Have you ever picked up a book and thought: “Wow! This was written just for me! This is exactly what I needed to hear.” I have a suspicion that this is what St. Luke wanted each of us to think about the gospel he wrote.
In the very first line, he addressed his gospel to a person named “Theophilus.” In Greek, Theophilus means “Lover of God”- which is what we are! Luke, it would seem, wrote his gospel just for us. And as we read it, I’d bet he’d want us to think: “This is exactly what I needed to hear!”
Luke’s gospel is distinguished by themes of thankfulness, joy, and praise. It paints for us a portrait of Jesus who is prayerful, merciful, forgiving, concerned for the poor and outcast, and welcoming of all people- men and women, Jew and Gentile- into the kingdom of God. And Jesus is depicted as teaching at a series of meals as he journeys toward Jerusalem, where he celebrates a final meal- the Last Supper- at which he gives us a meal, the Holy Eucharist.
Like Jesus, we are on a journey to Jerusalem- the heavenly Jerusalem. And as we walk with Jesus, Luke would have us be nourished by the Eucharistic meal, so we can become more prayerful, joyful, thankful, compassionate, merciful, forgiving, and welcoming like Jesus- in other words, a true “Theophilus,” or lover of God.
Deep down, this is what we all want to become. That’s why Luke wrote his gospel, just for us. So we might say: “This is exactly what I needed to hear!”
The Gospel from today’s Mass was of the familiar parable of the man with a big harvest who built larger barns to store his excess, but then was called a fool by the Lord for he would die that night and his riches profit him nothing. I have written before on the parable itself but would like to reflect here a bit more on the lines just before and after the parable.
The passage begins as such:
Someone in the crowd said to Jesus, “Teacher, tell my brother to share the inheritance with me.” He replied to him, “Friend, who appointed me as your judge and arbitrator?”
The Lord then tells the familiar parable and how the rich man dies surrounded by his riches, but a fool and unprepared to meet God because he thought somehow that his wealth could sustain him for years.
Then comes the memorable line:
Thus will it be for the one who stores up treasure for himself but is not rich in what matters to God.
While this line may invite a post describing at length a list of what matters most to God, I’d like to limit the reflection more on how, what we are usually most anxious and concerned about is not usually what matters to God.
Look at how the passage begins. A man is concerned about money and that he should get some share of the family estate. Surely Jesus who cares about justice will side with him! But the reaction of Jesus indicates a kind of irritation with the nature of the request. In effect he says, “Look, this sort of stuff is small potatoes. You’re all concerned about the wrong thing. You have far bigger issues in your life you ought to be thinking about (like greed, and a host of other sinful drives that will destroy you) than money and fair share. I have not come to be a banker, a real estate attorney, a probate judge, or a financial adviser. And as for you, you need to get your focus and priorities right.”
Here of course is a kind of paradigm (or example) of a common human problem, and that is, that we often get all worked up about the wrong things and pay little attention to things that matter far more. Consider a few examples:
I. In listening to people pray, including myself, at public gatherings it is interesting how most of the prayers (almost 100%) deal with worldly matters. “O Lord, fix my finances, fix my health, fix my spouse, fix this or that situation so I am more comfortable and better situated, help me get a promotion at work.” None of these things are wrong to pray about, but notice the worldly and passing quality of most of it. It is almost as if we were saying to God, “Just make this world a better and comfortable place for me. Give me enough health, friends, money and creature comforts, and that’s all I need, I’ll just stay here forever!” In a way it’s a terrible thing to say to God and surely there are things for which we should ask that matter more to God.
I am sure God waits for the day when we will finally say from our heart, “Lord give me a closer walk with you….help me hunger for your justice, righteousness, truth and holiness. Help me repent of my sins and desire greater holiness. Help me yearn for the day when I can come and live with you and grant me the grace to be prepared to enter your presence. Take away my sinful attachments to this world and make my heart’s truest desire to be You and the joys waiting for me in heaven with you.” I am sure God’s waits for the day, for these are things that matter to God.
In the end, nothing matters more to God than you, yourself, and that you be made ready to be with him forever. Money, who cares? Health? That passes anyway, as does the body, and worldly glories. But the soul? Now here is something that matters particularly to God. But we go one praying for money, health, greater comforts, etc. Not wrong per se, but not the true priority, a priority which is often wholly neglected by us.
II. What then is our greatest problem? Lack of money, health or resources? No! Our greatest problem is our sin. Jesus says, If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better to loose part of your body than to have it all cast into hell (Matt 5:30).
What is Jesus saying? He is saying that it is more serious to sin than to lose your hand, or your eye, or your foot.
