Community in Mission

When we heard the chosen name of the New Pope, “Francis” most of us likely thought of St. Francis of Assisi. Though on closer examination it is possible our New Pope, as a Jesuit, has St. Francis Xavier in mind. But either Saint has a lot to recommend to our thoughts as we pray for our new Pope, Francis I.

N.B. I am not a Vatican Insider and I don’t know Vatican insiders. And frankly, a lot of the “insider” stuff both alarms and bewilders me. Thus, my reflections are pure speculation and rooted only in the meditation on the lives of two saints and how they might frame our thoughts as we consider the work ahead for Pope Francis and how we must pray.

A few thoughts, in today’s post on St. Francis of Assisi. Tomorrow, St. Francis Xavier.

1. On the possibility of radical conversion and the role of affliction and humiliation – St. Francis of Assisi had lived and experienced the life of great wealth. The son of a successful cloth merchant, he enjoyed a very affluent easy life growing up and partook of the permissiveness of the times. He was a natural leader and drew to himself a crowd of young people who spent their nights in wild parties. His biographer, Thomas of Celano, said of him that him that, “He attracted to himself a whole retinue of young people addicted to evil and accustomed to vice.”

He had visions of grandeur and became a knight. Perhaps the horrors of battle and a year as a prisoner of war began a gradual conversion in him. The Fourth Crusade was called in 1205 and Francis impulsively bought new armor and sallied forth. But perhaps his own anxiety, and more surely a vision, wherein God rebuked his manner of life, led him to turn back. At home he was derided as a coward and suffered great wrath from his earthly father.

This crisis in his life led ultimately to his conversion, and a dramatic one at that. The Book of Psalms says, Before I was afflicted I strayed. But now I have kept your word, O Lord (Psalm 119:67).

We all know people whose conversion seems unlikely. But God may yet humble them and draw them to conversion. Further, we ought never underestimate the fact that affliction and humiliation may be a necessary component of conversion for many of us. At times we may feel as though God has abandoned us, or others we love. In fact he may be doing some very important work.

Our greatest enemy is pride and our best friend is humility. Humility and affliction may be gifts in strange packages. Learn to trust in God’s ways, painful though they may be, sometimes. God may be drawing us, and those we love, to deeper conversion.

Pope Francis takes the helm of a Church in need of constant purification. Further a large part of the flock in the affluent West is proud, rich, is rooted in hardened sinful habits and unbelief, and has left the practice of the faith.

Yet as St. Francis of Assisi shows, even hardened sinners can be reached. And as they are reached, others are reached too. The name of our New Pope is a reminder to all that radical conversion in the world is possible.

2. On the freedom of poverty and simplicity – Francis and his early companions embraced a life of radical poverty. So severe was this poverty that some thought them mad and rebuked their ways as beyond rational. St. Francis responded, If we had any possessions we should need weapons and laws to defend them. One hagiographer says, Possessing something was the death of love for Francis. Also, Francis reasoned, what could you do to a man who owns nothing? You can’t starve a fasting man, you can’t steal from someone who has no money, you can’t ruin someone who hates prestige. They were truly free. [1]

Not all of us may be able to embrace this radical poverty due to our obligations to others. But, more and more, we ought to experience a growing simplicity of life that frees us from the power of this world.

Poverty and simplicity are powerful and fruitful gifts of God. Once again, they are gifts in strange packages. But, if we can learn to embrace them, we discover greater freedom.

Though we are just getting to know him, our New Pope exhibits a humility, and is well known for his love of the poor of a life of simplicity. It is said, though a “Prince of the Church,” he rode the bus to work each morning.

One great danger of the Church is that we “have too much to lose.” Embracing greater simplicity and less in the way of worldly power seems to have been a track the Lord has had us since the proud days of the late Middle Ages, when St. Francis lived and surely since the heady  days of the Renaissance Popes. Perhaps St. Francis of Assisi will help us to keep the proper balance of dignity and simplicity.

3. On the Love of God’s Church and how reform is best accomplished – During St. Francis’ lifetime the Church was in need of reform. Greed, worldliness and scandal were problems among clergy and laity as well. Heresies were abundant.

Some, noting sin in the Church, have chosen to hate the Church and leave her. But others, like Francis, hear the call of God, who never ceases to love His Church, and they, themselves, intensify their love for the Church and work for her reform. In a vision, St. Francis sensed the call from God: “Francis, Repair my Church.” Gradually he deepened his understanding of the Lord’s call and began that reform by seeing first to his very own life.

It is possible for critics of the Church to excoriate the sins of others, but not see their own. Francis began in the vineyard of his own life and then went forth gently preaching conversion by personal example to his neighbors.

