During a homily a few weeks ago, I took the example of Christ chastising Peter by saying, “Get behind me, Satan” and applied it to the rearing and teaching children. In the Gospel according to Mark, Peter did not want Christ to be crucified. So, when Jesus told Peter that his death would be necessary, Peter reacted emotionally by rebuking Christ to avoid suffering and death on a cross.(Mark 8:27-35) At that point, Christ reacted strongly by saying to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!” Now, I imagine that Peter’s feelings may have been hurt at that moment. But, if things had been done Peter’s way, salvation would not have happened and Peter’s own redemption would have been impossible. So, in order to get Peter back on track, Christ had to be firm. And in the process, said something that may have hurt many peoples’ feelings.
Surrender nothing
During the homily, I suggested that as a teacher or parent, occasionally we had to hurt the feelings of our students and children in order to keep them on track. I went further and suggested that unwillingness to hurt our kids’ feelings would hinder us in fulfilling our responsibilities as Christian parents and teachers. I gave an example of me issuing one of my own students a detention for what may have seemed like a petty rule. I knew that his feelings would be hurt but, I also knew that in the long run, setting an extremely high standard for behavior was good for him and for the school. To ignore the rule and let it pass would have been a cowardly form of surrender.
Parents! Be parents, not friends!
The reaction of some to my homily was perplexing and perhaps even disappointing. Many congregants agreed and related some of the moments they had to hurt the child’s feelings. They mostly agreed that it is a hard thing to do but, to do anything less is damaging. My pastor once told me that his elementary school teacher used to say, “I love you too much to let you get away with that!” However, a few congregants were offended that I would say punishment and discipline sometimes requires a bit of discomfort and pain. I was surprised at their reaction. I wondered if they misunderstood my message or if they really thought you could raise a child without making them upset every now and then. I hope and pray it is the former and not the latter.
Certain things need to be done the old-fashioned way
The Book of Proverbs says, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and even when he is old he will not depart from it.” Pvb 22. The Bible does not tell us to raise and teach our children in such a way that they will always be happy with us. However, training up a child in the way he should go, that is, in the way of Christ, will bring us and them joy, even if on occasion, that involves hurting their feelings.
Last week a friend and I were on a run, and at one point we decided to take a break and walk for a block, continuing the conversation we were having about Satan’s lies and Christ’s redeeming grace. Hearing a conversation like this at a faith sharing meeting would be fairly normal, but for the woman walking just a few feet ahead of us I’m sure our conversation was a bit out of the ordinary.
We were saying that when we sin Satan makes us think that we are completely unworthy, unforgivable, and unlovable. He tells us that we cannot change and that, since we are sinners, we are not welcome in the Church community either to serve or be served. In contrast we affirmed that in Christ we can repent, leave our sin and shame behind us, and fully participate in the life of the Church.
I have no idea if that woman knew Christ or not or whether she was part of the Church community or not, but I have a feeling that God put her within earshot for a reason! And I pray that Christ touched her heart that day with His words of forgiveness and hope.
Then I got to thinking…how often does it happen that we eavesdrop on the conversations going on around us? All the time! So what if we Christians had conversations like this in public more often? I’ve heard of different evangelizing teams doing this on the subway where they start a “random” conversation in hopes that the people nearby will hear the Truth of Christ. Not a bad idea! Try it!
Just below is a wonderful new reflection from Fr. Robert Barron. In it he ponders the growing secularism of the day. In many ways, especially in Europe, faith has been almost completely kicked to the curb. Questions about who is God…Who am I in relationship to him….what is the meaning and destiny of my life…..Questions like these have been suppressed; dismissed as irrelevant.
But here’s the problem: We are wired for God! We have within us an infinite longing, an unlimited desire for completion and fulfillment. God has written his name on our hearts and we simply cannot be happy without his ultimate presence and place in our heart. Oh, I know, many claim they can, but in the end we all know its a lie. This world simply does not satisfy us. It is limited and our desire is unlimited. Sooner or later we confront the absurdity of the world’s claim to be cure for what ails us. Go ahead, get it all: power money, sex, popularity, possessions, even people. I promise you it won’t be enough. And even if you do get it all, then you die, end of story.
In the end, we are made for God. The modern world may have kicked God to the curb but the absurdity of that becomes more and more evident as we descend further into addiction, lust, unhappiness, stress, suicide, you name it. You may say “We have always had these.” Yes, but the doses are so much higher today. For all our creature comforts, (and we have many), we seem less happy, less content, less fulfilled, more stressed out more suicidal, more addicted, more divorced or never married, more than those who went before us without all the comforts we “enjoy.”