Now we don’t think like this. If I were to lose my hand in some terrible accident, I would hate this day for the rest of my life. Indeed, it would be terrible. But why don’t I think this way about my sin? To God my sin is a far greater problem than a financial shortfall, or even bodily loss.
My sin matters to God, because he sees what it does to me, and that it is a far greater danger for me than any other worldly danger or problem. And yet, most of us pay little heed to this and are un-alarmed by it. But we sure know how to hit the panic button if we lose our job or get a diagnosis of cancer.
Our priorities are wrong and we are not rich in what matters to God. That is, we are not rich in repentance, cries for mercy, and a sober understanding of our truest and deepest problem, our sin.
III. And look how we too often raise our children. Almost all the focus is on worldly success. Johnny might know little or nothing about God, the Mass, Scripture or Sacraments, but let Johnny bring home a bad report card, and the reaction is quick. Here is a problem to get to the bottom of, because if Johnny doesn’t get better grades, he might not get into the premier local High School, and then, might not get into the best college, so he can make a killing, (oops, I mean a living).
So, the parents go into action. Perhaps a tutor is hired to help with math etc. Meanwhile Johnny barely knows the Our Father, doesn’t have a clue at Mass, his moral life is heading south, and all he knows about Adam and Eve is that they were “in the Bible or something.” Finally Johnny’s scores are better and he proceeds apace to the finest local High School.
One day his father proudly says to the Catholic pastor, “Great news! John has gotten a full scholarship to Princeton.” And the pastor says “Great!” When what he should say to the father is “OK fine. Now let’s find out who is going to preach the gospel to him up there. You know that it will be, (like most college campuses), a moral cesspool of fornication and drinking. So, if we’re not serious about John’s spiritual life, he may go in there, come out a big-wig lawyer, and yet be heading straight for Hell. So what’s the plan for his spiritual welfare and growth?”
But do the pastor or parents really give any thought to this? Usually not.
And so John climbs the ladder of success but it’s leaning up against the the wrong wall.
Too often parents, pastors, families and parishes are not rich in what matters to God. Our children hear that they should study hard, get good grades etc., to make it in this world. Of itself this is not wrong. But their souls are more important, and matter more to God. How well do we teach and equip them to care for the vineyard of their own soul? How does this compare to worldly preparations? And do we conform to what matters more to God?
Well, perhaps this is enough. But the point here is that too often, too many of us are not rich in what matters to God. We too easily resemble the man in the crowd who was asking Jesus, the Savior of the world from sin and hell, about money. A sad demotion of Jesus to be sure, but also highly disclosing of a basic human tendency of caring more about passing worldly things, than eternal lasting things or God himself. Too easily we store up riches for ourselves but are not rich in what matters to God.
Help Lord! We need a new mind, but even more, a new heart.
OK I admit it, I am likely making up a word. But, by the term “noninfallibilist” am I referring to those who, in the discourse of matters of faith and morals, are dismissive of any teaching by the bishops and Pope that is not infallibly defined. Now as you may have guessed, those of this school, not only wish to exhibit a lot of freedom in what they have to believe, but also will define downward what qualifies as infallible.
Back when I was in seminary, thinkers of this sort were predominantly, if not exclusively on the theologically liberal end of the spectrum, and generally they used as their starting point their dispute with Humanae Vitae. Of course they insisted that it was not infallibly taught and, hence, they were free to dissent. They also appealed to the “spirit of Vatican II” which they claimed among many other things, had liberated us from from child-like obedience to the magisterium. The only problem was that the actual letter of the documents of Vatican II were not quite as “liberating” as the so-called “spirit” was.
For example, Vatican II in Lumen Gentium spoke of the Infallibility of the ordinary magisterium when it said:
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine in- fallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among them- selves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held [definitive tendendam]. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith. (LG, 41)
Further, it also said,
Religious submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authoritative Magisterium (authentico magisterio) of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra; indeed, that his supreme Magisterium be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him, according to his manifest mind and intention.” (Lumen Gentium 25.2)
Oh Yeah? As you may remember, if you’re a bit older, or may suspect even if younger, the dissenting theologians of the late 60s and 70s parsed every word of these paragraphs, not to richly understand them, but to be done with them. And, as you may have guessed, they could find almost no instance in which the criteria set forth for the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium or submission to the non-infallible teachings of a pope, actually or ever applied. Reams and reams of papers were published trying to minimize or neutralize the notion that we should open to being taught in faith and morals by the ordinary magisterium, and that if something wasn’t infallibly declared by the Pope (a rare exercise of the extraordinary Papal Magisterium), we were simply free to go our way, confident that the the ordinary magisterium or the the local bishop was no wiser that we in just about anything, including faith and morals.