The movement for reform spread. It was grassroots, it was personal. True reform begins with me. Simply denouncing the sins of others or the Church, real though these sins may be, seldom has lasting effect.

The best reform starts with personal conversion. Personal conversion spreads to others, and reform is underway. Within 10 years there were over 5,000 men in Francis’ community and the Poor Clares were also well underway. It works. If I let God set me on fire, then I can spread that fire.

Pope Francis has in St. Francis a power ally who loved the Church, worked for required reforms and led others to personal conversion and love for the Church. May our new Pope experience many blessings from St. Francis.

4. On unity with all creation and the gift of wonder and awe -St. Francis thought of nature, all God’s creation, as part of his brotherhood. In some sense, the sparrow was as much his brother as the Pope.

There is a radical tendency today, by some in the environmental movement, that sees man as the enemy of the natural world, rather than an integral part of it. We can tend to see ourselves as outsiders of the natural world, rather than partakers and members of it. But for St. Francis there was brotherhood.

And in brotherhood there are legitimate needs we supply one another. Nature supplies us and we in turn help to perfect nature. We have done this in our best moments by helping to increase the yield of our fields and bring far greater bounty to the earth by agriculture and animal husbandry. We also seek to master disease and push back the destructive boundaries of what is unruly in nature, such as infestations and the like.

It is true we have often transgressed by unnecessary pollution and the like. But in the end we are not the enemies of nature, we are companions and “brethren” to the natural world.

Pope Francis faces many challenges related to a lack of balance in modern man’s relation to the natural and physical world. Too many today have turned environmentalism and the physical sciences into a kind of religion, verging on idolatry.  In St. Francis the Pope and the Church can be inspired to help our modern world recover sanity and balance in these matters. In the first video below is a meditation based on the poem and prayer of St. Francis known as the Canticle of the Sun, his meditation on the magnificence of creation.

5. On the Need to Evangelize the Muslim World – We may think that the struggle with the Muslim world is new. It is not. In his life, St Francis decided to go to Syria to convert the Muslims while the Fifth Crusade was being fought.

In the middle of a battle, Francis decided to do the simplest thing and go straight to the sultan to make peace. He and his companions were captured and Francis was taken to the Sultan, Melek-el-Kamel. Francis challenged the Muslim scholars to a test of true religion by fire; but they refused. Francis proposed to enter the fire first, under the condition that if he left the fire unharmed, the sultan would have to recognize Christ as true God. The offer was turned down but the sultan was so impressed that he allowed Francis to preach to his subjects. Though Francis did not succeed in converting the sultan, the last words of the sultan to Francis of Assisi were, Pray for me that God may deign to reveal to me that law and faith which is most pleasing to him.

This work of Francis and his attempted rapprochement with the Muslim world had far-reaching consequences, long past his own death, since after the fall of the Crusader Kingdom, it would be the Franciscans, of all Catholics, who would be allowed to stay on in the Holy Land and be recognized as “Custodians of the Holy Land” on behalf of Christianity. [2]

In times like these, when extremist forms of Islam have emerged, we need, more than ever to have the courage of St. Francis to engage the Islamic world and seek to bring them to Christ.

It may be difficult work and successes may be few at this stage. But God calls us to be faithful, not successful. Ultimate success is up to God. We who are Catholics have a special role in this evangelization since the Muslim world shares with us a respect for Mary, Mother of Jesus our Lord. More on that in a future post.

And thus Pope Francis who has a significant challenge in dealing well with the Muslim World and increasing radicalism there has a powerful ally, intercessor and example in St. Francis of Assisi.

Just a few thoughts on what’s in a name. Pope Francis, and  St. Francis of Assisi: ally, intercessor, example and Saint. Tomorrow some thoughts on St. Francis Xavier, the great Saint of Evangelization.

This first video is set to the Music “All Creatures of Our God and King.” This hymn is based closely on the poem by St. Francis Canticum Fratris Solis (Canticle of Brother Sun) :

This second video is a very charming video of a man who has taught his dog to pray:

As we await word of a new Pope, there are some in the media and among our Protestant Brethren who are dismissive of the need for a Pope at all, or who indicate that the hierarchical structure of the Church ought to be replaced with more “modern” forms of governance.

Never mind that Christ chose NOT to be born in these “enlightened” times of ours and was rather intentional in summoning certain men who he named apostles. Never mind too that Peter was singled out by the Lord for a special role with “keys” of authority and the role to strengthen and unite his brethren whom the devil would sift as wheat (cf Lk 22:32).

So, many use this election of a Pope to issue their plan for the reorganization of the Church, even though the Lord has set forth a plan that has brought us through some pretty awful turmoil.

