Posts

Posted on

How Real are Your Ashes?

Sometimes things get so familiar to us that we stop understanding or reflecting on their deeper meaning.  Each year in RCIA (adult conversion) classes I get some puzzled looks as we discuss the ritual. “What’s  that all about?”  some will say.  There is even some revulsion expressed at having dirty ashes smeared on your forehead. I remember as a kid wondering why so many people liked to rush to Church to get ashes smudged on their forehead. I didn’t like it at all and would secretly rub them off when no one was looking. Today I’ll admit I still don’t like it much,  though I behave myself and do not rub them off!

Please forgive me, I don’t want to seem impious yet I still marvel, as a priest at how many people pack into Church to get ashes on their forehead. Even sadder, many of them don’t seem to want communion as much. In fact significant numbers walk out the door after ashes are given and do not stay for communion. I remember a certain pastor of mine responding to that by not giving Ashes until after Communion.

Most people of course who come to Mass are faithful and have their priorities straight but it still interests me how large the numbers are for something that seems to me to unappealing and also challenging, if we really come to terms with what we are saying in receiving them. I wonder if large numbers would flock for ashes if they really knew that they were saying some pretty powerful stuff and making some extensive promises of a sort.

What, really do ashes signify? Perhaps a brief tour of Scripture is in order:

  1. Humility – Job said, You [Oh Lord] asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?’  Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. “You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak;  I will question you, and you shall answer me.’ My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. Therefore I despise myself  and repent in dust and ashes.” Job 42:3-6  Notice that Job does not merely repent in a general sense here. But, having encountered God he realizes that God is God and he is a creature, mere dust and ashes in the presence of God who is Being itself, who is All in All. Yes he is a son in the presence of a Father but he is not God’s equal that he might question God or put him on trial. Hence in this case the ashes represent not only repentance, but humility. The Church’s liturgy echoes this theme of humility when she quotes Gen 3:19 “Remember, you are dust and unto dust you shall return” as she places ashes on the individual.
  2. A Sacramental that points to the Sacrament – A man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer and put them in a ceremonially clean place outside the camp. They shall be kept by the Israelite community for use in the water of cleansing; it is for purification from sin….For the unclean person, put some ashes from the burned purification offering into a jar and pour fresh water over them. Then a man who is ceremonially clean is to take some hyssop, dip it in the water and sprinkle the tent and all the furnishings and the people who were there. Number 19:9,17) This text sees ashes obtained from a burned sin offering  and mixed with sprinkled water as a cleansing ritual. In the Old Testament this ritual could not actually take away sin (cf Heb 9:9-13) but it did provide for ritual purity. It also symbolized repentance and a desire to be free from sin. In the same way ashes on Ash Wednesday, mixed with holy water cannot take away sin. They are a sacramental, not a sacrament. To get ashes on Ash Wednesday and not go to confession during Lent is really to miss the point. If one’s desire to repent and to be clean, free of sin,  is real then from the sacramental to the sacrament they go. Otherwise the ritual of Ash Wednesday is pretty pointless.
  3. A sign of a true change – When the news[of Ninevah’s possible destruction in forty days] reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. (Jonah 3:6) Here too repentance is symbolized. But the symbol is not enough. Actual repentance is required. Hence the King does not just “do ashes,”  he issues a decree calling for fasting, prayer and true reform: Do not let any man or beast, herd or flock, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.” (Jonah 3:7-9) Hence another option for the priest to say as he places ashes is “Turn away from sin and be faithful to the Gospel.” It is not enough to get a sooty forehead. True repentance is what is called for, an actual intent to change. Otherwise the ashes are a false sign.
  4. A summons to faith and a new mind – Jesus said, Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes(Matt 11:21). Here Jesus rebukes ancient towns for their lack of faith in what he said. It is good to recall that the Greek word translated here as “repented” is μετενόησαν (metenoesan) which more literally means to come to a new mind or way of thinking.  The fact is that there are many ways that we think about things that are more of the world than of God. Our on-going challenge is to come to a new mind and to think more as God thinks. This is only possible by his grace working through Scripture and Church teaching. It is significant that the ashes are smeared on the forehead or sprinkled on the head. We are called to a faith that transforms our mind. We are called to be “transformed by the renewal of our minds.” (Romans 12:2) Hence another option for the priest is to say, “Repent and believe the Good News” as he places the ashes.

So, how real are your ashes? Do you and I intend these things as we go forth or is it just a ritual, something to do because it’s “sorta neat.”  Pray and reflect on the deeper meaning of ashes.

Posted on

Co-collaborators with Jesus the teacher

At a certain point on my daily commute I end up behind a Metro bus. I need to make a turn just past the stop and so I tend to just sit behind the bus while it is unloading and loading passengers. For the past ten days or so the ad on the back of the bus is the Archdiocesan ad celebrating Catholic Schools Week. It got me reminiscing about my days in Catholic school (12 years to be exact) and my most favorite and least favorite teachers.

It is a vocation

In the least favorite category is my second grade teacher-who even to an eight-year old- seemed to be a very unhappy person. One day, I shared with my mother that  “I hate her!”  Well, my mother had a few things to say about that: Firstly, hate is not something that “we” do.  If we love Jesus, we do not hate people. Secondly, she asked me to consider what a day in the life of my teacher looks like. She arrives at school early after having prepared lots of different activities to help us to learn. She has 25 some students who all learn in different ways and she has to try to have lessons that incorporate all of these differences, She spends the whole day in a classroom with all of us whether she is feeling great or feeling sick, whether she has lots of energy or is tired. Then at the end of  the day she goes home to take care of her own family and do more work to get ready for the next day. I’m sure my Mom had more to say, but you get the idea. The fact that I am writing about this some forty-years later makes it obvious that I got what my Mom was saying. Teaching is hard work and first and foremost, teachers are to be respected.  For something that seems so obvious, I wonder why as a society we so undervalue the teaching profession. That’s fodder for a thousand blogs, but this one is a request to identify and celebrate the great women and men who are teaching in our schools this year.

The Golden Apple Excellence in Teaching Award

Nominations are now being accepted for the Golden Apple Awards which will be presented to 10 of our best teachers on May 13. This award exists in only five dioceses(Pittsburgh, Youngstown, Harrisburg, Toledo) and has it s origins in the gratitude that the Pittsburgh-based Donahue Family had for the teachers that educated their 13 children!

Someone you know

A teacher can be nominated by their colleagues, parents, and students. A committee at each school will review the nominations for that school and select an individual to represent the school in the archdiocese-wide competition. Nomination forms can be picked up at school or found here. www.CatholicSchoolsWork.org.

If you are a parent of a Catholic school student, pick the best teacher and complete a nomination. If you teach in one of our schools, why not nominate the teacher who has served as a mentor, if you are a student, why not start a campaign for your favorite teacher.

Called to be a co-collaborator with Jesus the Teacher

If you are someone wondering about teaching and teaching in Catholic school,  take some time to pray and discern if this might be the vocation to which the Lord is calling you. Happily, for some people, spending the whole day in a classroom full of kids is pure joy and it shows!

Posted on

Are You”Scientifically Illiterate!?”Someone Thinks You Are.

I recently heard an interview with Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum two authors of a book published this past August entitled Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future. In the book they claim most Americans are scientifically illiterate. They try to explore why many Americans are skeptical of what the authors term “good science” and why we seem to accept what they call “bad science.”  I would like to add a dimension to the conversation that they did not cover, namely, how science has edged over into the religious world by demanding a kind of faith. This movement beyond the proper boundaries of science has caused the public not to be “illiterate” so much as skeptical.  Allow me to begin by stating some basic premises.

  1. Science it seems to me is fundamentally about what is material and measurable. It is true that there are some areas on the cutting edge of science such as quantum that defy simply measurement, but most fundamentally science is about what we can physically measure, observe and quantify. The realm of science is the material world. Further, the scientific method and peer review remain essential components of the world of science. Now I say all this with respect. I think sometimes we ask too much of science. When a scientist will not postulate a personal God or does not accept biblical texts as raw data,  he does not lack faith necessarily, he is staying within his realm. To ask him to affirm some theological point or to use scripture in his reasoning is asking too much. The world of science is circumscribed by the material and the measurable. Many things of faith are not material or measurable. This does not make them less true but does place them outside the realm of what science can speak of.
  2. Faith on the other hand has a broader realm. As believers we not only accept the measurable and the material but also the spiritual and the authority of revealed truth. We are free to accept science into our world in a way that science is not free to accept us into theirs. Since it is a Catholic instinct that all truth is one and that truth cannot contradict truth, we can with some confidence joyfully accept the truth which science uncovers as affirming what we already believe. As we shall see this has to be done with some discernment for not all which is called science is settled or demonstrably true.
  3. But we have limits too. Although we are able to accept much of science into our world it also remains true that our faith imposes some limits. This is particularly true today since science not only measures the material world, it has enabled us to exert a significant amount of control over the material world. But simply because we can control does not mean we always should. Our moral tradition imposes limits on what we as Catholic Christians can accept insofar as controlling the material goes. Most recently the biggest area of tension is in the area of bioethics to include things such as embryonic stem cell research, abortifacients, cloning etc. Here there are tensions between the scientific world and the world of faith.
  4. But let’s be clear the Church is not and should not be intrisically “anti-science.” We ought to respect science and it’s boundaries and insist on proper limits when necessary. Some may argue that in the past when the Church has had more power we may have transgressed into the world of science inappropriately. While I do not think that every charge against the Church in this regard is true or fair, it seems clear enough that there were some regrettable moments of overstepping in our past. Yet it remains true that the Church has also been the patron of science. Through our universities and hospitals Catholics have well shown respect for science. Priests and religious have been among noted scientists.

But I want to propose that it is often science that oversteps its boundaries today and that this is what has led to what the authors above call “scientific illiteracy.” Some basic departures from the limits of science and the increasing demand that we simply put faith in what scientists say are very evident today and have led to a more general cynicism and skepticism on the part of the public toward scientific claims. What our authors call “illiteracy” may be rooted in doubt that science is all that pure anymore.