Docility (teachableness) and obedience were on vacation.
Further, those were the times in which the great indoor sport of most prominent theologians was to show how nothing really applied, and how what seemed to have been quite plainly stated, did not mean what it actually said. Scripture was diced and sliced. Apparently Jesus never really said or did most of what Scripture sets forth. And plainly stated biblical morality didn’t really mean what it apparently and rather plainly stated. And, as we have seen, the actual texts of the Second Vatican Council had to yield to the spirit in which they were “obviously” intended. Actually quoting the texts was “indelicate,” “reactionary” and indicated “rigidity.” Ah, such were those heady days.
But today, I am concerned that such an attitude is not the sole mindset of dissenters on the theological left. The attitude is becoming increasingly widespread among most of the faithful, whether theologically liberal or conservative. Further, the attitude is less theologically considered and more just an unquestioned, even unconscious assumption, to wit: if something is not infallibly taught, I am free to wholly disregard what the bishops and even the Pope is saying. Of course what is meant by “infallibly taught” is a concept only vaguely understood by many, and very narrowly defined and interpreted by others. At some point, infallibility, a valid theological distinction, can become a sort of legalism.
Imagine a child explaining to his parent why he is ignoring them: “You didn’t threaten me with significant punishment, so I just ignored you.” But frankly a parent shouldn’t have to threaten a child, a child should be willing to be taught even without official threats and pronouncements. And yet many Catholics exhibit just this sort of attitude when it comes to the Church, our Mother: an unwillingness to be taught unless very stern and strict pronouncements are forthcoming or very specific formulae are iterated (As one theologian opined: mater si, magistra no! – Mother yes, teacher, no!).
Pervasive – As I have said this attitude was once the domain, largely, of the theological left. But now many on the theological right, irritated by a few decades of Bishops who, according to them, have strayed politically left, or have not towed the line tightly enough on liturgy, pro-life, etc., are also adopting an attitude, that they can wholly ignore the Bishops, who have a teaching office, unless we are dealing with something “infallibly” taught.
Last week on the blog I posted the issue of Capital Punishment, and while granting that the death penalty was not intrinsically evil, wondered if it wasn’t time to allow our shepherds (the Pope and the world’s bishops) to lead and teach us in the matter that, given our struggle with the culture of death, we ought to stand against the use of the death penalty in all but the rarest cases. The answer I got back from most readers was an emphatic “no.” And many reasoned that, since the matter was not definitely taught they had no obligation whatsoever to consider or stand with the Pope and the Bishops on this.
Many of the same Catholics are shocked and angered at the decision of some bishops and liturgists to simply ignore or withstand the Pope’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, encouraging more widespread use of the Traditional Latin Mass. But such are the times in which we live, where the climate of camps and the rigid refusal to be taught or be open to even non-infallible issues is common throughout the Church.
Some will argue that the Bishops have strayed beyond faith and morals when they issue letters on immigration, the economy, healthcare and the like. Possibly, but in all these areas there ARE important moral issues, biblical teachings, and Catholic social teachings that OUGHT to be brought to the discussion. Bishops do have duties to keep Catholic and Biblical teaching part of the discussion. And Catholics especially, ought to be more open to being taught, even when the matters are non-infallible and even if the view is at odds with their own political, economic and scientific views.
Consider the following quote from the Catechism:
Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it. (Catechism 892)
Now, some will want to endlessly parse the words, and so strictly define everything, that the statement above almost never applies.
But pastorally what # 892 says to me is that I should be willing to be taught by my Bishop and that what he, and especially the bishops as a whole teach together, ought to be a very important part of my thinking. What the Republicans or Democrats or talking heads think may be an influence, but how much more so my Bishop, in matters local, and all the Bishops and the Pope, in matters more universal.
Why should a newspaper editor, or political party influence me more than the the bishops of the Church? At bare minimum I should seriously consider what is taught by the bishops, and, even if I come to a technically different conclusion on some policy matter, I will at least take seriously the Catholic and Biblical principles they enunciate, and seek to include them in the policy considerations of the temporal order.
Having quoted this Catechism paragraph to one of the interlocutors in the Capital Punishment combox they (in effect) sniffed and said, that # 892 is not an infallible teaching and “I am free to disregard it.” I will not even argue the question of infallibility here, but the point stands that we ought to be more willing to be taught.
To conclude we might reflect on two virtues that are critical to having faith: docility and obedience.
