and different. Let God’s love come alive in you.
And I promise you, as a witness, that love lightens every load and makes us eager to keep the commandments, to help others, to forgive, to show mercy, to be patient, and kind, and to courageously speak the truth in love to others. Yes, I am a witness that love can and does change us. I’m not what I want to be, but I am not what I used to me. Love has lifted me and lightened every load.
Today’s gospel is not a moralism, as if to say: be kind to strangers, and help the down and out. Fine though such thoughts are, that is not the main point here. The main point here is, let the Lord’s love in your heart and you will do what love does; and you will do it extravagantly, not because you have to, but because you want to.
The grace of Love lightens every load and equips for every good work.
This song says, More of his saving fulness see, more of his love who died for me.
As a teenager I remember resenting how adults would try and prevent me from doing what I pleased. They would often warn me not to “learn the hard way” that something was wrong. I would often be told that I should learn from them and their experiences not to make the same mistakes they did. The rebel in me thought that it might be fun and pleasurable to “make a few mistakes of my own.” Of course I pridefully thought that I would escape the consequences.
In the end of course they were right, and one the most valuable gifts I have received from others to have learned from their experience. As a pastor too I must say that my staff has preserved me from innumerable errors through their expertise and long experience with the parish.
The word “experience” comes from the Latinexperientia, meaning the act of trying or testing. More deeply it comes from two Latin words, ex (out of) + periri (which is akin to periculum, meaning peril or danger). Hence “experience” refers to those have endured trials, perils, testing, and dangers, and speak out of these to us so we don’t have to endure such things. It is a very great gift!
The Church too offers us the great gift of long experience. Indeed, one of the great advantages of making our home in the Catholic Church is that we are at the feet of a wise and experienced teacher who has “seen it all.” The Scriptures, the Catechism, the lives of the Saints, all the Church’s teaching, is a wealth of knowledge and collected experience for us. Through this vast treasury The Church, as a good mother and teacher, helps us to learn from the experiences of others.
At this point I would like for G.K. Chesterton to do the talking:
The other day a well-known writer, otherwise quite well-informed, said that the Catholic Church is always the enemy of new ideas. It probably did not occur to him that his own remark was not exactly in the nature of a new idea. …Nevertheless, the man who made that remark about Catholics meant something….What he meant was that, in the modern world, the Catholic Church is in fact the enemy of many influential fashions; most of which … claim to be new. [But] nine out of ten of what we call new ideas, are simply old mistakes.
The Catholic Church has for one of her chief duties that of preventing people from making those old mistakes; from making them over and over again forever, as people always do if they are left to themselves….There is no other case of one continuous intelligent institution that has been thinking about thinking for two thousand years. Its experience naturally covers nearly all experiences; and nearly all errors.
The result is a map in which all the blind alleys and bad roads are clearly marked, all the ways that have been shown to be worthless by the best of all evidence: the evidence of those who have gone down them. On this map of the mind the errors are marked…[but] the greater part of it consists of playgrounds and happy hunting-fields, where the mind may have as much liberty as it likes. But [the Church] does definitely take the responsibility of marking certain roads as leading nowhere or leading to destruction…
By this means, it does prevent men from wasting their time or losing their lives upon paths that have been found futile or disastrous again and again in the past, but which might otherwise entrap travelers again and again in the future.
The Church does make herself responsible for warning her people against these; she does dogmatically defend humanity from its worst foes… Now all false issues have a way of looking quite fresh, especially to a fresh generation. ..[But] we must have something that will hold the four corners of the world still, while we make our social experiments or build our Utopias. (From Twelve Modern Apostles and Their Creeds (1926). Reprinted in The Collected Works of G.K. Chesterton, Vol. 3 Ignatius Press 1990)
Yes, what a gift. Many may take of the role of a pouting teenager and be resentful at any warning from the Church. But in the end, It’s a mighty fine gift to be able to learn from others and benefit from their experience.
Here’s a funny commercial that shows the value of learning from others experiences.
Some years ago I was stationed with a priest who, while he often liked my homilies, would often critique my use of what he called “fear based preaching.” Perhaps I had warned the congregation of punishment for sin, or even let slip that certain things were mortal sins that would exclude one from heaven and land them in hell. I would often playfully remind the congregation that missing Sunday Mass was a mortal sin by saying, “Go to Mass or go to hell.” I would also warn that fornicators would not inherit the Kingdom nor idolaters nor adulterers nor those who practice homosexuality, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (cf 1 Cor 6:9).