I’d like to take some reflections on the need for authority from  Fr. Thomas Dubay’s S.M. (R.I.P.) Authenticity – A Biblical Theology of Discernment. Fr. Dubay pondered what happens if we, in some utopian way, think we can live apart from authority.

Fr. Dubay has been one of my chief teachers in spirituality. He passed away in 2010 – headed home to meet the Lord, whom he loved and preached. He was a devout and sober man, a fine theologian, deeply immersed in Scripture and Tradition, a terrific spiritual master, and always a keen observer of what ails us.

As is often the case, I will present his text in bold, black italics, and my poor comments in plain red text. I would like to give you page numbers in the book, but, sadly, the Kindle edition from which I have read does not have a coherent way of referring to pages (as far as I can tell). I can only say that the passage is in the last third of the book in a section entitled “Verification.”

Christ and St. Paul and the whole New Testament community were hardheadedly human. They knew better than we (because they were more holy than many of us) of human weaknesses and failings, but they could not imagine [as some do today] an “invisible Church of Christ.” In more than a theoretical way, the disciples knew they were not angels, and they could not have dreamed of the ekklesia of the bodily risen Kyrios lacking effective institutional elements.

Yes, the word I like to use is that they were “sober” about human sinfulness, and our tendency to be divisive and fractional, often about the most petty of things. And even in more profound matters, our sinfulness often causes us to have distorted thinking, our senseless minds can become very dark and jaded.

In the midst of all the scandalous division after the Eastern Schism, and the Protestant movements, some have tried to imagine that there is somehow an “invisible church” where “nasty little things” like structures, and authority are not necessary. In this dreamy, “kumbaya” thinking where all hold hands and sway as they sing “we are one in the Spirit,” there may be a legitimate dream.

But imagining we are one is not the same as actually being one. True unity will manifest in concrete, not just theoretical ways, for a central tenet of the faith is that of the incarnation. And the Church remains, incarnationally, the Body of Christ. I may like to imagine that a severed hand is still part of my body. But while I dream, the hand begins to decay, and my body bleeds out. In the end reality has a way of setting in.

The Biblical fact is, that where Peter is, there is the Church (ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia). He is Christ’s vicar on earth, and the one who holds the keys. Christ noted that the devil would seek to divide, to “sift” the apostles like wheat. But Jesus solution was clear: But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, you will strengthen your brothers (Luke 22:32). Bishop Sheen once said of this passage that we share in Christ’s prayer for unity in the Church, only through Peter.

There is no “invisible church.” Only the visible and structured one founded by Christ and rooted in his prayer for Peter.

Graphically St. Paul reminds the overseer-bishops of Ephesus that it was the Holy Spirit himself who established them in office, and it is through these human instruments that the Spirit will deal with “fierce wolves” who invade the flock (Acts 20:28-31). The apostle goes so far as to say that anyone who objects to his teaching is not objecting to a human authority but to God himself, who gives us his Holy Spirit (1 Th 4:8). The Thessalonians are to foster the “greatest respect and affection” for their leaders (1 Th 5:12-13). All sorts of gifts from the spirit are given to the authorities in the Church: apostleship, prophecy, teaching, leading (Eph 4:11-13).

Yes, in our anti-authority modern age, we must recall that authority in the Church is established by God, and upheld by him. It is the Lord’s way of protecting the Church from the fierce wolves of error and division. God teaches authoritatively through his Church, and her appointed and anointed leaders. We have to trust God in this.

Authority is not perfect. God uses imperfect human instruments to accomplish his tasks.

In my personal journey I have come to discover that, while I have often wished that those in authority were more prompt and prophetic at times, I have also come to discover that there is a place to be more reflective. When I was first ordained, I was zealous for orthodoxy, but I was also rigid in unnecessary ways, and often impatient. “If only the Church would adopt my plan of action, all would be well.” Or so I thought. But, interestingly enough the Lord did not choose to promote me to bishop in those early zealous years, (or even now), and I must humbly recognize that there are often other ways of approaching issues. The general demeanor of the Church is to be thoughtful, reflective, and yes, slower than many moderns prefer.

But somewhere in the midst of this rather consistent approach, we need to see that our leaders have been anointed by God. We can surely seek to influence them and be part of the discussion. Most reform movements well up from the people of God. But we do not, and ought not, get ahead of our leaders, or refuse submission to them merely because we have a bright new idea. There may well be a reason to go slower and be more broad based that some who are zealous would prefer.

This bodily-structural element in the ekklesia comes out in many ways in the New Testament: Jesus sends men into the world, and they speak with his own authority so that those who listen to these representatives listen to him (Mt 28:16-20; Lk 10:16) . . . the leaders in the Church test the authenticity of her members (Rev 2:2; pastorals, passim) . . . all are to obey their spiritual leaders (1 Pet 5:5; Heb 13:17) . . . they who disobey are inauthentic, not from God (1 Cor 14:37-38; 1 Jn 4:6) . . . even a supposed messenger from heaven may not contradict what the human leaders have taught (Gal 1:6-9) . . . the presiding officer in the local church has all sorts of duties in the areas of teaching and governing (1 and 2 Tim and Titus) . . . the Holy Spirit is with them in the performance of these duties (2 Tim 1:6, 14). i.e. authority is biblical and from God.

Although we do not find the same degree of organization in the first-century ekklesia that we find in that of the twentieth century (it would be amazing if we did), we do find a plurality of functions that are clearly governmental. The leaders teach and proclaim the word (1 Tim 3:2; 4:13, 16; 5:7, 17; 6:2; 2 Tim 1:8; 2:2, 14, 24; 4:1-5; Titus 1:9; 2:1-10, 15; 3:1-8; Acts 20:28). They pray for the sick and heal them (James 5:14-15). They correct aberrations and errors and faults (1 Tim 5:20; 6:17; 2 Tim 2:25; 4:1-5; Titus 1:9-14; 2:15). They govern the ecclesial community, the Church of God (1 Tim 3:5; 2 Tim 1:14; Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:1-4). These superiors are said to be God’s representatives, and their authority is not to be questioned (Titus 1:7; 2:15). The faithful are told in plain language to obey these leaders and do as they say (Heb 13:17; 1 Pet 5:5)….

To teach govern and sanctify are the essential roles of Church authority and the faithful are expected to be submitted to their leaders.

This is a critical reminder in an age like ours that often celebrates rebellion as well as angry invective and derision directed at leaders, both secular and religious. While our world may celebrate this and many who act rebelliously get “credit” for being bold and “free,” there is little or no biblical basis for this behavior, especially insofar as the Church is concerned.

While a Catholic may make some discernment as to the level of authority involved in a given pronouncement, legalistic minimalism should also be avoided and Catholics should remain teachable even in non-infallible teaching of the popes, bishops and magisterium (cf CCC # 892).

It is not accidental that people who now commonly speak of our generation as “men come of age” are often those who belittle the need for societal government. ….The error in this position lies in its partiality. It fails to provide for the many other needs among perfectly adult men and women that cannot be met [apart from]… the essential role of authority. No matter how mature a society has become, its members cannot provide for protection, for international trade, for airports and highways (and a host of other things) by mere friendly agreements. To desire to substitute consensus as a universal replacement for authority is merely utopian.

Yes, utopian is the word.

It is the dreamy arrogance of our modern age that has caused us the most grief. The more we speak of ourselves as “men come of age,” the less mature we seem to become. In our culture, maturity is further and further delayed, and there are many in our culture who never grow up. Dependent and demanding, many sound more like petulant children, than grown adults. Further, the dismissal of the wisdom of previous generations, and the refusal to be accepting of authority, bespeaks more of a teenage rebellious stage than sober adult refelction. I have written more on that here: Stuck on Teenage

When the members of a group are all open to the Holy Spirit, a discernment process can produce consensus, but who will maintain that, in our sinful condition, we can hope, in larger societies, to be free from selfishness and ignorances of all sorts. And even aside from our sinfulness, we need to note that all judgments made for an action are surrounded with contingencies that make it impossible to demonstrate the necessity of any [one] given prudential judgment. One of the functions of authority, therefore, is to choose among many defensible courses of action one that all must follow….

Yes, so well said. Even in the best, the most mature and spiritual of communities, some one still has to call the shots. For not all, or even most, decisions are between good and bad things, but often between numerous good options in the face of limited resources.

If a group of people rejects an official teaching authority in the Church, it does not follow that there is no teaching authority. There surely is, and often it is more apodictic [demanding of submission] and harsh in its condemnations than most popes have ever been. The allegiance given to quotations from “in” theologians can be remarkable….

Pope Benedict has often remarked on the tyranny of relativism wherein those who cloak themselves in tolerance and open-mindedness are often the least tolerant when it comes to a host of issues they regard as politically correct. Many of the College campuses who have prided themselves on their liberal openness often have the most severe “speech codes” and the most strident applications of political correctness. Don’t try and uphold a lot of traditional Catholic and Biblical moral teaching there. If you do, prepare in most instances to shouted down, shown the door, and called hateful, bigoted, close-minded and number of other personal attacks.

Further, unquestioned loyalty to certain theories, scientific, political and philosophical, and the kind of venom, if you even have just a few questions, is remarkable. Talk about “religious” zeal.