The word docility is scorned in the modern world and caricatured as causing one to be a pushover, easily brainwashed etc. But docile in Latin means to be “teachable.” Hence, to be docile means to be teachable, to be open to the wisdom and knowledge of others. Like it or not, our Bishops do have a teaching office and, like it or not, they are the bishops God has permitted and intended for us. We ought not simply dismiss what we do not like, but remain open and teachable. Docility, though often maligned, is the door to deeper knowledge and faith and it better disposes us for wisdom.
Obedience too is maligned by the modern age. But here too there are Latin roots that disclose the deeper meaning: ob + audire means “to give a hearing to,” “to listen with open ears.” Hence obedience too implies that we are willing to listen, to be taught, and to strive to understand what someone in authority is teaching and setting forth as a course of action. Like it or not, our Bishops have authority and, unless they are setting forth evil or error, we ought to give careful consideration to what they teach and the vision they set forth.
I wonder if the “noninfallibilists” of our time will have anything to do with these notions. But my question remains, are we really free simply to ignore the bishops, and the Pope except when they clearly teach infallibly? Are we not in fact defining faith and Church-life downward by this attitude? What of docility and obedience in more ordinary matters? Is it really an all or nothing scenario, or are we on more of a continuum here where the default setting ought to be a listening ear and a teachable spirit?
I am sure many of you will have responses and distinctions to make. Remember I am starting a conversation not issuing an edict (as if I could). But I only ask this, that you might be careful not to so distinguish docility and obedience that they cease to exist as real categories. I know there are distinctions to be made and scenarios to consider which I have not set forth here, but there is also a general norm to be followed of docility and obedience, of religious assent of mind and heart. So have at it, and remember: caritas, caritas!
This video is a lot of fun. I have often thought of the aging of dissent in the Church, and still see a lot of hope in many younger Catholics. But given the reflection here, I am not so sure that dissent has had a few grandchildren. Anyway, the video is a hoot.
A cartoon I once saw featured a boss speaking to his staff. “Honesty may be the best policy,” he said, “but it’s not our company policy.” And while it may be funny, this cartoon reflects the sad truth that lying in our society has reached epidemic proportions. For instance, newspaper headlines speak of corporate scandals, fraudulent accounting practices, and insider trading. In schools today, surveys have shown that a majority of students cheat on tests or download research papers which they try to pass off as their own work. Job seekers pad their résumés with fake or exaggerated information. Car odometers are rolled back, expense accounts are padded, and spouses fib about how much they spent on that new dress or set of golf clubs. A recent university study revealed that a quarter of people’s “most serious lies” related to an affair. And considering that Jesus in today’s gospel spoke of the need to pay one’s taxes, it needs to be said that tax cheating is all too common.
Jesus gave this teaching after he had been approached by his opponents. They said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are a truthful man and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.” The irony is, when they said that they believed Jesus to teach the truth, they were lying through their teeth. In a sense, all of us can relate to this experience of our Lord, because all of us have been lied to. And let’s face it: We’ve probably told a few lies ourselves.
People tell lies for all sorts of reasons. In our highly competitive society, , lies can help one gain an advantage over others and stand out from the crowd. And if everyone else is doing it, that makes it all the easier! Some people lie to get their “fifteen seconds” of fame- like the guy a few years ago who made up the story about witnessing one of the sniper attacks.
Other people, seeking revenge against someone they believe has hurt them, may start a vicious rumor. Some experience a thrill from lying because it gives them a feeling of having power over others. It’s not uncommon to lie in order to avoid punishment. You may remember Susan Smith, who in 1994 strapped her two boys into her car and then sent them into a lake to drown. If you recall, she tried to stay out of trouble by going on TV, saying her sons had been kidnapped, and pleading for their safe return. Finally, low self-esteem can lead some to exaggerate or even make up accomplishments or achievements, in order to feel better about themselves or impress others. For instance, phony war stories allow people with feelings of inferiority to be linked with the virtues of loyalty and courage.
Most of us believe that we do what we do for good reasons and with honest intentions. Therefore, when we lie, it’s easy to rationalize that what we’re doing is justified or even the right thing to do. We can think things like: “Nobody’s really getting hurt, so there’s really nothing wrong.” Or “I cheated on taxes or insurance- but only to get the money I rightly deserve.” Or “If everyone else lies on their resume, I better do it too so I won’t lose that job offer I want.” Or “If I told the truth about the way I feel, we’d just get in a fight and things would become even worse.”
As Christians, however, we are called to honesty and truth. This doesn’t mean that we have to be a bull in a china shop. We do need to be prudent and discrete in revealing the truth, because we don’t want to needlessly hurt or antagonize others. And this doesn’t mean that everyone has the right to hear the truth from us. To give an extreme example, no one would have to tell the Nazis where a Jewish family was hiding.
Nevertheless, God insists that we be honest people. As we all know, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,” is one of the Ten Commandments. Indeed, God himself is truth, Jesus his Son reveals the truth, and they have sent the Holy Spirit of truth into our lives that we might walk in the truth and bear witness to it. Any lie, then, is really an offense against God himself.
Honesty and truthfulness are also requirements for justice and are essential for a civil society. “Men could not live with one another,” wrote St. Thomas Aquinas, “if there were not mutual confidence that they were being truthful to one another.” This is because lies always hurt those around us- even when we think they don’t.
In addition, Jesus has promised that the truth will set us free. It will free us from having to cover our tracks, live with shame and guilt, and the fear of our lies being discovered and exposed. The truth will liberate us to take off our masks and just be ourselves. It will also result in better relationships, less stress for ourselves, and less anger from others.
There is a cost to being honest! We may lose that job offer to the person who lied on their resume. We may have to “face the music” for something we’ve done or accept the reality of who we are, and not who we’ve been pretending to be. Our co-workers may resent us, because as one human resources expert has said, “employees who operate honestly and ethically often inspire anger, guilt, and resentment (from others).” Maybe we’ll end up with less money than we may have had if we’d fudged our tax returns. Nevertheless, we’ll be blessed with the assurance that God smiles upon our honesty, and we can unite our suffering with those of Jesus upon the cross.
As Mother Teresa once wrote, “If you are honest and frank, people may cheat you; be honest and frank anyway. You see, in the final analysis, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway.”
Readings for today’s Mass: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/101611.cfm
The Gospel today contains lots of interesting juxtapositions: Hatred for Jesus, but grudging respect for him, real questions, versus rhetorical questions, politics and faith, duties to Caesar and duties to God. The word “juxtaposition” is from the Latin juxta (meaning “near”) and positio (meaning “place or position”). Hence a juxtaposition is the placing of two things near each other to see how they are similar and yet different. Usually, in English, a juxtaposition emphasizes differences more than similarities.
Let’s look at these one by one, spending the most time on the juxtaposition of our duties toward God and toward “Caesar.” The essential lesson in all these juxtapositions is that God will not be reduced to fit into our little categories. He is God, not man.
Juxtaposition 1 – The Enemy of my enemy is my friend. – The Gospel begins by describing an extremely unlikely set of “bedfellows.” The text says, The Pharisees went off and plotted how they might entrap Jesus in speech. They sent their disciples to him, with the Herodians. A very unlikely set of allies here. The Pharisees hated the Herodians. It was a combination of political and racial hatred; just about as poisonous as you could get in the ancient world. Yet they both agreed on this: This Jesus has to go.
Here is an important teaching, if you’re going to be a true Christian: the world will hate you. Too many Christians think some segment of the world will agree to live in peace with us, and so we strive to forge allegiances with it. In the modern American scene some think that the Republicans, or the Democrats are natural allies for us. As we will discuss later, we really don’t fit well into either party, or, frankly, any worldly club.
Catholicism is an “equal-opportunity offender” if it is proclaimed in an unabridged form. Issue by issue, we may appeal to one political party or another. But taken as a whole, we’re a nuisance: Pro-life, traditional family values, over here, Immigrants rights, contra capital punishment, affordable housing, etc., over there. But in the end we both please and annoy at the same time. Which is another way of saying we don’t fit into the world’s categories, and everyone has a reason to hate us.
Welcome to Jesus’ world where the Herodians and Pharisees, who agree on nothing, do agree to hate Jesus.
Juxtaposition 2 – Prophet and Lord or Political talking head? In their opening remarks to Jesus, his enemies give him grudging respect, but not to actually praise him, rather to provoke him. They say, Teacher, we know that you are a truthful man and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. And you are not concerned with anyone’s opinion, for you do not regard a person’s status. Tell us, then, what is your opinion…
Now the juxtaposition here is to use praise as a pretext, to use praise to provoke. In effect, they think they can they can force a definition on Jesus: “You’re the Man, You’re the prophet….You’re the answer man….you’re the only one around here who tells the truth no matter what.” Now none of these things are false and they bespeak a grudging respect for Jesus.
But they are only using this to draw Jesus into a worldly debate well below his pay grade. They want Jesus to take sides in a stupid human debate over politics and worldly power. They want him to get arrested and killed over something not worth dying for.
Prophets die for the truth revealed by God, not for who the “big cheese” should be in human affairs, and who human beings think are the best. They want Jesus to opine as if he were some sort of talking head on T.V., rather than the prophet and Lord that he is. A question of this sort is not worthy of Jesus’ attention. Ask this of the local Senator or mayor, but leave God out of human political distinctions and camps do not expect him to take sides. He is beyond our distinctions and will not be confined by party lines, national boundaries, political philosophies and the like.
We may well debate that certain systems better reflect the Kingdom than others, but in the end, God cannot be reduced to being an Republican, a Democrat, or for that matter an American. He is God, and he transcends our endless debates and camps. He is not a talking head, he is God.
Juxtaposition 3- Real or Rhetorical? The odd coalition of Jesus haters asks him a question: Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not? Though this is in the form of a question, it is not a sincere question, it is a rhetorical question.
Generally speaking rhetorical questions are statements or arguments in the form of a question. If I say to you, “Are you crazy?” I am not really looking for an answer. Though it is in the form of a question, I am really making a statement: “You ARE crazy.” This is what takes takes place here. The questioners already have their own opinion, and they are not about to change based on any answer Jesus would give. They don’t really want an answer per se. They just want something to use against Jesus.
If he says, “Yes, pay the taxes.” That is politically incorrect and will make him unpopular with the crowds. If he says “No, don’t pay the taxes” he gets arrested and will likely be executed.
In the end Jesus calls them what they are: hypocrites, a Greek word which means “actor.” And that is what they are, and are doing. This whole thing is an act. No real answer is sought, just a showdown. This is not about the truth, it is about a trap.
But Jesus will have none of it. He will not be reduced to human distinctions and categories. The truth he proclaims transcends the passing political order and struggles for human power. He will not be drawn in to declaring one side or the other better. Rather, He will apply the ruler of truth evenly to all.
He is Reality in the face of rhetoric, Perfection in the face of politics, Divinity in the face of division.
Juxtaposition 4 – God and Caesar – Jesus says, simply, and in a way that transcends worldly “all or nothing” scenarios: Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.
This of course generates the wish for elaboration. But in our demands for more detail, we too often seek to conceal the fact that we really know the answer. And we also betray the need of the flesh to specify everything so as to control and limit its impact.
But if a list is demanded we might include some of the following things we ought to “pay” to Caesar (i.e. in our scenario, pay to our Country and locale):
To obey all just laws
Pay legally assessed taxes
Pray for our country and leaders.
Participate in the common defense based on our abilities and state in life.
Take an active and informed part in the political process
Engage in movements of necessary and on-going reform
Contribute to the common good through work, domestic and market based, and through the sharing of our abilities and talents.
Maintain strong family ties, and raise disciplined children well prepared to contribute to the common good and the good order of society.
Encourage patriotic love of this Country
Strive for unity and love rooted in Truth.
And we might include some of the following in what we owe to God:
Adoration, love and gratitude
Obedience to his Word and Law
Worship
Repentance
Support of his Church by attendance at sacred worship, financial support and sharing of our gifts and talents
Proclamation of his Word by witness and in verbal ways
Devoted reception of the Sacraments.
Raising our Children in His truth and in reverence of Him
Evangelization – making disciples
Preparing for death and judgement through a holy and reverent sojourn here
A glance at these lists reveals however that there is overlap, and one would expect this with God. For, He defies many of our human categories and distinctions. In effect we see a setting forth of the great commandment of Love: that we should love the Lord our God with all our soul, strength and mind, and our neighbor as our self (e.g. Matt 22:37). For, while God is not Caesar and Caesar is not God, yet love unites both categories.
Hence we see that to love our Country is to love our neighbor. To work for, support and be involved in the common good is to love our neighbor. And to love our neighbor whom we see is to begin to love God whom we do not see. Further, to seek to reform our land, secure justice, and ensure unity rooted in truth, is to help usher in the Kingdom of God. Yet again, to be rooted in God’s law, walk in his truth and raise our children as strong and disciplined disciples of the Lord is to bless this Country. To obey God and to walk in sobriety, love and self-discipline, is to render, not only to God, but to also have the ingredients of good citizenship.
However, it must be clear that God is, and must be our supreme love. And So Jesus is not setting forth a mere equivalence here. It remains a sad fact that this world is often at odds with God. And thus, we, who would be his disciples, must often accept the fact that we will be seen as aliens from another planet, according to this world. As we have already set forth, neither Jesus, nor we, should expect to fit precisely into any worldly category or club. We will be an equal-opportunity irritant to any large group. If you are going to be a faithful Catholic, expect to be an outsider, and outlier, and an outcast.
Let’s move from the abstract to the real. Is the Catholic Church Republican? Democrat? And what are you? As for me:
I’m against abortion, and they call me a Republican
I want greater justice for immigrants, and they call me a Democrat
I stand against “Gay” “Marriage,” and they call me a Republican
I work for affordable housing, and stand with unemployed in DC, and they call me a Democrat
I talk of subsidiarity and they say: “Republican, for sure.”