Of course I was quoting Scripture and preaching out of a voluminous biblical tradition of warning texts. Nevertheless, the older priest would often wag his finger and say, “Ah that’s fear-based preaching…fear based!”
Perhaps it was, but so what? And yet many (not all) priests of his generation were of the mind that to warn at all or to incite any fear in the people of God was some “abusive” and bad pastoral practice. They seem to have been a generation in reaction to something before them. Perhaps they had grown up with what they thought was too much fire and brimstone preaching and not enough of a summons to higher motives rooted in love and mature spiritual reflection.
It is true, that the First Letter of John does set for a kind of goal for us that we be free of the mere fear of punishment and root our moral life in love:
There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. (1 John 4:18)
And yet, if this goal, good and important that it is, is meant to eliminate any appeal to ordinary fear of punishment, apparently Jesus never got the memo. Neither did St. Paul, St Peter, St. James, St Jude, the Author of the Letter to the Hebrews, and even John himself seems to have forgotten the “rule” from time to time.
For the fact is, the quote from First John sets for a goal for the spiritually mature. But that does mean that we are all there. In fact, people are at many different stages of spiritual growth. Surely the Lord, and the gospel and epistle writers knew this, as does every experienced pastor.
Frankly, many are still at a spiritual stage where the fear of punishment is both necessary and salutary.
Jesus certainly saw fit to appeal to the fear of punishment, loss, and hell. In fact, it is arguable that this was his main approach and that one would struggle to find very many texts where Jesus appeals more to a perfect contrition and a purely holy fear rooted in love alone as a motive to avoid sin. But over and over in dozens of passages and parables Jesus warns of punishment and exclusion from the Kingdom for unrepented sin and for the refusal to be ready. Here are just a few:
Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (Matt 7:13-14)
The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. (Mat 13:41-42)
“Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping.What I say to you, I say to everyone: ‘Watch!’ ” (Mk 13:35-37)
And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with carousing, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come on you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch you therefore, and pray always, that you may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:34-36)
“But about that day or hour no one knows…For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away…“Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into.So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him. (Matt 24:36-44)
The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looks not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matt 24:51)
Then the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.“Later the others also came. ‘Lord, Lord,’ they said, ‘open the door for us!’“But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I don’t know you.’“Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour. (Matt 25:10-13)
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat…“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matt 24:41-42, 46)
Whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, and cast it from you: for it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish, and not that your whole body should be cast into hell. (Matt 5:28-29)
Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Matt 5:22)
And if your foot offend you, cut it off: it is better for you to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched. (Mk 9:45-46)
Friend, how came you in here not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen. (Matt 22:12-14)
Then said Jesus again to them, I go my way, and you shall seek me, but you shall die in your sins: where I go, you cannot come….I have told you that you will die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins (John 8:21, 24).
by their fruits you shall know them. Not every one that said to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name have cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works? Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ (Matt 7:20-23)
He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16)
He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. (John 12:48)
“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give youthis testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.” (Rev 22:14-16)
Dozens of other texts, parables and warnings could be added unto this list. But let these Suffice. The bottom line is that Jesus warned and appealed to the fear of punishment a LOT.
No one loves you more than Jesus and yet no one warned of judgment and Hell more than Jesus. He knows how stubborn and hard we are, and thus he is plain and warns with clarity and charity.
St. Paul and all the other Epistle writers have many warning texts as well that proclaim a salutary fear of punishment. A common example of the Pauline warning texts is this:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9-10)
Translation: if one stays in serious and unrepented sin, they go to Hell. And thus, St Paul too, as well as the other Epistle writers all appeal to the fear of punishment.
Now why should we, who are summoned to preach and teach in Jesus’ name, reject a key strategy that he and his chosen apostles employed? And yet, it has been a consistent modern practice to all but ignore the substantial warning texts that occur throughout the preaching of Jesus and the Apostles.
Part of the reason for our rejection would seem rooted in the fact that we live in rather dainty times wherein people easily take offense. Further the “self-esteem” culture and its premises are inimical to speaking of people as sinners or in anyway rejected. Thirdly, many today have cast God in the role of doting Father, and Jesus as a harmless hippie. No matter how unbiblical the images of the Lord are, they are pervasive and people do not easily let go of them, even when confronted with biblical texts.