  1. “Settled Science” exaggeration– Some in the scientific world often request a kind of faith on the part of the public that what they claim is proved beyond doubt and is settled science. But the fact is, even so-called settled science changes a lot. I am only 48 and recall that when I was a young child being taught that the universe was in a steady state. But in the 1960s this basic scientific presumption yielded to the current expanding universe theory wherein the universe is expanding outward at a rather remarkable rate. When this theory was first proposed many scientists balked at the notion for it unsettled many notions of the universe. But rather sweepingly this theory has now gained almost universal acceptance. The proof for this dynamic expansion is the red shift indicating movement in the stars away from us. While it seems unlikely that we will go back to some other theory it always remains possible that the theory of the universe may shift to something else if new data becomes available. What was considered settled science wasn’t all that settled after all. Further, when I was in High School we were gravely informed by our teachers and the media that we were heading for a new ice age. By the year 2000 we should expect a major expansion of the ice caps and increasingly frigid winters in the north. Well 20 years later we were being told that global warming threatened everything. But which is or was the settled science? Cooling or warming (More on this later). The Theory of Evolution is often called settled science but it is just a theory and  the fact is that the fossil record raises serious questions about the theory as it is currently proposed. The fossil record shows that species appear and disappear suddenly and do not just morph into each other.  And we were all told without any doubt that there were nine planets in our solar system. Oops looks like that isn’t so sure either. When is s a planet not a planet? When it’s a planetoid of course! All sorts of other little examples come to mind: coffee is good,  coffee is bad. A glass of red wine is good, not it’s not. This causes cancer, well no it actually doesn’t and is in fact good because it has anti-oxidants (whatever they are). Now there may in fact be some things we can call settled science but the fact is that some scientists often demand a faith of the general public that is beyond what science should ask. Science steps out of its boundaries when it starts asking for a faith that certain things are settled when in fact they are not, or may realistically change. Many theories have come and gone and the public is not illiterate or stupid to remain less than enthusiastic about the latest claims of science. The latest findings may in fact be only that, the latest findings.
  2. Advocacy Science– As stated above science is about the material and the measurable. In it’s purest form science has deep reverence for data and the scientific method demands that theories be tested and the results be replicable. Intense peer review, testing, checking and analyzing of data, examining alternative explanations and so forth are all essential parts of science. But in recent years there has been a noticeable shift away from the careful world of true science on the part of some scientists. The media plays a big role in this. Also, grabbing up limited funding often requires that scientists behave more like salesmen. Publicity brings in bigger dollars for research so some scientist have left the careful world of scientific precision and taken up an edgy, provocative style that often exaggerates and goes beyond what the data actually say. They manifest a kind a religious fervor that may be appropriate for religion but not for science. Again this is not true of all or even most scientists, but there are enough engaged in this sort of hyperbole that the public again becomes suspicious that we are dealing with pure science here. When science steps out of the lab and begins to aggressively advocate for public policy shifts, funding priorities, taxes etc. it has left the scientific world and entered politics. It is unrealistic for scientists who walk into the political world and begin to advocate to expect the public to take their white coat so seriously any more. When science becomes about money and public policy and less about data it has left the world of pure science and cannot demand that it be treated as pure, objective, unbiased and just about the data. There is almost a religious proselytizing evident in some. The most obvious example of all this is the global warming (climate change) controversy. Many have suspected for years that this was not pure science but rather advocacy science, more about money and politics than about real science. Recent and persistent revelations about the data having been manipulated, a lack of peer review, poor source data and even the destruction of data lend great credibility to these charges. The chief proponent of this theory and Director of Climate Research at the East Anglia University, Phil Jones has stepped aside over this scandal. Things like this go a long way to show that the general public may not be “illiterate” in terms of science but is in fact skeptical. When science demands faith and that the public make major changes but does not level with us as to the theoretical nature of its propositions it has strayed beyond science.
  3. There’s more to life than Science– This final critique is not directed at science per se but at our culture. There has been a tendency in our culture to emphasize the material and the measurable. But there are many things in life that cannot be measured or quantified. Justice, mercy and compassion are very real but they cannot be reduced to mere math. Love, joy, serenity, all real but not produced to a test tube or able to be put on a chalk  board. The existence of God who many know to be very real cannot be found under a microscope and God cannot be reduced to a computer algorithm. But there are some in our culture who so exalt science and materialism that anything outside their world “isn’t real.” Therefore for some who see only science as revelatory, faith is unreal and it is fantasy. It can’t be “proven” using the scientific method etc. Here too is a failure to recognize the limits of science. As I have said I see this as more of a cultural issue than of science per se. This sneering at faith and things outside pure science is a source for many in the public who are skeptical of science to some extent. Most people know that life is not just mechanistic, that everything can’t simply be quantified. A scientist may declare that drinking coffee is bad  but everyone doesn’t stop drinking coffee. Why, because they are illiterate? Not necessarily. Life has trade-offs. Coffee is about more than biology. It’s about relaxing, its about a small euphoria, it’s about socializing, its about taste, flavor, aroma, it’s about a lot of things.

So maybe we are not so illiterate after all. Surely it is helpful if we learn more of what science has to teach. But science is only one part of life. It is exists in the world of the material and measurable and we human beings live in the wider world, the world of faith, the world of love, the world  of wonder, the world that accepts some trade-offs and that life is not about one thing or view but about many. As Christians we ought to joyfully accept what science can offer us but also realize its limits. We should respect the limits that science has, that it cannot and should not theologize. But it is not wrong to ask science to respect its own limits too. And when it does stray into politics or faith and makes demands that we accept on faith as settled things that are not settled, or when our culture idolizes science as the only thing, we are not illiterate to tune out or to object. We are insisting on proper boundaries and that science not try to become religion or politics.

This old film from the Moody Bible Institute is a pretty good example of one way faith and science can work together. For the believer science helps us to develop the gifts of wonder and awe. God has done marvelous things. Science helps us to see just how marvelous as this film shows.

Posted on

A Long, Long Time Ago in the Land of Lincoln: The Faith of Abraham Lincoln

Religious expression by Presidents today is infrequent, and if it happens at all there are some who claim to have been offended. We live in  time where many want to sweep faith under the rug and when protests are made, usually by a tiny but noisy minority, that religion has no place in the public square. But the two presidents we honor today lived in a different time, a time when religious expression was an accepted part of the national scene. The ease with which both Washington and Lincoln speak of God, and the lack of protest at their utterances depict a time when Faith was integral to life in America.

Back in November we discussed some of the ways our First President George Washington invoked God in National Addresses. If you missed it, it is here: A Founding Father Gives Thanks to God.  But today I’d like to present a few quotes here from Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln was not initially known as a religious man. He belonged to no denomination and did not attend church with any regularity. When asked of this he responded by citing annoyance over the varying creeds and doctrinal squabbles among Christians. But Lincoln lived in a time where God was more present in the national psyche than today. The more religious climate than now combined with the terrible tragedy of the war and also the death of his son in 1862 combined to make Mr. Lincoln more religious as his presidency unfolded. More frequent and fervent references to God and requests for prayer began to dot his speeches and proclamations. There are many that could be cited, but perhaps just a few here. As you read them, consider how they reflect his own faith and trust but also how they reflect the religious sensibilities of the time. Imagine some of these things being said of done now! Caution you are about to enter a non-religion-free zone!

“That I am not a member of any Christian church is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular….I do not think I could myself be brought to support a man for office whom I knew to be an open enemy of, or scoffer at, religion.” [Abraham Lincoln On Campaign, July 31, 1846]

The Almighty has His own purposes….Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.” (Abraham Lincoln – Second Inaugural Address)

It is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, and to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon, and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in Holy Scripture, and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord. And, insomuch  as we know that by His divine law nations, like individuals, are subjected to punishments and chastisement in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war which now desolates the land may be but a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven; we have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity; we have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which has preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us. It behooves us, then, to humble ourselves before the offended power, to confess our national sins and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.” [Abraham Lincoln, a Proclamation of a National Day of Fasting and Prayer, March 30, 1863]

“I invite the people of the United states (on Aug 6)… to invoke the influence of His Holy Spirit… to guide the counsels of the government with wisdom adequate to so great a national emergency, and to visit with tender care and consolation throughout the length and breadth of our land all those who, through the vicissitudes of marches, voyages, battles, and sieges have been brought to suffer in mind, body, or estate, and finally to lead the whole nation through the paths of repentance and submission to the Divine will back to the perfect enjoyment of union and internal peace.” [Abraham Lincoln, Proclamation of a National Day of Prayer, July 15, 1863]

Amazing really. The third quote sounded almost like the sermon of a prophet. Go on Mr. President!

My, how times have changed. I am not that old (just shy of 50) and I can remember living in the deep south and attending public school. Every day the Principal, Mr Bulware would turn on the PA system. Every one stood and we said the Pledge of Allegiance and then a student would read from the King James Bible. Mr. Bulware would then called us to a moment of silent prayer and things concluded by the Our Father (with the Protestant ending). Evidently Mr. Bulware had not gotten the memo that the Supreme Court in 1962 and 1963 had issued rulings against such prayer. But there we were still, in the late 1960s,  praying and reading from the Bible (John 3:16 was a favorite along with the 23rd Psalm). But no one in our sleepy Southern town of Orange Park ever questioned the fact that you started the school day with prayer. Even into High School in the mid 1970s we still sang Christmas carols that spoke clearly of Christ and his birth (e.g. Silent Night, O Come All Ye faithful). But in my brief lifetime that’s  all changed. Don’t you dare mention Jesus in a public school today! Prayer and Bible Reading? Unthinkable! But not so long ago things were very different. Imagine a president today speaking like Lincoln did in these quotes.

Once upon a time in a moral galaxy far far away, God was freely mentioned, invoked and accepted as part of the National Discourse.