I mention the common good, and solidarity and they say, “Not only a Democrat, but a Socialist for sure.”
Embryonic Stem cell research should end, “See, he’s Republican!”
Not a supporter of the death penalty, standing with the Bishops and the Popes against it…”Ah, told you! He’s really a Democrat!…Dye in the wool and Yellow Dog to boot!”
Gee, and all this time I just thought I was trying to be a Catholic Christian. I just don’t seem to fit in. And, frankly, no Catholic should. We cannot be encompassed by any Party as currently defined.
Rendering to God comes first. But too many people today are more passionate about their politics than their faith. They tuck their faith under their politics and worldview. They more more inclined to agree with their party, than the Church, or even the Scriptures. And just try to tell them that, and they’ll say you’re violating Church/State barriers (a phrase not in the Constitution, by the way), or that since something is not infallibly defined (as they determine it), and thus they are free to entirely ignore the teaching of the Bishops, the Pope and/or the Catechism on any number of matters.
Hence the question goes up: Is God really first? Is his Word really the foundation of our thoughts and views? Or are we just playing games. Loving this world and working for the common good are not at odds with our love for God. But submitting to worldly categories and human divisions, and permitting them to drive our views IS most often opposed to God, who will not simply be conformed to human political movements.
God has set forth the Catholic Church to speak for him, but he has not anointed any political movement, or worldly organization to speak as such. No Catholic ought to surrender to artificial and passing distinctions, organizations, or permit worldly allegiances to them to trump what the Scriptures and the Church clearly proclaim. Sadly today, many do, and in such wise seem far more willing to render to some version of “Caesar” than to render first obedience and allegiance to God, and to the Church which speaks for Him. The Church is an object of faith, a political party is not. Render to God what is God’s.
This Song says, God and God alone is fit to take the Universe’s Throne:
Back when I was in Mount St. Mary’s Seminary some twenty-five years ago, Rap music had burst on the scene. But the thing about rap in those days was that it was more clever than today (if you ask me). Rap at that time was supposed to rhyme. Today, it sounds just a lot more like rambling soliloquies and a little too unintelligible. Again, just my opinion. But “back in the day” Rap had to rhyme and so you had to be very creative.
Some of the guys in the seminary were working in the inner city of Baltimore and they developed the “Jesus Rap.” I was amazed at how creative it was and have kept it all these years. Living in working in the inner city I would take it out and dust it off every now and again and I’ve adapted it over the years, a little change here and there, but it’s basically the same. I wish I could give credit by name to the seminarians (now priests) who wrote it but their names are lost in the dust bin of my memory.
But enjoy this (Old Fashion) “Jesus Rap” You’ll need to provide your own rhythm by tapping on the desk as you read. And please! Read it with a little rhythm! If you can’t do it ask a fifth grader.
NOW THE THING ABOUT JESUS, HE’S HIGH ABOVE THE REST,
THAT’S WHY I WEAR THIS CROSS ON MY CHEST.
HE LEADS ME TO THE FATHER,
I’M SO GLAD I COULD CLAP!
SO WON’T YOU JOIN ME NOW TO DO THE JESUS RAP!
PRAY TO JESUS,
WORSHIP JESUS.
I WAS DOWN! FEELING DEPRESSED!
MAYBE IT’S BECAUSE MY LIFE WAS A MESS.
IN DESPAIR! SO FULL OF DOUBT!
WELL I TURNED TO JESUS AND HE HELPED ME OUT!
NOW MY LIFE IS DANDY,
EVERYTHING’S A SNAP!
DO YOU WANT THE SAME?
THEN DO THE JESUS RAP!
PRAY TO JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
PRAY TO JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS (Fade)
– – – – – – – –
Now here’s a video that “so bad its good.” Here are three suburban teenage girls trying to rap and, well, lets just admit, sometimes we white folks are a bit “challenged” in this area 🙂 They surely do a better job than I could! Actually they are quite creative in rapping several gospel stories such as the water made wine and the walking on the water. Enjoy!
And here’s another rap that’s a little more “hip.” It’s an interesting blend of rap, freestyle and call-response. I am NOT recommending this for Mass! Save it for the Church hall. Warning:This video was made using well-trained rappers, do not try this at your Church hall without proper supervision and safety gear.
“Everyone has a little dirty laundry.” Or so proclaimed an ad for a popular TV show about desperate housewives. Well, I don’t know if everyone has a little dirty laundry, but I do know that today’s gospel speaks to us when we do. Jesus reminded us that while we might keep secrets from other people, we can’t keep them from God. He sees and knows all that we do, and he holds us accountable for it.