Living without God is painful. We are wired for God. All those longings, yearnings, the sighing with you? It’s about God:
Our hearts were made for thee Oh Lord and they will not rest till they rest in thee.” (St. Augustine Confessions Book 1 Chapter 1)
Come,” says my heart, “seek God’s face”; your face, LORD, do I seek! (Ps 27:8)
This week in most parishes of the Archdiocese of Washington, priests are being asked to review with their congregations some basic teachings on marriage and to explain why the Church opposes (so-called) “same-sex Marriage.”
The Archdiocese has issued a flyer to be placed in every bulletin and you can read it here: MARRIAGE FLYER. But rather than repeat what is said there I would like to add some additional insights.
There are many good reasons to oppose same-sex “marriage,” some of them sociological, some of them psychologicalal. But, at the end of the day, the most fundamentalal reason that the Roman Catholic Church opposes a redefinition of marriage is that the Church is the steward and guardian of the truth God has given us in the Scriptures and formal Teachings of the Church. Many people want the Church to do what she simply cannot do. The Church is NOT ABLE to throw scripture and natural law overboard. We must continue to insist on what scripture teaches. We cannot nullify it. The Church has received the mandate to preach and teach God’s word whether in season or out of season. Whether popular or unpopular (2 Tim 4:2).
God established marriage in the Book of Genesis and we are taught the following essentials about marriage there:
It was not good for Adam to be alone. He needed a “suitable partner.” (Genesis 2:18) Now notice the word “suitable” a word which the dictionary defines as “apt, proper or fitting.”
The suitable partner for Adam is first of all human – for none of the animals proved to be suitable for Adam. (Gen 2:20)
The suitable partner for Adam was a woman. God created Eve, a woman, not Steve, a man. (Gen 2:22)
The suitable partner for Adam was one woman. For God did not created Eve and Ellen and Jane and Sue. Hence polygamy is not of God’s design. True enough a number of the Old Testament Patriarchs DID have more than one wife. But what the Bible reports as a fact does not necessarily imply approval. Fact is, the Bible shows how polygamy ALWAYS leads to trouble. As Biblical history unfolds, polygamy begins to disappear.
Adam is to enter a stable relationship with his suitable partner Eve for the text says that man should leave his father and mother and cling to his wife (Gen 2:24). To cling means to adhere, to stick like glue. Hence, divorce and disunity are not part of God’s vision for marriage. Husbands and wives are to strive for unity and stability by God’s grace. The easy (no-fault) divorce of our culture is hostile to God’s plan for marriage. Couples should not seek easy ways out, they should do the work necessary to preserve union and stability in their commitment of marriage.
Adam and Eve are told to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it (Gen 1:28). Now here is the essential rationale as to why their marriage should be stable and heterosexual. In the first place marriage should be stable because that is what is best for children. Secondly, the procreation and rearing of children is an ESSENTIAL end of marriage. Some argue that gay couples can adopt. True enough, under civil law, they can adopt but they cannot procreate. Their ability to procreate is instrincally impossible. It is true that some older couples cannot have children and they are able to marry in the Church. But their infertility is due to a natural quality given by God. It is intrinsic to the feminine nature that fertility decreases with age and ultimately ceases. Homosexual union is intrinsically sterile an can never meet the requirement of being fruitful and multiplying. Adoption is not procreation.
Jesus reiterates the teachings of Genesis in Matthew 5 and 19 (inter al.) saying that “At the beginning God made them, male and female….hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and the two of them become one flesh.” Jesus does not say a man clings to his partner, rather his “wife.” Jesus then says with his own authority: “What God has joined together, let no one separate.” This text surely forbids divorce but one might also argue a wider interpretation wherein Jesus forbids us to tamper with what God has established. (cf Matt 19:varia)
Here then is the data of Scripture. The Church is the guardian of Scripture. We are not free to tear out pages, cross out sentences, substitute words etc. Some claim we are simply bigots, homophobes, or whatever the latest name or label they wish to attach. But in the end the Church can do nothing other than to uphold what God definitively teaches us. We are to do this in season and out of season. Right now, insofar as popular culture goes, we are “out of season,” but faithful to the Word of God anyway we speak. We can do no other.
Every now and then we hear of the concept of a “life not worth living.” Some people seem to have so many challenges. Sometimes these are known before birth. Maybe it’s Down Syndrome, maybe limbs are missing, perhaps other defects are evident in the sonograms. In such cases some people start to think of abortion. Later in life if tragedy strikes some think of euthanasia, and suicide.