But, at the end of the day, those of us who preach are without excuse if we neglect or refuse a pastoral practice used extensively by Jesus himself. By our silence in this regard we mislead God’s people and become, in effect, deceivers who do not preach the “whole counsel of God” (cf Acts 20:27).
While it is true that we can help to lead God’s people from an imperfect contrition (rooted in fear of punishment) to a more perfect contrition (rooted in love for God), it remains a rather clear fact that many of the faithful are at different stages and are not yet at the perfect contrition stage.
For this reason the Church has always allowed that imperfect contrition was sufficient to receive absolution. The traditional act of contrition (which is to be preferred) says,
…I detest all my sins, not only because I fear the loss of heaven and the pains of hell, but most of all because they offend you my God who are all good, and deserving of all my love….
This act of contrition is to be preferred because it distinguishes perfect and imperfect contrition and properly notes that most of us have by sorts of contrition admixed. But this act of contrition also helps the penitent recall the journey we ought to make out of the fear of punishment to the deeper and more perfect motive of love of God and neighbor to avoid sin.
But for most of us, this is a journey that is underway, and some have made more progress than others. Meanwhile, the preachers of the Church do well to appeal to the fear of punishment among other motives to avoid sin.
Jesus and the Apostles never hesitated to recall the fearful results of sinful obstinance. And neither should we who Preach today. Fear of punishment is needed after all.
Here is an excerpt from one of my funeral sermons that uses warning and incites fear of judgement and hell.
I was meditating on time today, perhaps because it is my 52nd birthday. But also on account of some new mysteries I have learned about the light of the Sun that reaches this earth.
I have long known that to look up in the night sky is to look far into the past. Looking up at the star Sirius I am looking nine years into the past. Looking over to the star Antares I am seeing 250 years into the past. Looking over at the star Rigel I am looking 600 years into the past. Looking further still at the Andromeda galaxy, I am seeing one million years into the past. That is how long it takes the light of these stars and galaxies to reach us. We are not seeing them as they are now, but as they were then. The past, even the distant past, is very present to us.
Even in the daylight, the light of the sun takes 8.25 minutes to reach us. Thus we see the surface of the sun not as it is now, but as it was 8 minutes ago.
But I learned yesterday that the light of the sun is even older than I ever thought. A little research on my part revealed this astonishing fact. The photons of light that reach the surface of the sun and head out to us in eight minutes were actually generated 100,00 years ago, in the sun’s core.
Emerging from the sun’s core as the result of nuclear fusion, a photon of light enters the radiative zone (see diagram above). The plasma in that radiative zone is quite a maze for the photon to get through, such a maze that it takes the better part of 100,000 years to make the journey to the convective zone and the photosphere where it finally begins a rapid journey out into the vacuum of space.
Why does it take this long? Consider an image of you, at one side of a large room filled with people, and you want to get to the door on the other side. But on the way many, many people want your attention and strike up conversations and thus delay your journey across the room.
The diagram above shows the meandering, zigzag motion of a photon as it makes it way through a maze of plasma that detains the photon for up to 100,000 years!
Thus, the light we currently bask is much more than 8.25 minutes old! It is 100,000 years old! The light we currently enjoy was made in the sun’s core back during the beginning of the last ice age.
There is a great mystery of time on display for us at every moment. The past is present in many ways. And our past is “out there” on display and still present as well. If there is any one on a planet near Rigel and they look back through a telescope to earth, say to France, they do not see us now, they see Joan of Arc and other events of the 14th Century taking place. The light of our “today” will not reach Rigel for 600 years.
What is the present? That is mysterious is the sum total space of the universe and it depends on where you are. God, who is just as present as Rigel as here, has the same access to the images of France in 1450, as he does to 2013. Indeed, being present at Andromeda just as much as here on earth, 1 million years ago is just as present to him as now.
The future is even more mysterious, but that is just as present to God as the past and distant past is.
Do not miss the irony of the fact that the light of the Sun and the reflected light of the moon, by which we set our clocks and calendars to measure the present, to tell time what time it is now, is 100,000 years old.
Does anybody really know what time it is? Only God, only God. Time is very mysterious, and the more we think we know the less we really do.
All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.How precious to me are your thoughts, God How vast is the sum of them!Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand—when I awake, I am still with you. Psalm 139:16-18
In the first reading this morning at Mass there was the familiar story of Moses’ encounter with God at the burning bush on Mount Horeb. Approaching the Theophany, and thus the presence of God Moses received the following instruction:
