Blog of the Archdiocese of Washington
I dunno why, It just looks funny to see the Pope on the Phone:
Suggested caption: “No! Really this is the Pope! I really mean it! Please deliver three pizzas, extra cheese and Italian Sausage… No really! I am not kidding. This is me!”
_____________________________________________________________
Anyway here’s a little video I put together a few years back, some humorous pictures of the Pope. He is a very photogenic man. The music starts a little late on the video, but it does come.
One of the more plaintive cries in the Bible is found in Psalm 13. When I read it in the Latin Breviary, somehow its impact is stronger, more sorrowful:
Usquequo Domine?! Oblivisceris me in finem, usquequo avertis faciem tuam a me? Quamdiu ponam consilia in anima mea, dolorem in corde meo per diem? Usquequo…! (How long O Lord! Will you forget me unto the end?! How long will you turn your face away from me? How long must I take counsel in my soul, and sorrow in my heart all the day? How long!?) Psalm 13:1-2
There are just those times in our life when things don’t make sense, and we wonder why, and seeing no end in sight, we wonder how long. It is not just the suffering, it is not knowing why or how long, that intensifies the agony and makes up most of its content.
The theologian Jacques Philippe well describes the experience of this way:
In situations of trial, not knowing why we are being tested is often harder to bear than the testing itself. “What is the meaning?” People ask. “Why?” and they get no answer. When, by contrast, reason is satisfied, suffering is much easier to accept. It is like the doctor who hurts us–we don’t get angry with him because we understand that he does it to make us better. (Interior Freedom – Kindle Edition, 547-69)
Yes, it’s not knowing why or how long that is often the worst part. Our questions are not without merit, and God even seems to sanctify them by including them in the prayer book he inspired, the Book of Psalms. Yes, asking “Why,” & “How much longer!?” is part of our dignity, and our fundamental makeup. Again as Jacques Philippe notes:
Man has a thirst for truth, a need to understand, that is part of human dignity and greatness. To despise intelligence, its capacities, and its role in the human spiritual life would be unjust. Faith cannot do without reason; and nothing is more beautiful than the possibility given man of cooperating in the work of God…when our minds grasp what God is doing, what he is calling us to, how he is teaching us to grow, enable us to cooperate fully with the work of grace.… It is therefore good and right that we want to understand the meaning of everything in our lives. (ibid).
And so yes, our questions “why,” and “how long,” are understandable, even sanctified.
That said, even though our questions are valid, it does not mean that we will always get an answer. Indeed, our need to know everything requires some purification, some understanding of the limits of our ability to know.
On the one hand, there are some things that are not for us to know. For example if someone offends or harms us, we may call out for God and ask why. And yet, it is not God’s role, and might even be inappropriate for God, to reveal to us the secrets of another’s heart, their motives, and what the personal histories and hurts were that may have led them to act in a certain way. Frankly, there are some things that are simply not for us to know, that are none of our business.
Then too, there are other things, that are beyond our ability to know, such that, even if God did tell us why, all we would hear would be thunder. To some extent this is the answer that God gave Job, when Job asked “why” in reference to his sufferings. God reminded Job of all the magnificent things that He, the Lord, had done. He told Job, in effect, that if Job could understand all these things, then perhaps He, the Lord, would answer Job why things were going bad for Job and why the Lord had permitted it. And thus, Job realized that the answer to the question “why” was beyond him.
Strangely enough, I have often had this truth illustrated for me in the interactions that I have had with my pets. Recently, it was time for me to take my cat, Daniel, to the vet, something he dreads. Suddenly, in an instant, I appeared to him as an enemy, swooping down upon him, and placing him in a carrying cage. He cried with protest, meowing and caterwauling with such volume that the neighbors looked out their windows as I brought him to the car. All the way to the vet he bellowed, he cried, meowed, moaned and, caterwauled. I tried to explain to him,
“Daniel, it will be just fine, we’re just going to the vet to get a few shots that you need, and to get a quick checkup. You’ll be home in an hour!”
But Daniel is just a cat, he does not speaking English, and thus, all he heard from me was thunder. Nothing I would say could satisfy him. Indeed, I could not satisfy him with an answer, I could not console him, for he has only a cat brain which cannot understand the larger concepts like health, like the notion “temporary.” No, for him it was two hours of sheer terror, terror he did not understand or know when it would end. And, until we returned to the rectory and I opened the cage door in the familiar living room, he would not, he could not, understand or be consoled.
I think it is like this was God and us. Though our minds are certainly more rational than that of a cat, when it comes to comparing our puny minds to God, and the cat’s puny mind to God, I’m not sure the difference is that great. There are many things that God knows that we can not hope to know, things that he sees that we cannot hope to see. And were He to say, “I am doing thus and so, and this is why,” we would have no greater understanding of what he was saying than my cat does of me as I try to explain the terrifying car ride.
So, it is not wrong for us to ask why, and how long. Again, it is part of our dignity. But in the end, there is only so much we can know. Some things are just not of our business. Other things, are way above our pay grade. And God cannot reduce to mere human words what he is doing and whereof he acts.
In cases such as these serenity can only be found in finally acknowledging, and accepting that there are some things we cannot know, and that is enough that God knows what He is doing, and whereof he acts.
Jesus once told the apostles What I am doing, you do not understand now, but afterward he will understand (Jn 13:7). He also spoke to them of the day that they would see him again, and said, On that day, you will have no more questions to ask me (Jn 16:23). For now, there are plenty of questions, and only some answers. It is enough Lord, it is sufficient that you know.
Jesus, I trust you!
Are You Smarter than a Fifth-Grader?
Archdiocese of Washington: Year of Faith series
Written by:
Dominican Brothers of the Province of St. Joseph
Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome is the largest Catholic Church in the world, and it is one of the most beautiful. For centuries, Christian faithful have traveled to Saint Peter’s on pilgrimage. The original Basilica was built in the fourth century on the exact spot where the Apostle Peter – the first Pope – was martyred and buried in Rome. It is no coincidence that the place where Saint Peter was crucified upside down is the site of the largest Catholic Church in the world. It is a testament to faith in the saving power of Christ – that from death comes new life in Christ with the promise of the resurrection.
It never ceases to amaze me that visitors of all faiths – and those with no faith at all – walk into Saint Peter’s Basilica, and it takes their breath away. Saint Peter’s is beautiful, and one feels the awe and wonder of God when entering the church.
A majestic church like St. Peter’s Basilica is huge, shocking and unavoidable. When we encounter it, it overwhelms us with how there and real it is. At the basis of faith is a similar encounter with the immensity and reality of God. Someone said to me once, “I’m trying to discern whether I believe in God.” Isn’t this backwards? Too often we begin thinking of faith as something I do. But faith begins with God. Faith is about a response to what God has done for us.
St. John teaches us that it is not that we first loved God — but that God first loved us and gave His life for us. When this Love pursues and encounters us we are humbled, and overwhelmed. And so St. Paul says that, “it is not that I have already taken hold of it… but I continue my pursuit in hope that I may possess it, since I have indeed been taken possession of by Christ” (Philippians 3:12).
Since faith is a response to God, the question our hearts ask is, “Who is God?” God told Moses His own name: Yahweh. It means literally, “I am who I am” (Exodus 3:13-14). The Israelites held it in such awe that they didn’t speak or even write it. What does it tell us about God? The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
“This divine name is mysterious just as God is mystery. It is at once a name revealed and something like the refusal of a name, and hence it better expresses God as what he is – infinitely above everything that we can understand or say: he is the ‘hidden God’, his name is ineffable, and he is the God who makes himself close to men.” (CCC 206)
Finding ourselves in “the fascinating and mysterious presence” of God, we realize how small and “insignificant” we are—and how great He is (CCC 208). This shouldn’t make us fear Him. Rather, it should increase our desire to know His mysterious being. It should inflame our hearts to know Him better. In the heart of every Christian is the desire to “seek His face.”
Today is the first day of the “Year of Faith,” called for by Pope Benedict XVI. Please follow our weekly series — “Are You Smarter than a Fifth-Grader” — as we delve deeper into the truths of the faith, so we can come to a deeper relationship with the One True God.
—
Be sure to follow the Are You Smarter series on the Archdiocese of Washington Facebook page.
In the readings for daily Mass the past few days we have been reviewing the faith journey of St. Paul who describes his personal history and also his authority in the second chapter of the Letter to the Galatians. The story is interesting for three reasons.
Let’s take a look at each of these matters in turn.
1. On Paul’s conversion, formation and ascent to the office of Apostle (Bishop). Many have oversimplified notions of Paul’s conversion, and subsequent missionary activity. Many who have not carefully studied the texts of Acts, Galatians, and other references assume that Paul went right to work after his conversion as a missionary. But this was not the case.
At the time near his conversion Paul was described as “a young man” (neanias). Sometime after the death of Stephen he had his conversion, encountering the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. Immediately following his encounter with Christ he was blinded for three days and eventually healed by a Christian named Ananias who also baptized him (Acts 9:9-19).
Hereafter, according to Galatians, Paul went into the Desert of Arabia (Gal 1:17). Why he went, and for how long is not known. It is probably not wrong to presume that he went there to reflect and possibly be further formed in the Christian faith to which he had come so suddenly and unexpectedly. Was he there for several years as some scholars propose or just a brief time as others do? It is not possible to say with certainty but it would seem that some amount of time would be necessary to pray, reflect and experience formation in the Christian way, possibly with other Christians. A period of at least a year seems tenable and perhaps as many as three years. We can only speculate.
Paul then returned to Damascus and joined the Christian community there for a period of almost three years (Gal 1:18). While there he took to debating in the synagogues and was so effective in demonstrating that Jesus was the hoped for Messiah that some of the Jews there conspired to kill him.
He fled the city and went to Jerusalem (Acts 9:20-25). Paul states that he went there to confer with Cephas (Peter) (Gal 1:18). Paul seems to imply that he thought it was time to confer with Peter since he had begun to teach and even now was gaining disciples. Later he would describe the purpose of another visit to Peter and the other leaders: to present the Gospel that I preach to the Gentiles…so that I might not be running, or have run in vain (Gal 2:2). While there on this first visit he stayed for 15 days and also met James.
After this consultation he went home to Tarsus for a period of about three years. What he did during this time is unknown.
Barnabas then arrived and asked him to come to Antioch and help him evangelize there (Acts 11:25-26). He stayed there about a year.
He made another brief visit to Jerusalem to deliver a collection for the poor.
Upon his return to Antioch we finally see his ordination as a Bishop. The leaders of the Church at Antioch were praying and received instruction from the Holy Spirit to Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them (Acts 13:3). Thus, the leaders of the Church there laid hands on Barnabas and Saul and send them forth on Mission. Here we have an ordination and the source of Paul’s status as Apostle (bishop).
Notice however, this sending happens years after Paul’s conversion. Depending on how long we account his time in the desert we are talking about 7-10 years wherein Paul lived in community with other members of the Church and also conferred with Peter. He was not a self appointed missionary and his conversion required completion before the Church sent him forth. This going-forth he undertook only after being sent.
2. On Paul’s submission to authority – We can see therefore, that Paul was not a lone ranger. He did submit what he taught to Peter and later to others apostles and leaders (Acts 11 & 15). He states that to have preached something other than what the Church proposed would be to run “in vain” (Gal 2:2).
Here was a man who was formed by the community of the Church and who submitted his teachings to scrutiny by lawful authority.
Sent – Here was man who went forth on his missions only after he was ordained and sent.
Appointed other leaders – Further, Paul and Barnabas, as they went through the towns and villages on their missionary journeys, also established authority in each church community they founded by appointing presbyters in each town (Acts 14:23).
Upon completion of their first missionary journey they reported back to the leaders at Antioch who had sent them (Acts 14:27) and later to the apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 15). Hence we have an accountability structure in the early Church and a line of authority. Paul was no independent operator, or self appointed, self ordained leader. He both respected authority and established authority in the churches he established. He also makes it clear to the Galatians and others that he has authority and that he expects them to respect it.
3. But here is where we also see a fascinating and somewhat refreshing portrait of what true respect for authority includes. It is clear, from what we have seen, that Paul respected the authority of Peter and had both conferred with him early on and later set forth the gospel that he preached. However, there is also a description of Paul offering fraternal correction to Peter:
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (Gal 2:11-14)
There is something refreshing about this understanding of authority. It understands that having authority does not mean one is above reproof. Too many people shy away from speaking honestly to those in authority. There is an old saying about bishops: When a man becomes a bishop he will never again have a bad meal and he will never again hear the truth. Too many of us flatter those who have authority. In so doing we tend to isolate them. They do not have all the information and feedback they need to make good decisions. And then, we they do make questionable decisions we criticize them. Of course we seldom do this to their face. Rather we speak ill of them behind their back and continue to remain largely silent and flattering to their face. The cycle continues, and everyone suffers.
But here Paul stands face to face (κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην) with Peter and accuses him of a moral fault. Peter had taught rightly of the equality of the Gentiles but drew back from keeping company with them. We as Catholics teach of the infallibility of the pope but we do not teach that he is impeccable (sinless). Even those who teach rightly (as Peter did) sometimes struggle to fully live the truth they preach.
Accountability in the Church demands that we learn to speak the truth to one another in love, even if the one we must speak to has authority. People are often reticent to speak frankly to their Pastors. Bishops too are often isolated in this way. Even their priests often refrain from frank discussion of issues. In this Archdiocese I know that Archbishop Wuerl is very serious about consultation and he enjoys a vigorous airing of issues at the priest council, and other consultative bodies.
Clearly correction and/or frank discussion should be done charitably, but it should be done. Now Paul here is a little bolder than I would be, but he also lived in a different culture than I. As we can see from the Gospels and other writings Jesus and the Apostles really “mixed it up” with others. The ancient Jewish setting was famous for frank and vivid discussion of issues that included a lot of hyperbole. Our own culture prefers a more gentle approach. Perhaps the modern rule is best stated: Clarity with Charity.
Clarity – In the end, we show a far greater respect for authority by speaking clearly and directly to those in authority. False flattery is unhelpful, inappropriate silence does not serve, and speaking scornfully behind the backs of others is just plain sinful.
Charity – Again, this does not exclude the need for charity and proper respect both for age and for office. I have sadly found that those who have wished to correct priests and bishops in our current setting often go to the other extreme, using bold, disrespectful, even insulting language, name calling and impugning of motives. This is not necessary, and especially in our our culture is also ineffective.
So Paul demonstrates a sort of refreshing honesty with Peter here. He acknowledges Peter’s authority as we have seen but also respects Peter enough as a man to speak with him directly and clearly, to his face, and not behind his back.
This video is a brief summary of St. Paul’s life. Most scholars don’t agree with the concluding remark that Paul made it out of Roman prison and went to Spain. But there are two traditions in this regard:
One of the dangers to avoid in life is that things become 1000 miles wide and only 2 inches thick. Sometimes, it is better to have a few things, and experience them in depth, than to have many things but experience only the surface of them.
One of the most obvious and glaring examples of this, is our experience today of community. It is surely at least a thousand miles wide, indeed, its expanse is global. But how deep for rich is it? As never before, we can communicate at the global level. I am aware for example, that people who read this blog, read from all over the world, in every time zone, on every continent in many countries. On Facebook, I have 5000 friends, my YouTube page is also well visited and my recorded sermons are on iTunes. I’m “out there” in the “virtual world” and thousands also connect with me through their sites and projects and videos. I “know” and “interact” with a lot of people. Worldwide, instant communication with large numbers.
And in speaking about myself, I am likely describing you as well. Take a few pictures and, shazam , they’re out there on Google+, Picasa and Facebook and 500 people might see them in moments. If you write an article or read one, quick, (or should I say “Tweet”) you send the link and hundreds or thousands get it. Talk about communication!
But in all this communication, how deep is the communion? As never before we are “connected” but where is the experience of connectedness, of true community, of communion? Consider:
1. Most families rarely sit down to dinner together.
2. Courtship and marriage are becoming difficult and even rare. I cannot tell you how often that young people tell me today how hard it is hard to “meet” anyone. Though the opportunities seem greater due to easy transportation and communication devices, the actual “in-depth” experience implied by the term “meet” someone, is harder to come by.
3. Promiscuity, “hooking up,” are destructive of the deeper summons to intimacy, and casual dating, and/or the predominance of mere “group” gatherings, have tended to erode the older notion of “going out on a date” and dating steadily in preparation for marriage.
4. Indeed, 40% of women today have never been married, and if you poll only women age twenty-five to forty the number is closer to 60%. Most couples who do finally get married, postpone that now until the early to mid thirties. And smaller numbers of those who finally do get married struggle to stay married. Of all women married today, only 36% of them are in their first marriage. Thus, in summary, marriage is rarer, later, and less successful than ever before. [1]
5. Smaller families – I goes without saying, with marriage being in such crisis that birthrates have plummeted, and the internal community of the family is a smaller and less rich experience than the larger nuclear and extended families of the past.
6. Most people no longer attend community meetings and seldom interact with their neighbors. Church attendance is not the only form of community meeting that has declined, in terms of numbers attending.
7. Few roots – Most people do not live and die in the community they grew up in, or work for the same company the whole of their career, but are more constantly on the move from job to job and place to place.
8. Fewer anchor institutions – Increasing numbers of Americans do not attend a neighborhood school, but go to “magnet” schools, private schools, or other far flung schools.
9. Increasing numbers of Catholics do not go to their neighborhood parish. In fact only 25% of Catholics go to Church at all. And of those who still go, increasing numbers commute to specialized parishes featuring particular “mixes” of preaching, liturgy, ethnic factors etc. The parish a Catholic attends may often be no where near where they live.
And thus we have modern life, a thousand miles wide but often less than two inches thick, a life that is increasingly “virtual,” far flung, highly selective and insular, outwardly focused but inwardly impoverished, rich in diversity, but poor in depth, filled with acquaintances but short on intimacy.
There are innumerable factors that have given rise to this modern experience. But in this post, I’d just like to emphasize one, and that is simply, “contiguity” or proximity.
“Contiguity” is here understood as the condition of being physically close, (from the Latin Contingere meaning to touch, or border upon, con (with) + Tangere (touch)).
“Proximity” comes also from the Latin proxima meaning near or neighbor.
We human beings are “Body-persons” That is to say, we are persons whose substance includes (but is not limited to) the physical dimension of reality. Having a body locates us in space. And, since our bodies are tied to the physical order there are going to be some limits that pertain to our ability to relate to others. Though we are able to be very mobile today, working and living thirty miles apart is still a huge factor in our lives, especially if there is traffic. Where ever “there” is, it is still going to take us time to get there, and the further things are physically apart, the more difficult it is going to be for us to have deep relationships with people who are “there.”
There is an inverse proportion between physical distance and things like involvement, attachment, passion, and connectedness. And, as we widen the physical coverage of our lives, the depths of our relationships narrow and become more shallow.
As a pastor, who knows the increasing concept of the “commuter parish” it is clear, in talking with my brother priests, that is much harder to engage people to enter more deeply into parish life through things like devotions, Bible study, religious ed for children, works of charity and community involvement.
Thus, while a parish may be blessed to have those who still attend due to things like historical ties, music and liturgical preferences, and other things like preaching and leadership skills by pastor or staff, the simple fact is, “commuter parishes” often go very silent in the mid-week.
Commuter parishioners also attend mass less often. That twenty to thirty minute commute, driving by five or six parishes on the way, is very easily disturbed by things like weather, getting up a little late, not being able to find one of the kid’s shoes etc. And though a parent might be devoted to a far flung parish, say because it offers the traditional Latin Mass, their children my not be as connected, and they will not meet other children as easily, will probably not attend the parish school, or go to as many youth related events.
Why this lesser connection of commuters parishioners? Because paved roads and sleek autos aside, thirty miles is still thirty miles. Even fifteen miles is going to take at least 30 minutes. It’s just a big factor for us “body-persons.”
There’s just something about contiguity, about being physically close to what matters in our life. Without a good amount of contiguity, and proximity, depth and quality suffer a LOT. Not being connected to the physical neighborhoods in which we live, and emphasizing far flung relationships or (worse) virtual ones, mean that a lot of depth and intimacy is lost. There’s just something about living close to the people we know that helps us know them better.
And while physical locale may limit the numbers and types of people we know, the depths of those relationships can be far better. In the “old days” so many spouses met simply by going to the local burger joint, or soda shop on a frequent basis, simply meeting by shopping at the same stores, or going to the same movie theaters. In the “old days” there was a lot more emphasis on the local high school dance, the football game, and other local things like parades, carnivals, etc. And when people were met at occasions like this, there was a stronger likelihood that they’d be able to follow up and meet again since “neighborhood” is just another way of saying, “the nearby hood”
There’s just something about being physically close. It’s part of the way we are made, as spiritual AND physical beings. And wandering too far afield, or casting our net too widely, has the cumulative effect of reducing the depths to which we experience life and people.
With all our mobility and far-flung interests, both actual and “virtual” we run the risk of a life that is a thousand miles wide and two inches thick.
My own experience as a priest powerfully underscores the role of congregation in helping to craft the preaching moment. I have served almost all of my 20 years in African American parishes. In these settings the congregation takes an active part in the preaching moment. Acclamations and affirmations such as “Amen!” “Go on!” “Make it plain preacher” “Hallelujah,” and the like are common. Hands are often raised in silent affirmation, nods of the head move through the congregation. Now all of this affects the preaching moment powerfully for me and helps it take shape and come to life.
There is also an air of expectation in the church as the Homily moment arrives. African American congregations want a good sermon and are eager to hear what the preacher will say. People expect to hear a word that will change them. I have heard some in the African American community refer to tangible energy in the room as “the hum.”
That there are high expectations of me is both encouraging and challenging. That I am expected to do well means I have to prepare, I have to pray, I have to summon my talent, memory for scripture and experience of culture and weave them into a homily that is from the heart but well prepared. High expectations encourage me to strive for sermons that are not just adequate but also aimed at the superlative. And the beauty is that it is not all up to me. The congregation knows its role and they pray and work with me when I preach and together we form a kind of partnership.
To be sure, I am the one who teaches with the authority that Holy Orders confers. But I am not alone, delivering a monologue of sorts to a largely passive audience. All this brings the preaching moment much more to life. There is an enthusiasm in the congregation that is contagious and leads me to enthusiasm for what I say.
A final observation here of mine would be the question of length. The usual length of a sermon in the African American Parishes is closer to a half an hour unlike the 10-12 minute lengths expected elsewhere. It is a great luxury to be able to spend a little more time preaching through the whole text of a gospel or epistle not just a thought or exhortation. Now I would never recommend to a priest that he preach a half an hour is he only has 10 minutes of material but my point is not that a sermon must be longer, but that congregations might relax a bit on the time concerns. Many of my brother priests feel very constrained by the expectation of a very brief sermon.
Two quotes to end with. One from recent times and one from antiquity. The first quote is from, the Scripture Scholar William Barclay who is commenting on how Jesus was expelled from the synagogue in Nazareth:
There can be no preaching in the wrong atmosphere. Our churches would be different places if congregations would only remember that they preach far more than half the sermon. In an atmosphere of expectancy the poorest effort can catch fire. In an atmosphere of critical coldness or bland indifference the most Spirit-packed utterance can fall lifeless to the ground. (The Gospel of Mark, p. 140)
The second quote is from Gregory the Great in his Homily on the Pastoral Office:
Pray then for us that we [preachers] may have strength to labor for you as we ought, that our tongue may not be slack to exhort, and that, having undertaken the office of preaching, our silence may not prove our condemnation at the tribunal of the just Judge. For oftentimes by reason of their own sins the tongue of preachers is tied, oftentimes on the other hand it is because of the sins of their people that the gift of eloquence is withheld from pastors. By reason of their own sins the tongue of preachers is tied, according to the words of the Psalmist, “ But to the sinner God hath said, Why dost thou declare My justices ? ” (Ps. xlix. 16.) And again, the voice of preachers is hindered because of the sins of the people, according to the words of the Lord to Ezekiel : “ I will make thy tongue stick fast to the roof of thy mouth, and thou shalt be dumb, and not as a man that reproveth, because they are an obstinate house ” (Ezec. iii. 26). As though He said expressly : The gift of eloquence is withdrawn from thee, because while the people offend Me by their sins they are not worthy to have the truth preached to them. Through whose fault it is that speech is withdrawn from the preacher is no easy matter to decide. But that the silence of the pastor is hurtful to himself sometimes, and to his flock at all times, is beyond all doubt. (Lib 2.4)
This video is an excerpt of a sermon of Dr. Martin Luther King “A Knock at Midnight.” Listen to the role that the congregations plays in the sermon. I realize that this sort of interaction with the preacher will not work in every congregation. Why in some suburban parishes if you started to “get happy” in Church the ushers might come to your side and give you the bum’s rush 🙂 But even if this sort of response isn’t available to you the priest will know when you’re engaged and praying with him. Work with the preacher!
In so many ways, I am relentlessly male. I am out there, I want to engage the issues of the day, I rejoice in the Church-militant, and looked to the Church-triumphant! This is appropriate, and proper, for I am a Christian man and God has gifted me to engage the battle! Men, in their maleness are a gift to the Church.
That said, I have come also to realize my need, and my indebtedness to the holy women of God’s Church, those living, and profoundly, those who have gone before, who have set forth a glorious testimony of the feminine genius and mystique of deep, mystical prayer.
Ah, the Holy Women! There are to be sure, men, such as St. John of the Cross, and St. Bernard of Clairvaux, just to mention two, who have set forth the great in mystical vision. But I must say, I am particularly indebted to the great women, to the mystics and Doctors of the Church, such as St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Rose of Lima, St. Therese of Lisieux, Sister Faustina, and other women, who ventured into deep, contemplative, and spousal union with the Lord.
How their deep love, and their intensity. Their union with God has inspired me in my own journey toward contemplative prayer. Though I cannot access their spousal love for the Lord, I am able to transpose their experiences to a deep spiritual experience of sonship with God the Father, for he is Abba, and I am the son!
Ah! The great Catherine of Sienna, her love for the Lord, her wisdom, rooted in both suffering and afflication, in joy and ecstasy. She personally met the Lord! What a witness! What a glory, what a testimony that the mystics give us. St. Teresa of Avila. she to who encountered the Lord, and yet suffered greatly! She was even suspected of heresy and her visions and experiences were submitted to the Inquisition!
Alas, Lord! Spare us for our suspicious rejection of the normal Christian life! St. Rose of Lima, St. Mary Margaret Mary, and Sister Fuustina, considered by many of their contemporaries to be strange, excessive, even possessed! Yet, they knew Him whom they had encountered. They knew his love for them, and were willing to suffer with him, and for him!
Spare us O Lord for our obtuseness, our doubt, and our lack of faith in assigning to them, who experienced a normal Christian life, the label of insanity, of oddness, extremity, mental unbalance, and even possession!
They encountered you, they had met you, and experienced you! Yet so many of us thought them strange and unbalanced. Forgive us Lord. Too often we have substituted extreme rationalism, for the mystical vision of You, who go beyond mere words and mere human formulae.
Forgive us Lord, for while our intellect is our crowning glory, sometimes we forget that you cannot be reduced to the limits of human concepts.
The mystics remind us of God’s transcendence, and we have often made them suffer for this.
Yes Lord, while it is surely our obligation to submit all things to your holy Magisterium, forgive, Lord, us for the times when we have been too slow or too skeptical to accept the bold testimony that the mystics give us, that you are Other and that you draw us beyond what is simply and comfortably understood by us.
Thank you Lord for the mystical tradition, for the holy women, and men too, starting with John the Apostle, who have testified to us of you, who may have encountered You in ways more deep than words, too difficult to define. They suffered much, often at our hands, for the visions ABC, but they knew and would not deny you, whom they encountered.
Yes, pardon dear reader, a brief departure to prayer, and gratitude. As you know, the Pope has recently declared two new doctors of the Church. Among them is St. Hildegard von Bingen, and St. John of Avila.
I must say to you, with some embarrassment, that I know little of their, of her wisdom, and their experience of the Lord. But I will now, go and sit at their feet, encouraged by the Holy Father and I will listen and learn. For I have learned that the many holy women, and the men too, the mystics, have much to teach me. Their teachings go beyond words, and into vision, into the deep experience of the heart, into the deeper things of God, things not easily reduced to words. Therefore much is learned not only from their written teachings, but also of their lives and their experience, their sufferings and joys.
The intellectual tradition of the Church, his magnificent and necessary. But so is the mystical tradition, a tradition not opposed to, or really even distinct from, the intellectual tradition. For the same God is experienced and speaks in both ways. And while all things must be submitted to the sacred Magisterium of the Church, the intellectual and the mystical tradition should both be appreciated, and respected.
And thus, my next journey should well be to explore and carefully listen to the teachings of St. Hildegard von Bingen and St. John of Avila. Today the Pope has said listen to them, learn from them, sit and their feet, study and carefully consider what they teach.
Here are new Doctors of the Church.
And, in particular I must say, that I as a man, so relentlessly male, must, despite my gifts as a man, be balanced and completed by the holy women of the Church. Indeed, they have been my teachers, especially in the ways of prayer. Thanks be to God. Here is a video I have compiled in gratitude to some very important women in my life:
Today’s first reading and Gospel speak to us of the miracle of marriage. If your marriage is even reasonably working, it is a miracle! We live in an age that is poisonous to marriage. Many people look for marriage to be ideal, and if there is any ordeal, they want a new deal. Our culture says if it doesn’t work out, bail out. Thus, successful marriages today are a miracle. Likewise, marriages are also a miracle since they are ultimately, a work of God.
Today’s readings bring before us, some fundamental teachings on marriage. Lets look at the Gospel, in five stages.
I. Rejection–the Gospel opens with the Pharisees approaching Jesus and they asked, somewhat rhetorically, “Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?” Jesus, aware of their hypocrisy, that they do not really want an answer from him on which to base their lives, asks them in turn, “What did Moses command you?” They gleefully respond that Moses permitted a husband to divorce his wife so long as he filled out the paperwork.
But Jesus will have none of it and tells them that Moses only permitted this very regrettable thing called divorce because of their hard hearts.
There was a tradition among the Rabbis of Jesus time that this seemingly lax provision permitting divorce resulted from the fact that Moses reasoned, that if he were to say to the men of his day that marriage was until death, that the men of his day might very well arrange for the death of their wives. Thus in order to prevent homicide, Moses permitted the lesser evil of divorce. But it was still an evil, and still something deeply regrettable. Thus God himself says in the book of Malachi:
And this again you do. You cover the Lord’ altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering…You ask, “why does he not?” Because the Lord is witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Has not the one God made and sustained for us the spirit of life? And what does he desire? Godly offspring. So take heed to yourselves, and let none be faithless to the wife of his youth. “For I hate divorce says the Lord, the God of Israel, and covering one’s garment with violence, says the Lord of host. Yes…take heed to yourselves, and do not be faithless.” (Malachi 2:13–16)
Thus, in these opening lines of the gospel, Jesus spends time highlighting how the Pharisees, and many other men of his time, have rejected God’s fundamental teaching on marriage. Jesus is about to reiterate that teaching, but for now, note first, the rejection evidenced in the question of the Pharisees, a rejection which Jesus roots in hearts that have become hardened by sin, unforgiveness, and a rejection of God’s plan.
God hates divorce not only because it intrinsically rejects what he has set forth, but because it is also symptomatic of human hardness, and sinfulness.
II. Restoration–Jesus, having encountered their hard hearts, announces a restoration, a return to God’s original plan for marriage. The Lord quotes the book of Genesis saying,
But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. And for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.
Note that the line begins with the phrase, “but from the beginning of creation…” In other words, Jesus signals that, whatever may have happened in the aftermath of Original Sin, whatever compromises or arrangements, that may have emerged in the reign of sin, are now to be done away with in the reign of grace that will come as the result of Jesus’ saving death and resurrection.