Posted on

Two Kinds of Love to Celebrate on St Valentine’s Day

St. Valentine’s Day is a day that celebrates romantic love. This sort of love, to be sure, is noble and to be encouraged. The Church has sometimes been accused of being suspicious of romantic love. It is true that certain heretical groups such as the Cathari and the Jansenist’s have frowned on sexual love in marriage. But they were considered heretics for their views. A true Catholic view celebrates romantic love  (eros in Greek).  As a Catholic Pastor I like others want to encourage romantic love and ultimately marriage. And within marriage to encourage on-going romantic love. I tell my younger parishioners, get married (first!) have lots of babies and raise them Catholic! You may recall the old Rhyme: “First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes baby in the baby carriage.”

A Great Love – Romantic love is good and it brings blessings! But romantic love (eros) has a place a purpose and in God’s plan. Fundamentally eros is meant to draw a man and a woman to each other and ultimately to marriage. And within marriage their romantic love is to be fruitful and multiplying. Yet too many today just play around with and dabble in eros. They vent its power through premarital sex and do not  follow it’s intended course which is to draw to people together in deep desire and love. Eros is about drawing and man and woman into deep interpersonal union it is not merely about bringing two bodies together.  Too many rush to eros’ physical urge and disclose the deepest mysteries about themselves inappropriately. The great dance of courtship and marriage is thus short-circuited and eros looses both it’s dignity and its goal. Marriage rates have plummeted and so have birthrates.

Pope Benedict has this to say on eros:

That love between man and woman which is neither planned nor willed, but somehow imposes itself upon human beings, was called “eros” by the ancient Greeks….The Greeks—not unlike other cultures—considered eros principally as a kind of intoxication, the overpowering of reason by a “divine madness” which tears man away from his finite existence and enables him, in the very process of being overwhelmed by divine power, to experience supreme happiness…..Christianity of the past is often criticized as having been opposed to the body; and it is quite true that tendencies of this sort have always existed. Yet [in] the contemporary [scene] eros, is reduced to pure “sex”….Here we are actually dealing with a debasement of the human body: … no longer is it a vital expression of our whole being, but it is more or less relegated to the purely biological sphere. [But] true, eros tends to rise “in ecstasy” towards the Divine, to lead us beyond ourselves….Two aspects of this are important. First, eros is somehow rooted in man’s very nature; Adam is a seeker, who “abandons his mother and father” in order to find woman; only together do the two represent complete humanity and become “one flesh”. The second aspect is equally important….eros directs man towards marriage, to a bond which is unique and definitive; thus, and only thus, does it fulfil its deepest purpose….[And in Scripture Marriage] becomes the icon of the relationship between God and his people and vice versa. (Deus Caritas est 3-11 selected)

So romantic love (eros) has a dignity but it also has a purpose. It’s purpose is to draw man and woman toward marriage, family and ultimately toward God. The deep desire that man and woman have for each other is a sign of the ultimate desire of the human heart for deep union with God.

An even greater love – But there is a second love to be celebrated on St. Valentines Day and that is Agape love.  Agape love is the love whereby we love God above ourselves, above all things and above all people. There is perhaps no greater example of this sort of love than that of the martyrs. They were willing to forsake everything for Christ. They excepted the supreme price of this love, the gift of their very own life. Every martyr can truly say, “Lord, I love you more than my self, my life, my things and more than any other person in my life.  The world hates me for this and will kill me for it, but I willing pay the price that this love demands.”

St. Valentine was a martyr. Christian tradition recognizes two saints from the early Church as “Valentine.” The first is the Roman priest Valentine. He was decapitated in 268 AD  for the crime of trying to convert a member of Emperor Claudius the Goth’s household. He also a renowned healer. The second Valentine is Bishop Valentine who was also a renowned healer and was also turned it for converting people to Christianity. He was imprisoned and the attempt was made to force him to sacrifice to pagan gods. When he refused an attempt was made to club him to death. When that failed he was beheaded in 273 AD.

The red of St. Valentine’s Day signals not only the warm blood of romance, but also the red hot blood of martyrs. Eros is surely noble and necessary. It is rightly celebrated. But no great love (agape) exists than to lay down one’s life for one’s friend. Thus today the red blood of martyrs too is celebrated and proclaimed.

A blessed St. Valentine’s Day to one and all.

Posted on

The Strangest Idol of All

There is a passage in the Gospels that breaks conventions and cuts to the core of what has come to be called the “Social Gospel.”  Before looking at the passage we need to define “Social Gospel.” The phrase “Social Gospel” emerged in the Protestant denominations but has also come to be used in Catholic circles as well. Basically defined the Social Gospel is an intellectual movement that was most prominent in the late 19th century and early 20th century. The movement applied Christian ethics to societal problems especially injustice, inequality, alcoholism, crime, racial tensions, slums, child labor, labor unions, poor schools, and the danger of war.  Basically stated, if faith was to be real it must address these issues and be relevant to those who suffer these maladies.