Yet at the same time, God wants to forgive us of these things. We might say that while God sees all our dirty laundry, he wants to wash it for us too! Or as St. Augustine once said, “The one who made you is watching you, and the one who called you is helping you.”
It’s important that we me realize this, because sometimes our “dirty laundry” can fill us with so much shame that we become afraid to bring it to the Lord. We worry that we’ll be rejected or condemned. Then we avoid confession, we avoid Holy Communion, and sometimes we avoid church altogether.
But this is not what God wants us to do. He wants instead to release us from our shame and lift the burden of our guilt so he can fill us with his peace and joy. As the author of today’s psalm wrote, “I said, ‘I confess my faults to the Lord, and you took away the guilt of my sin.’”
In the video below there is a fascinating demonstration of what is known as the McGurk Effect, wherein what we hear is strongly influenced by what we see. Though the sounds heard in the experiment are exactly the same, when the visual cues change, we hear another sound. Even knowing the “trick” does not change the effect.
And this is a paradigm for faith, if you ask me.
Scripture speaks often of the fact that faith is a matter of hearing and not seeing:
So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ (Rom 10:17).
For we walk by faith, not by sight (2 Cor 5:7).
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face (1 Cor 13:12).
For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? (Rom 8:24)
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (Heb 11:1).
Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy (1 Peter 1:8)
Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed (Jn 20:29).
So while it is true that many say, “Seeing is believing,” it really isn’t so. Seeing is just seeing. Faith comes by hearing.
Now this principle is very important for many of the truths of our faith are “mysterious.” The word “mysterious” here does not mean spooky, or strange, but rather, that what we “see” or intellectually grasp, is but a small part, and that the greater part of it is hidden from our sight and intellect. Since this is so, we must be taught the faith through hearing, and receiving the faith by hearing, gives us a prophetic interpretation of the reality we perceive by the other senses.
Consider especially the sacraments. What we see is often very limited. We many see, merely, water poured in baptism. But with the faith, granted though our hearing of the sacred words, we grasp the deeper meaning, that sins are being washed away, that new life is being conveyed, and a heavenly inheritance is being bestowed.
At a wedding, our eyes see a man and a woman, but as we hear their vows proclaimed we must disregard what our eyes see (still two) and grasp through faith, what our ears tell us from the very Word of Jesus: They are no longer two, but one and what God has joined together, let no one divide (Matt 19:6). Faith comes by hearing.
Regarding the Holy Eucharist St Thomas lovingly wrote in the hymn Adoro Te Devote:
Visus, tactus, gustus in te fallitur, (Sight, touch, taste, in thee falter), Sed auditu solo tuto creditur. (But the hearing alone is safely believed). Credo quidquid dixit Dei Filius; (I believe whatever the Son of God has said); Nil hoc verbo veritátis verius (Nothing is truer that this word of truth).
So again, the eyes deceive, and we must believe through what we hear. The world and the flesh are always demanding to see, but Faith comes by hearing. There may be some motives of credibility that seeing can give, but, frankly, the eyes are too easily deceived, we are often misled by what we see.
And that brings us to the video. As has already been mentioned, the sound in the video remains unchanged, but when the visual cue changes, we insist that the sound has changed. But it hasn’t. Yet, even knowing this, we tend to trust our eyes more than our ears, and insist on what we see not what we hear.
But then comes the strangest thing of all. The BBC announcer, almost in a subconscious illustration of the McGurk effect, comes to precisely the WRONG conclusion. She says, “The McGurk effect shows us that what we hear may not always be the truth.” Wrong! And exactly backwards! The McGurk effect demonstrates that what we SEE may not always be the truth. Stubbornly, she then reiterates, “So we can’t always trust what we hear.” But again, wrong in terms of this experiment, and exactly backwards! It is what we SEE that we cannot trust in this instance. Indeed a very strange error on her part, and almost Freudian in its psychological significance.
In the end, I hope you “see” what I mean: faith comes by hearing. And it is a very important dimension of faith to not let our eyes or other senses merely override our ears. The eyes and other senses can supply us certain data, even motives of credibility. But in the end, it is through hearing, and by the Word of God heard, that we have a prophetic interpretation of the reality perceived by our other senses. Faith which comes by hearing, is a prophetic interpretation of reality: Sed auditu solo tuto creditur.
Enjoy the video, it’ll mess with your mind but it confirms an important truth.
Have you ever picked up a book and thought: “Wow! This was written just for me! This is exactly what I needed to hear.” I have a suspicion that this is what St. Luke wanted each of us to think about the gospel he wrote.