On account of the grace that will be bestowed we are now able, and expected to return to God’s original plan for marriage, that is, one man for one woman in a lifelong, stable relationship, which is fruitful, bringing forth godly children for God and his kingdom. This is God’s plan, a plan which has no room for divorce, contraception, and anything other than fruitful, stable love.
We live in a time, in Western culture, when there have been many attempts to redefine God’s plan for marriage, and substitute something erroneous, something human, for God’s original and perfect plan. And while current attempts to redefine marriage as including same-sex unions are a particularly egregious attempt at redefining marriage, this is not the first or only way that many in our culture have sought to redefine God’s plan for marriage.
The first attempts began in the 1950s, when the first celebrity divorces began to happen in Hollywood, beginning with Ingrid Bergman and many others to follow. Many Americans, who love their Hollywood stars, began to justify divorce. “Don’t people deserved to be happy?” became the refrain. And thus marriage, which had its essential focus as what was good and best for children, began, subtly but clearly, to be redefined in terms of what was best for adults. The happiness of the adults, rather than the well-being of the children, began to take pride of place in most people’s thinking about marriage.
Pressure began to build to the 1950s and into the 1960s that sought to make divorce easier. Until the late 1960s, divorces had been legally difficult to obtain in America. Wealthier people, and celebrities, often went to Mexico to get divorces. But now, pressure began to build to make divorce in this country easier. In 1969 Gov. Ronald Reagan of California, signed the 1st “no-fault divorce law.” This legislation made divorce a very easy thing to obtain. Within ten years most of the 50 states had similar laws. Divorce rates skyrocketed, as we well know.
And this amounts to the 1st redefinition of marriage. No longer was a man to leave his father and mother, and “cling to his wife.” Now, at the sign of trouble men and women could easily sever their marriage vows. But this in direct contradiction to God’s plan which tells them to cling. Thus, we engaged in what amounts to a redefinition of marriage.
The second redefinition of marriage came when the contraceptive mentality seized America in its grip beginning in the late 1950s and continuing apace to current times. Though God had said to the first couple, Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth… (Genesis 1:28), Now children become more of a way of “accessorizing” the marriage, then an integral and expected fruit of marriage. Thus, children, were no longer an essential purpose of marriage, only an optional outcome, based on the wishes of the adults. And this too, is a redefinition of marriage in direct contradiction to God’s instruction to be fruitful and multiply. The happiness and will of the adults in question now attained to preeminence, children, rather than being an essential fruit, are only a possible outcome.
The current, and third redefinition of marriage is the proposal by many in our culture that people of the same sex can now enter into “marriage.” The utter absurdity of this proposal flows from the sinful conclusions of the first two redefinitions, which in effect state that, marriage is simply about two adults being happy, and doing what pleases them.
If that be the case, then there seems little basis in most people’s mind to protest “Gay” people getting married or, frankly, 3 or 4 or 5 adults getting married (polygamy is surely coming next).
We, in the heterosexual community, have misbehaved, and redefined essential aspects of marriage for over fifty years now. And the latest absurdity, (and it is absurd), of gay marriage flows from the flawed and sinful redefinition of marriage in the heterosexual community. We have sown in the wind, now we are reaping the whirlwind.
In the end, Jesus will have none of this. He rejects the attempts of the men of his age to redefine marriage, and he, through his Church, his living voice in the world today, also rejects the sinful and absurd redefinitions that we in our culture, propose, be it divorce, contraception or homosexual “marriage.”
God has set forth that a man leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and that the two of them become one flesh. In making a suitable partner for Adam, God created Eve, not Steve. And hence homosexual unions are excluded, a man is not a suitable partner for a man, a woman is not a suitable partner for a woman. Further, God did not, in making a suitable partner for Adam, make Eve, Ellen, Jane, Sue, Mary and Beth. Hence, polygamy, though mentioned, and tolerated for a time in the Bible (but always a source of trouble), is also not part of God’s plan.
God intends one man, for one woman, in a relationship of clinging, i.e., stable relationship, that bears the fruit of godly offspring.
This is the Lord’s plan and the Lord Jesus does not entertain any notion from the people of his day that will alter, or compromise God’s original design for marriage. He thus announces a restoration of God’s original plan for marriage as set forth in the book of Genesis.
III. Reality. As has become the case today, Jesus’ reassertion of traditional, and biblical marriage, was not without controversy. In Matthew’s account of this moment, many of the disciples react with disdain, saying, If that is a case of a man and his wife, it is better never to marry! (Matt 19:10)
In this gospel we see that the disciples are somewhat troubled by what Jesus says, and that they asked him about it again later, in the house. But Jesus does not back down, and even intensifies his language saying, Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.
There will be no apology from Jesus, divorce and remarriage is adultery. There may have been some in Jesus time, and today, who hold up their divorce papers and say that they have a divorced decree. But in effect, Jesus more than implies, that he is not impressed with some papers signed by a human judge, and he is not bound by the decision of some secular authority. What God has joined together, no man must separate. In other words, once again be establishes, that once God has in fact joined a couple in holy matrimony, the bond which God has affected is to be respected by all, including the couple themselves.
In other words, marriage has a reality beyond what mere humans bring to or say of it. Marriage is a work of God, a work that has a reality, and an existence the flows from God’s work, not man’s. All of our attempts to redefine, obfuscate, or alter marriage as God has set it forth, is both sinful and something which God does not recognize as a reality.
IV. Reemphasis–now comes an interesting twist, which includes with itself a reminder of one of the most essential purposes of marriage. The gospel text says,
And people were bringing their little children to Jesus that he might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he became indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”
This is not a new element to the story, neither have we gone into a separate pericope . Rather, Jesus’ remarks about children remind us of the essential reason why marriage is structured as it is. Why should marriage be heterosexual, why should it be stable, why should include a father and a mother, rather than two fathers, or two mothers, or one mother or one father?
The fundamental answer, is it the essential work of marriage is to procreate, and raise children! Since children remain marriage’s most fundamental fruit, it makes sense that marriage should be structured based on what is best for children. And the fact is, that children are best raised in a stable, lasting environment, where their parents have committed to one another in mutual support, and partnership in raising the children. Further, it makes sense psychologically that a child should be receiving influence from both a father and a mother, a male and a female parent. There are things that a father can teach a child that a mother, or another woman alone cannot. Further, there are things that a mother and a woman can teach a child that a father alone or two fathers cannot. Psycho-social development is best achieved in what God and nature have set forth, namely, that every child should have a father, and a mother; a male and female influence, growing up.
Anything else, amounts to something which is less than ideal. To the degree that we intentionally impose the less than ideal on children, we are guilty of an injustice. Bringing children into the world prior to marriage or apart from it, wherein a child will be raised in a single-parent home, is an injustice. It is an even greater injustice that children conceived under the promiscuous circumstances are far more likely to be aborted. To kill a child through abortion is a horrific injustice, it is also an injustice to raise a child apart from a marriage situation.
This preference for stable lasting heterosexual unions, clearly excludes homosexual unions. For same-sex “parents” are far from ideal for a child. To raise a child in such circumstances intentionally is an injustice, for it is to subject the child to that which is unnatural, and far from ideal.
Catholics have every obligation, to both uphold and to insist upon traditional marriage as what is right and just, not only because it is God’s plan, but because it is clearly what is best for children, and marriage is fundamentally about children. It is not simply a religious sensibility that should lead us to our position, but a position deeply rooted in natural law, common sense, and what is best for children.
Traditional marriage should be encouraged in every way, and becoming more fuzzy about what marriage is, or defining it down does not help our culture esteem traditional marriage. Traditional marriage has pride of place since it is focused on raising the next generation and is critical to that essential function of our society.
There is much talk today about the rights of people to do as they please, and so-called gay “marriage” is presented in this framework. But sadly, many who discuss rights, only refer to adults and seem to care less about what is really best for children. What is good, and right for children, needs to have a much higher priority in our culture today than it currently does.
Jesus reemphasizes the teaching on marriage by bringing a young child before them and telling them not to hinder the children. One of the clearest ways we hinder children from finding their way to God and to his kingdom, is with our own bad behavior. Bad behavior such as: promiscuous sexual acts that endanger children through abortion and single parenthood, bad behavior such as divorce which leaves children in divided predicaments and confused loyalties, bad behaviors such as homosexual insistence on adult rights above what is best for children. To all of this bad behavior Jesus presents a young child to us and says, “do not hinder them.” And our bad behavior hinders them.
V. Reassurance–to be sure, this teaching about marriage is, to a certain degree, “heavy weather.” Indeed, many in our culture have tried, and failed to attain to the vision of marriage which the Lord teaches today. There are complicated reasons, too many to note here, as to why people struggle to live this teaching today.
But whatever our own failures have been, we need to go to the Lord with a childlike trust, a trust that cries out for help. Thus, Jesus says at the conclusion of today’s gospel, Amen and I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God, like a child, will not enter it.
It pertains to children, often to feel overwhelmed, but in the midst of that, to run to their parents and seek help. It is in this spirit, that the Lord asked us to receive this teaching. Indeed, many of us may well have to run, and say “Abba, God, I don’t know how to live this teaching. My marriage is in ruins, and I don’t know how to save it. I’ve tried, but my spouse is unwilling. I can’t go back and undo what I did years ago.”
But note, how the Lord embraces the child in this gospel, and he is willing to embrace us as well, in our failures, and our difficulties. If we have failed, we should be like a young child and run to the Father. What we should most avoid is to be relentlessly adult, dig in our heels and say, “God is unreasonable, the gospel is unreasonable!”
In the end, only God can accomplish strong marriages and strong families for us. We must run to him as a Father, and seek his help. If we have failed, we must not fail to tell the next generation what God teaches, even if we have not been able to live it perfectly.
God’s plan still remains his plan for everyone, whatever our personal failings. We have every obligation to run to him and trust, and to ask his help, but even in the midst of personal failures, we can and must announce and celebrate the truth for others. In the end, God does not give us his teaching to burden us, or accuse us, but rather, to bless us. Our assurance must be, in his mercy and his capacity to write straight, even with the crooked lines of our lives.
If we in this generation have failed, and many of us have failed in this generation, we must still announce God’s plan for marriage to the next generation, we must not cease to hand on God’s perfect plan.
In the end, it takes a miracle, but God is still in the miracle working business, the miracle of marriage.
Photo Credit: Spiering Photography www.spieringphotography.com The couple pictured here are the Archduke Imre and Archduchess Kathleen of Austria who recently wed here in DC. A fine Catholic couple who seriously prepared for the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and are possessed of devout faith which will surely help them embrace the miracle of marriage.