So far all true. But then comes this very troubling Gospel. A Gospel that breaks the conventional wisdom that the service of the poor is the first priority of the Church. It obnoxiously states that there is something more important than serving the poor. To be sure, serving the poor is essential, but it is a gospel that said something was even more important. How could this be so! Who said such a thing?? And that brings us to the text:

While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table. When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.” Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.” Then one of the Twelve—the one called Judas Iscariot—went to the chief priests and asked, “What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?”  (Matt 26:6-14)

The other Gospels contain this account as well. It is in Mark 14 and Also in John 12. John attributes the objection only to Judas and reckons it on account of his greed whereas Mark and Matthew attribute the objection to all the disciples present. Even more interesting all three Gospels link this to Judas’ decision to hand Jesus over. It obviously floor the disciples and especially Judas to hear Jesus speak this way.

There is simply no other way to assess this Gospel than “earth-shaking.” The reader surely expects Jesus to agree that extravagance toward him should be jettisoned in favor of serving the poor. Had he not said that judgment would be based on what we did for the “least of my brethren”  (cf Matt 25:41ff) ?? Why does Jesus not rebuke the extravagance and demand it be sold and given to the poor? It is a shocking Gospel, and earth-shaking declaration: “The poor you shall always have” ??!  But there it is, glaring at us like some sort of unexpected visitor.

What is the Lord saying? Many things to be sure, but let me suggest this essential teaching: “Nothing….absolutely nothing…..not even the service of the poor, takes precedence over the worship, honor and obedience due to God.” Nothing.  If even the service of the poor takes precedence over this, it becomes an idol. An idol in sheep’s clothing to be sure, but an idol nonetheless.

An old Seminary professor (deceased now) told me many years ago” “Beware the poverty of Judas.” What does this mean? Fundamentally it means that the care of the poor can sometimes be used (by some) in an attempt to water down Christian doctrine and the priority of worship. The social gospel, if we are not careful, can demand that we compromise Christian dogma and the priority of proclaiming the Gospel.

Let me be clear, the Social Gospel is not wrong per se. But, like anything, it can be used by the world and the evil one to draw us into compromise and to the suppression of the truth. The reasons for this suppression are always presented as having a good effect but in the end we are asked to suppress the truth in some way. Thus the social Gospel is hijacked, it is used to compel us to suppress the truth of the Gospel and to not mention Jesus.

Perhaps some examples will help. Let me state at the outset, I am adapting these examples as generic. They are based on real world examples but I am not mentioning names and places because it is not the purpose of this blog to engage in personal attacks of other people’s struggles to uphold the gospel. If you demand specifics I cannot and will not give them. This is about you and me, not merely other people. It is possible for us to condemn others for their faults but not look at ourselves. Hence. I offer these examples in humility realizing that I struggle too.

  1. A large diocese in the USA is offered the possibility to serve drug addicts. Price of admission is that they coordinate a “needle-exchange program” which helps addicts shoot up without contracting AIDS. The Government money is substantial and may permit them to serve the poor who are addicts with treatment programs that may lead to their sobriety. Only cost  is that some other addicts may be enabled in their self-destructive behavior and encouraged by the clean needles to shoot up.  Church teaching does not permit us to do wrong even if good may possibly come from it. Nevertheless the Diocese takes the money and hands out clean needles to addicts but gets the money to serve others. The poor are being served! Shouldn’t we look the other way? But is serving the poor an absolute good or do we owe God obedience first? ? What do you think? Is Jesus more important than even poor drug addicts?  Or is he less important? Remember, you have to choose! You can’t just say “I think both are important.” The Government is demanding you choose. Will it be Jesus and what he teaches or will it be the poor at the price of compromising the Gospel? What will it be?
  2. A Bishop from a moderately large diocese is confronted with the fact that he has not rebuked the local senator for his votes to fund Abortion for the poor using Federal Money. The Bishop responds, “But he is with us on important social legislation and we cannot afford to alienate him.” The senator in  question does surely believe in a substantial funding of programs the Church supports. Programs such as: supportive housing for the poor, aid to families with dependent children, drug treatment programs, affordable housing initiatives, etc. The senator in question is a great advocate for these issues that the Church supports. Only Problem? He thinks it’s OK to fund the killing of babies in their mother’s womb. The Bishop reasons that it is not good to alienate this Senator who “is with us on so many issues.” He fails to rebuke the Catholic Senator and urge him to repent. The Church would lose too much you see. The price is too high. We could not serve the poor as well. This Senator might not vote to fund the Bills that fund programs that Catholic Charities depend on. We “need” to compromise here, the poor are depending on us. “Surely Jesus will understand.” And thus Church teaching yields to the need to serve the poor. Surely it is good to serve the poor. But at what price? What do you think? Is Jesus more important than even the poor?  Or is he less important? Remember, you have to choose! Yon can’t just say “I think both are important.” The Government is demanding you choose. Will it be Jesus and what he teaches or will it be the poor at the price of compromising the Gospel? What will it be?
  3. In several large cities, Catholic Charities runs adoption programs. Lately, cities and state governments have begun to demand that Catholic Charities treat “Gay” couples on the same basis as heterosexual couples. In order to receive State funds that help Catholic Charities carry on its work of service to the poor who are needy children looking for a stable family Catholic Charities will have to agree to set aside Church and Scriptural doctrine that homosexual unions are not only less than ideal for children, such unions are sinful. If Catholic Charities wants to continue to serve these poor children at all, they must deny the teachings of Christ and His Church. Is this too high a price to pay in order to be able to serve the poor? What do you think? Remember, you have to choose! You can’t just say “I think both are important.” The Government is demanding you choose. Will it be Jesus and what he teaches or will it be the poor at the price of compromising the Gospel? What will it be?
  4. Many Catholic hospitals receive government funds to treat the poor. But lately the government is demanding, in certain jurisdictions, that Catholic hospitals dispense contraceptives, provide abortion referrals, and cooperate in euthanasia. Remember now, the poor are served with these monies. Should the hospital compromise and take the money? Should it is say OK, thus enabling it to go on serving  the poor? What is more important, the poor or Jesus and what he teaches? ? What do you think? Is Jesus more important than even the poor who come to hospitals for service?  Or is he less important? Remember, you have to choose! You can’t just say “I think both are important.” The Government is demanding you choose. Will it be Jesus and what he teaches or will it be the poor at the price of compromising the Gospel? What will it be?
  5. Catholic Charities is offered the possibility of getting a large amount of money to serve the homeless. But there is a requirement that Jesus never be mentioned. Catholic Charities must remove all crucifixes, Bibles, and any references to Catholic teaching. Now remember, the poor will be served with this money! It’s a lot of  money to walk away from! ? What do you think? Is  Jesus more important than even the homeless?  Or is he less important? Remember, you have to choose! You can’t just say “I think both are important.” The Government is demanding you choose. Will it be Jesus and what he teaches or will it be the poor at the price of compromising the Gospel? What will it be?