Oh yes, we will confer authority on someone, it just depends on who. I had rather accept as authoritative a Church I believe founded by God and upheld by him. An old hymn says, I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly lean on Jesus’ name. Jesus founded, establishes and upholds the Church, so I’ll go there and be submitted to authorities I believe, by faith, he upholds and inspires.

The binding force of an ecclesiastical Magisterium is commonly viewed [today] as an infringement on a healthy freedom in the academic realm. It is no more an infringement on freedom than the experimental data of the positive sciences are an impediment to scientific progress and freedom. The divinely guaranteed Magisterium liberates the theologian from the morass of his own subjectivity, just as the hard-nosed data of scientific research liberate the theoretician in pure physics from the illusions of a thought, lacking contact with the real world…..

One of the keys to understanding freedom is that it is only enjoyed within limits. I am free to communicate with you now only if I accept certain grammatical parameters.

Absolute freedom does not exist for limited and contingent beings such as ourselves. Hence, Christian theology must accept that there are necessary limits and guard rails which guarantee the greatest freedoms. Outside the guard rails of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, lie only thickets, precipices, dead ends and a howling wilderness of subjectivism and the directionless wandering of an “off road” experience.

I have written more on the paradox of true freedom HERE

It is alleged that Roman congregations have made mistakes and that these impede progress. Some (not all) of these allegations are true. But in sheer number they are few indeed in comparison to the thousands of mistakes that theologians have made….History abounds in examples of the bizarre aberrations possible even in well-intentioned enthusiasms.

Yes. Thank you Fr. Dubay. Rest in peace.

Here is video that illustrates the modern tendency to celebrate rebellion. While it’s funny, it must also be said that this ads ridicules limits and people who believe in them. The man who says “stay within the lines” is presented for us as an object of ridicule and the notion of limits as “childish” hides the teenage immaturity of those who celebrate rebellion and reject limits. The ad does not follow the woman “off road” as she surely hits ruts, messes up her alignment and may even flip the vehicle. Paved roads with guard rails are usually better, faster and safer.

As we get ready to elect a new Pope it occurs to me that we are also electing a chief evangelizer. And the new Pope will enter the room of tears to don the papal vestments because, in effect he is embracing a martyrdom.

I want to talk about the relationship of the word “martyr” and Evangelization in two ways. For the word martyr has two senses, and they both apply to Evangelization. On the one hand martyr is simply the Greek word (μάρτυς – martus) that means “witness.” On the other hand, in modern English, we think of the martyrs as those who suffered and died for their faith. Both concepts are essential for evangelizers (this means you).

Lets look first at the concept of “martyr” as one who suffers. – If you’re going to evangelize prepare to suffer. This explains a lot in terms of why most Christians don’t evangelize.

When I was training people in my parish to go door to door (we had fifty people), and also preparing others to go to their family members and summon them back, it was clear we had to get something out of the way at the very start. And that was that we were all going to suffer for doing this. We would be rejected, scorned, ridiculed, have anger vented on us and be asked questions we couldn’t answer. And yes, we would also have people who were delighted to see us and were very friendly, even open to the invitation to come to Mass, or to find out more.

But in the end, I wanted to be clear, we have to expect to get it with both barrels: POW!

Ready to Suffer? For, if you’re going to be a witness, you have to know that the Greek word for witness is μάρτυς – (martus) – “martyr.” Are you ready to suffer for Jesus? There are many who have gone so far as to be killed for announcing Jesus. And how about us? Are we even willing to risk a raised eyebrow? How about laughter, scorn, derision, anger, rejection, or even worse, simply being dismissed or ignored?

These things are just part of the picture. In no way does it indicate failure. In fact, it may indicate success for Christ promised such things to faithful disciples and witnesses. Further, anger and protests does not mean a seed has not been sown. In sowing the seed, the ground must first be broken, and that is not often an easy task. For the ground often makes “protest” and we will only get fruit from it by the sweat of our brow. Scripture says of such suffering:

1. Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me. (John 15:20-21)
2. The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. (Acts 5:41)
3. If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. (1 Peter 4:14)
4. If you suffer for being a Christian, don’t feel ashamed, but praise God for being called that name. (1 Peter 4:16)
5. We are fools for Christ’s sake (1 Cor 4:10)
6. God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. (1 Cor 1:21)
7. As servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses; in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger; in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love; in truthful speech and in the power of God; with weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left; through glory and dishonor, bad report and good report; genuine, yet regarded as impostors; known, yet regarded as unknown; dying, and yet we live on; beaten, and yet not killed; sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything. (2 Cor 6:4-10)

How can we read texts like these and think that we will not suffer for speaking and living our faith? Some will accept us, many will reject us. But in rejection, derision, scorn, and being called a fool consider yourself in good company. Jesus, the apostles and martyrs, the saints and all the heroes suffered in this way. It is not failure to thought of this way, it is simply the lot of the faithful to be often considered as such. In this sense it is a sign of success. We do not go looking for a fight or to make people angry. But often they are, and this is to be expected. Suffering is an essential part of being and evangelizer, a witness (a martyr).

Here are few things to remember when being scorned or the object of anger:

1. Don’t take anger and rejection personally. In most cases, it is not about you. Most people’s anger is really directed at Christ, or at God in general, or at his Church, or at organized religion. Some have been hurt by the Church, or feel hurt by God. It’s not about you.
2. Just because someone is angry or takes offense, doesn’t mean you did anything wrong or gave offense. I have often thought that, in a primitive part of our brain, developed in childhood, we instinctively think that, if some one is angry or upset with us, we have done something wrong. Not necessarily so. In fact, anger is sometimes a sign we have done something right, for, if we are faithful, we are raising issues that, though uncomfortable, are necessary to consider.
3. Do not give in to the temptation to retaliate or be personally hurt. Rather, rejoice that you have been deemed worthy to suffer for Christ.
4. Do not be discouraged. Shake the dust and move on. (cf Matt 10:14).
5. Remember that you are sowing seeds. You may not experience the harvest, but others may well bring it in. The fruitfulness of what you do may take years to come to harvest. Just stay faithful and keep sowing seeds.
6. Remember too, an evangelizer is a witness and the Greek word for witness is martyr. Suffering is simply part of the picture.

When we understand and accept these things we are less resentful and anxious when it happens. Don’t lose heart. Accept the martyrdom of evangelization.

And this leads us to the second notion of the word “martyr,” that of being a witness.

Now the word “witness” indicates someone who has seen or experienced the thing they are talking about. They are a witness because they themselves have personally seen or experienced and know what they are talking about. In English the word “witness” contains the sense of “knowing” for its etymological roots come from Old English and Germanic words such as “wit” and “wissen” meaning to know something, and also likely influenced by the the German verb “kennen” meaning to be personally familiar with someone or something.

Hence, to combine these roots, a “witness” is someone who knows the facts and truth of something personally, by first hand knowledge. I cannot really serve as a witness in a court by saying what others saw. Hearsay is not admissible. I have to say what I saw and and personally know. This is what it means to be a witness.

In evangelization work too, we are called to be witnesses. That is, we are called to speak not only what we intellectually know, or have heard others say, but also what we have personally experienced. As witnesses we are called to have firsthand knowledge, and not only say what others have said. It is not enough to know about the Lord, we have to personally KNOW the Lord. A child knows if his parents are just going through the motions of teaching them a prayer, and whether they really know the Lord personally, and are actually praying. Congregants know if their priest is just giving an informational sermon or if he has really met the Lord and “knows” personally what and Whom he speaks of.

People know the difference. And frankly what people are most hungry for is first hand witnesses, not people who just quote slogans and “safe, ” “tested” sayings of others. What people need to hear is: God is real, and I know this because I just talked with him this morning, and I experience his presence even now. And, in the laboratory of my own life I have tested God’s teachings from the Scriptures and the Church, and I have found them to be true and reliable. I am talking to you from experience, God is real, and his teachings are true, and I know this personally for I have experienced it in my life.

Too often, what could be evangelical moments devolve into religious debates about whether Pope “so-and-so” said this or that in the 8th Century, or about why women can’t be ordained, or why the “evil” Catholic Church conducted the inquisition. These sorts of topics come up quickly because we talk only of issues, and not from personal experience. It is harder for a person to deny what you have experienced when you or I say, “I have come to experience that God is real, that what he says through his Church is true, and I have staked my whole life on what he has revealed.”

What we need are witnesses more than apologetical experts who know every rebuttal. We DO need apologists out there and intellectual knowledge is important, but personal witness is even more important. It’s OK to say “I don’t know” to some technical question, but it’s not OK to be incapable of witness. Even as a priest I sometimes have to say I don’t know the answer to that, I’ll try to find out and let you know…But Let me tell you what I do know, and that is that God is at the center of my life and I have come to experience his love for me and every human being. I have come to experience his power to set me free from sin and every bondage and root me in the truth of his Word. And whatever the answer to your question is, I know it will be rooted in that.

Yes, we need martyrs for the work of evangelization. Those who are willing to suffer, and also those who are willing to be first hand witnesses, who have a personal testimony to give of the Lord they have come to know by experience.You should be an evangelizer, a witness, a martyr.

Photo Credit above: Paul in Jail by Rembrandt

Here is a video clip from Fr. Francis Martin wherein he beautifully described the second notion of the word martyr as “witness.” This clip is part of a longer series on the Gospel of John Series which you can see here: Gospel of John Series 3A

–

All week long the headlines shouted “Long Overdue Snow headed for Washington!” and “Nation’s Capital braces for Snow Onslaught!” Some dubbed it the “Snowquester” the blizzard of 2013!

It never came.

To be fair, just across the river in the Virginia hills and suburbs, six inches of slushy accumulation did occur.

And to be more fair, if you looked past the “Accuweather” and the “The Weather Channel” headlines to the true scientists at those channels and the National Weather Service, the real scientists behind the “hypsters” and “Ad-sellers,” they had said all along that the weather models had a hard time seeing the rain/snow line making it past the “I-95 Corridor.”

Yes, my favorite go-to weather guy Henry Margusity at Accu-Weather had said all week it didn’t look good for DC on the snow front. But never mind, his prediction didn’t sell ads, so his videos didn’t make the national news cut. You see, we need to get the folks to “tune in at 11” and go to the various blog sites to increase revenue.

Yes, marketing eclipses science.

Now I am not a scientist. But I live for the day when science will leave funding and marketing and be science again. Yes, I live for the day when the data will actually matter again, rather than the consequences of those data. Are you praying with me?

Sadly, the human condition is not lacking in the “objective” sciences either. Too many of those who see the sciences as purely objective and rooted in “objective” data are engaged in wishful and hopeful thinking. Science too, is all too subject to the human condition of seeing what we want to see, or even worse, seeing what is profitable.

For all the talk of the corruption of the Church (which is sad and all too real at times), those who think that science is some sort of refuge from the sinful and skewed human condition, should have tuned in at noon on Wednesday. For at that time it was obvious to any casual observer that the snowstorm in the nation’s Capital was a bust. Still the weather teams insisted that the snow would surely set in and that we should “make sure to tune in for the latest updates.”  We were being had.

And frankly, didn’t they actually know from the get-go, like my go-to guy, Henry Margusity that the storm was highly questionable from the start?  And if they did not, where they willing to admit that they, like the rest of us poor slobs, are prone to herd mentality?

Yes, even science is prone to “the human condition.” And perhaps the faster we “lay-folks” grab hold of this the faster we can set aside our latest idol of science.

Let me say, by way of disclaimer, that true meteorology has come a long way since I was a kid. Indeed, the real folks, the ones away from the cameras and the “tune in at eleven” crowd have done pretty well in setting forth the real and fairly accurate forecast. But the true meteorologist are also willing to show that prediction is within a range, and is not a certainty. My guy Henry, at Accuweather  was pretty clear, DC might get a lot of snow, but it wasn’t all that likely, and it looked like the Mountains were the real bulls-eye. He said this more than a day before the “tune in at eleven” storm.

But who lives in the Mountains? And so the marketers took an unlikely certainty and ran with it and sold ads in the city.

And here is the human condition that even pure science is hard to overcome. People like to criticize theology and philosophy for being too “subjective.” And I will admit that there are self-serving theologians and philosophers out there, who allow their need to sell books or secure access to power to drive their conclusions.

But just like my forecaster Henry demonstrates, there are still a few “say like it is scientists” out there. And there are also some good theologians who have not simply been co-opted by popular opinion or securing access to power. Yes,  in theology there are still some who have not simply caved to the popular and the profitable, who are willing to to stick to the data of revealed truth and report what is actually said, not just what is profitable.

And I suppose none of us are wholly pure. We all have some unexamined premises and some wishful thinking that drives our conclusions.

In the end there is simply this reminder: the human condition is to be imperfect, and to all of us there is the needful of correction from God, and from the reality He supplies. Tune it at 11 if you please, but don’t be too certain that the “latest update” is all that accurate after all.

I’m not cynic. I’m just one who is trying to be sober about the tendency of profit and popularity to obscure our observational skills and the capacity to speak the truth.

In this video, recorded a day before the storm, Accuweather forecaster Henry Margusity indicates significant doubt about the snow potential for eastern cities like Dc and Baltimore. His forecast never made the main news feeds. Move forward to about 3:45 minutes to get to the crux of his doubts. And, remember, his forecast was made more than a day before the “storm” hit.

Recently I have found a persistent line of questioning in reference to the traditional understanding of the Lord’s promise to the Church: the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it (Matt 16:18) . Yesterday on the blog a reader stated the question quite well:

This is just a curiosity question, but why is it that “gates” is always phrased by Catholics as if they were an offensive weapon being wielded against the Church? I’ve never heard them used  as such ….