In the end, I leave you and me with these questions:

  1. How far do we go in serving the poor?
  2. The service of the poor, and the issues that the poor face are an essential work of the Church, but does it trump worship and doctrine?
  3. Should Church teaching bend to the demands of the Government in order to serve the poor?
  4. What does Jesus mean in the Gospel above when he teaches that anointing him is more important than serving the poor?
  5. What is the Church’s truest priority? Is the truth of the Gospel or is it serving the poor?
  6. What if these two things are in conflict? Which is chosen over the other?
  7. Given the Gospel above, what would Jesus have us choose as first priority?
  8. When large amounts of money are made available for the Church to serve the poor but at the price of us compromising or hiding the truth of Gospel, what do you think the Church should do?
  9. Why?

The Social Gospel is essential. It cannot be merely set aside. But the Social Gospel cannot eclipse the Full Gospel. A part, even if essential, cannot demand full resources and full obedience, not at the expense of the whole or the more important!

Money and resources to serve the poor  are essential, but they are still money and it remains stunningly true that we cannot serve both God and money.  In the end, even serving the poor can become a kind of idol to which God has to yield. It is the strangest idol of all for it comes in very soft sheep’s clothing, the finest wool!  But if God and his reveled truth have to yield to it, it is an idol, the strangest idol of all.

 I do not agree with everything in this video, but it well presents the temptations that Catholic Charities faces:

Posted on

Love will change everything

Recently, I nixed a request to promote a Valentine’s Day party whose theme was “losers.” It is a party for those who will not have a date on February 14. I get that it is meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but I still think it’s wrong. It bugs me the way that Catholicism for Dummies bugs me. Catholicism doesn’t need to be dumbed down and Valentine’s Day is not just a couples only event. In fact, as was recently pointed out by Sheldon, of the T.V. show the Big Bang Theory (the daily life of socially awkward, geeky scientists), it is a curious association between St. Valentine, the third century priest -martyr and the Hallmark crazed contemporary celebration. For Sheldon’s take, watch this:

While I don’t want to endorse the “Sheldon-alternative Valentine’s Day plan,”  I do want to offer a “Valentine poem” of a different sort. This is a prayer written by Pedro Arrupe, a former Superior General of the Jesuits. I think the prayer captures not only the source of real love but what real love looks and feels like. I may have shared this prayer before in this space, but I think it is good enough for a repeat.

Nothing is more practical than finding God, that is,
than falling in love in a quite absolute, final way.

What you are in love with, what seizes your imagination,
will affect everything. It will decide what will get you out
of bed in the morning, what you will do with your evenings,
how you will spend your weekends, what you read, who you
know, what breaks your heart, and what amazes you with joy
and gratitude.

Fall in love, stay in love and it will decide everything.

Posted on

What Does It Mean to Fear the Lord?

To modern ears the word “fear” is almost wholly negative. We usually associate it with threat or perhaps with some negative experience like pending punishment or diminishment. And yet, over and over the Scriptures lift up the value of the “Fear of the Lord” and encourage us in this regard. As you may already know or at least suspect, the word “fear” has different senses or meanings.

Distinctions –St. Thomas in the Summa, drawing on the Fathers of the Church as well as ancient philosophy distinguishes different kinds of fear based on the object of that fear. So, to begin there is worldly fear (wherein we fear some evil or threat from the world), and there is human fear (wherein we fear some evil or threat from others) (II IIae 19,2 & 9). Now neither of these fears concern us here since God is not the object of these fears. Our concern here is the “Fear of the Lord,” wherein God is the object of fear.

Now as to the Fear of the Lord, here too a distinction is to be made between servile fear (fear of punishment) and filial fear (whereby a son fears to offend his father or to be separated from him) (II, IIae 19.10) Now it is not servile fear but filial fear that is the Gift of the Holy Spirit and which Scripture commends. Hence, when Scripture says we should “Fear the Lord” it does not mean that we should run and hide because God is going to punish us, but rather that we should receive the the gift of the Holy Spirit wherein we dread to offend God or be separated from him. This, I hope you can see, is a very precious gift. And although the word “fear” tends to elicit negative reactions, I hope to show you that the Biblical world experienced the Fear of the Lord as a very great and highly prized blessing.

But first we have to be clear to emphasize that the fear towards God comes in two ways but only one of those ways is considered the Gift of the Holy Spirit and rightly called “The Fear of the Lord.” Scripture therefore has to be read with some sophistication. It is important to know which kind of fear is being discussed to understand the text. Consider a few examples from the New Testament:

  1. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. (1 Jn 4:18) – Here is described servile fear (fear of punishment). The text teaches us that Love puts sin to death. And, since we no longer sin, we no longer fear punishment. Servile fear of God is not evil or wrong but it IS imperfect since it has to do with the imperfection of sin. Ultimately we are to be free of servile fear and hence it is seen as a negative thing even though it can have some salutary effects. For example, fear of punishment can be a motive to avoid sin. But it is an imperfect motive since it does not come from our love of God but more from our love our self and our comfort or well-being. Servile fear is not therefore commended by Scripture but neither is it condemned.
  2. For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship.  And by him we cry, “Abba, Father (Rom 8:15). Notice again that servile fear is something to be freed of. This freedom comes by the Holy Spirit who replaces our servile fear with a filial fear, fear born in love of God that experiences him as Abba. So Holy Fear needs to replace servile fear.
  3. Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the  fear of the Lord. (Acts 9:31) Obviouslyhere,  Holy Fear is described, not servile fear. The early Christians are being encouraged by the Holy Spirit and this elicits in them a Holy Fear, a fear born in love that dreads offending Abba, the Father they love.
  4. Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear  God, honor the king. (1 Peter 2:17) Note again the connection of fear to love. In the context of our love for the brethren we are told to fear the Lord. But the context here clearly suggests that fear is being used as a synonymn for a higher form of love. In other words, as much as we should love the brethren, even more so we should love God and that love is described as the “Fear of the Lord.”

What is the Fear of the Lord? Alright then. But what does it really mean to “Fear  the Lord?” Ah!  I am mindful of the words of St. Augustine when he was asked to describe the inner life of the Trinity. He said, “If you don’t ask,  I know. If you ask me, I don’t know.” In other words, fully defining the Fear of the Lord is problematic since it is deeply tied to love which is also hard to define in a mere words. If I were to define love to you as “a movement of the appetitive will toward a desirable good or person” you might want to strangle me for being such a geek! “Don’t ruin love by defining it like that!” you might say. Words sometimes get in the way. But with that caution in mind let me advance a few thought on the Fear of the Lord.

  1. The Fear of the Lord is rooted in our relationship to God as his adopted Children. As we have already discussed, the Fear of the Lord is not servile fear (having to do with punishment) it is filial fear (the dread of offending or being separated from God).
  2. The Fear of the Lord is rooted in our love for God. We really love God, with all our heart! He is Abba, Papa, Father. He has given us everything and we deeply love and reverence him. The thought of offending him fills us with dread! We cannot bear the thought that we have offended God in any way, we love him too much.
  3. The Fear of the Lord is rooted in our admiration for God. Through this gift of Holy Fear we hold God in awe. We are filled with wonder as we contemplate his glory and all he has done. This wonder and awe, inspire deep respect in us for God and an aversion to offending him. We respect him too much to ever want to mar our relationship with him.
  4. The Fear of God is rooted in our desire for unity with God. Love seeks union. We instinctively know that sin mars the union of love and can even sever it. We thus come to fear sin that creates distance between us and God. Because we desire union with God, the gift of Holy Fear causes us to fear ever losing the intensity of that union.
  5. The Fear of God is rooted in our appreciation for God’s Holiness. God is Holy and the gift of Holy Fear strikes within us a deep awareness of this holiness as well as a deep understanding that we must be made holy before coming into his full presence. The gift of fear helps us to appreciate that we do not simply walk into God’s  presence in the spiritual equivalent of jeans and a T-Shirt. Holy Fear inspires us to be clothed in holy attire, to get ready to meet God. Just as we might bath and wear fine clothes to visit a world leader, we reverence God enough to be robed in righteousness by his grace before we go to meet him. Holy Fear makes us serious about this preparation.

There is more but I must end. I have attached a PDF that reflects on how the Fear of the Lord is portrayed in the Book of Psalms. What is valuable about the Book of Psalms is that it is largely Hebrew poetry. Now in Hebrew poetry the rhyme is in the thought not the sound. Thus, we can learn a lot about what the ancient Jews thought about  by studying the rhyme. If you’d like to do further study or see some of the theme above echoed in the psalms you can view it here: Studying the Fear of the Lord in the Psalms