But in the normal usage of the word “gates” wouldn’t it be that the Church is doing the attacking against [the domain of] Hell, but that Hell’s gates will not be able to hold out (ie, prevail) against the Church’s onslaught [in Christ]? Gates don’t normally go around attacking things on their own…

Further, while the word may simply refer to the large entrance gate to a city or fortress, it also typically refers to the exit the people go out of. And in this sense, word focuses on “what proceeds out of something.”

And thus we see some of the subtleties of the word pules. Now, for the translator, “gates” is a perfectly adequate translation. But for the reader and interpreter, more is required.

Contextually, it would seem rather clear that Jesus does not have literal gates in mind. First, Hell does not have literal iron gates. Further, since Jesus speaks of the gates as “not prevailing,” it would also seem that he has in mind something more than inanimate metal gates of some sort. For as our reader states, it does not pertain to gates to do much more than just sit there.

Further still, the verb κατισχύσουσιν (katischusousin = will prevail)  is a future, indicative, active verb. Now, inanimate objects tend to be acted upon, and thus they generally take passive verb forms, not active ones.  For  again it does not pertain to inanimate object to act, but to be acted upon.

And thus, contextually, it seems clear that our Lord here uses the word “gates” in a figurative, rather than a literal sense. Figuratively, he probably means that the powers of Hell would not prevail against the Church. And, as stated above this is a common figurative meaning of the Greek word  πύλης (gates) in ancient usage.

However, we need not understand this text in merely an “either-or” way. Many biblical texts admit of a number of different interpretations which need not be seen as mutually exclusive, even if they are rather different.  For, one of the geniuses of human language and expression is that it can admit of many potential meanings.

And so, there may be a certain pastoral sense in which we can read this text in a way that it describes the Church, attacking the strongholds of the Hell in this world, and of gaining back territory for the Kingdom.

However, in this interpretation, we would once again want to avoid an overly literal sense of the term “Gates of Hell.”   For in nowise, would the Church seek to storm The actual entrance of Hell so as to enter it. Rather, the gates of hell are to be sealed off by the Lord And locked from the outside  (e.g. Rev 20:3).  Of course, once again, these are not likely literal iron gates of some sort, But are at some sort of barrier or boundary marker indicating the limits of Hell, and it’s influence.

In this limited, and I would argue secondary sense, one might might see the Church as storming the “gates of Hell” and Hell not being able to prevail against her.

Another interesting question that arises in this passage is a precise definition of the Greek word used for “Hell” in this passage. The Greek Word is ᾅδου (hadou or hades).

Here too,  many insist that  the term only means “the place of the dead,”  and is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew concept of Sheol. Thus according to this position, Hades refers only to the place where all the dead went prior to the coming of Christ, and never means the place of the damned.

But again, the actual New Testament texts seem to bespeak a greater flexibility than an either-or argument would imply.

It is certainly true that “Hades” most often translates the Hebrew concept of Sheol.  In this sense, Hades does not mean the theological place of the damned, where Satan and the other fallen angels dwell.

But it would also seem that there are uses of “Hades”to refer to the place of the damned, to the place of utter and permanent exclusion from the presence of God.

For example, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man is in torment in “Hades.” But here, the torment does not seem a mere temporary abode until the Messiah comes to call him. Jesus seems to describe a fiery place of torment,  and the rich man is not sleeping in death but is quite alive and aware.  Neither does he, or Father Abraham, seem to look to a day when this separation will be ended. Rather, there is mention of a “great abyss” over which no one can cross. The arrangement seems quite definitive, quite permanent, and the description more like that of Gehenna (γέεννα), the more common term Jesus uses to indicate Hell.

Further, in the Book of Revelation 20:14–15,  there is the description of death and Hades being thrown into the lake of fire. And thus, even if there is a distinction between Hades and Gehenna, they now seem, in a text like this, to be quite coterminous, indeed they become one reality.

So in the text that concerns us here,  when Jesus speaks of the powers of Hell not prevailing, it would not seen that he has in mind simply Sheol (Hades), or purgatory. For why would Sheol or purgatory wage war against the Church?

Hence, contextually, it seems stronger argument that the Lord in using “Hades”  to mean here what we moderns mean by the word “Hell,”  namely, the theological place of the damned, to include Satan, the fallen angels, and human persons who have chosen to exclude themselves from the Kingdom of God.

As with all Biblical texts, reasonable scholars will differ, even within the Catholic Church. What I have tried to do here, is to show that the traditional Catholic understanding that the powers of Hell would not prevail against the church is at least a valid interpretation of the text, and at best, a better interpretation of the text.