But it is an amazing truth that often God raises up before us those who are severely challenged but still love their life. Here is the story of a man who lives heroically, despite having no limbs. How is it possible you might say? Well, behold the Man:
The Following is a Press Release from “Historic St. Mary’s City” that details an interesting reversal of History:
In 1704, Maryland Governor Seymour ordered the sheriff to lock the Roman Catholic brick chapel at St. Mary’s City and see that it was never again used for worship. With that action, the colony’s experiment in religious freedom ended.
On Sunday, September 20, 305 years after the original chapel was sealed, St. Mary’s County Sheriff Timothy Cameron will unlock the massive oak and pine doors of the reconstructed chapel. The reconstruction stands as a symbol of liberty of conscience and separation of church and state, which were practiced in 17th-century Maryland far in advance of the laws and practices in other New World colonies.
The reconstructed chapel, which was rebuilt on its original foundation, is architecturally complete but not yet furnished. It will be open to the public during museum hours as finishing allows. An interpretive pavilion will be open to the public in summer 2010.
The public is invited to attend a brief unlocking ceremony and explore the chapel on Sunday, September 20 at 5 p.m. Researchers and builders will be available to answer questions about the project. Artifacts from the chapel excavations will be on display and light refreshments will be served. There is no charge for this event.
Travel to St. Mary’s City and follow signs for parking. Participants will gather at the Mackall Barn for a procession to the chapel. For more information about this event or Historic St. Mary’s City visit stmaryscity.org or call 240-895-4990 or 800-SMC-1634.
All of this is very good news. Allow me to quibble with only one point. The expression “separation of Church and state” is not a Constitutional phrase. This expression is found nowhere in the US Constitution. Rather I prefer the expression “religious liberty.” The First Amendment to the US Constitution says this: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Hence, is true that the the State is not to establish a particular religious faith as the official State religion. But the fundamental point of the First Ammendment is that it is religious liberty that is protected, NOT the State. It is the State that is prohibited from abridging religious liberty. It is not the Church that is prohibited from attempting to influence the thoughts of men, even if they be Statesmen. We who are religious are free to attempt influence, it is the State who is prohibited from canceling that right. Today, the interpretation of this rule is usually backward. Too many seek to limit the influence of religious thought. This is not enshrined in our Constitution as many claim but rather, the opposite.
With my little diatribe out of the way, enjoy this video that tells you more of St, Mary’s City, once the largest and most thriving port, the “New York City” of its day, now a hidden ruin for archaeologists, a “what might have been” for historians. This video also gives more information of the rebuilding of the Roman Catholic Brick Chapel on its ancient foundation. I hope to be able to celebrate a Latin Mass there soon!
In today’s Washington post Michael Gerson wrote a piece entitled “Lost in a World Without Courtship”. I would like to put excerpts here with my own comments in RED. You can read the full article HERE.
By Michael Gerson, Wednesday, September 16, 2009, The WASHINGTON POST
There is a segment of society for whom traditional familyvalues are increasingly irrelevant, and for whom spring-break sexual liberationism is increasingly costly: men and women in their 20s. Interesting. He describes them as disaffected with the “casual sex” culture but not ncessarily convinced to return to more traditional family values. Here too is another sign that we as a Church have not presented God’s plan for sex and marriage in a compelling manner. OR even more significantly, we have not communicated with many young people AT ALL. Our world view may not even be on their radar.
This is the period of life in which society’s most important social commitments take shape — commitments that produce stability, happiness and children. But the facts of life for 20-somethings are challenging. Puberty — mainly because of improved health — comes steadily sooner. Sexual activity kicks off earlier. But the average age at which people marry has grown later; it is now about 26 for women, 28 for men. Yes, I have noticed this quite clearly. When I was first ordained 20 years ago most of the couples I prepared for marriage were in their early 20s. Now they are in their early 30s. Also the number of weddings I celebrate has dimished by more than half.
This opens a hormone-filled gap — a decade and more of likely sexual activity before marriage. And for those in that gap, there is little helpful guidance from the broader culture. Notice here again the author makes no mention of the Church as offering helpful guidance to young adults. I do not observe this by way of a judgement of him. Rather, here again is more proof that we are not on the radar of most young people and to the extent we are, if our author is right, we have no compelling message or vision to offer young adults. Actually we do, but we have not communicated it well. Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, argues that the “courtship narrative” in the past was clear: dating, engagement, marriage, children. This narrative has been disrupted without being replaced, leaving many 20-somethings in a “relational wasteland.” I remain struck at how many young people tell me this same thing. In this “communication age” it seems harder and harder for young people to meet on a meaningful level.
The casual sex promoted in advertising and entertainment often leads, in the real world of fragile hearts and STDs, to emotional and physical wreckage. But it doesn’t seem realistic to expect most men and women to delay sex until marriage at 26 or 28. Such virtue is both admirable and possible — but it can hardly be a general social expectation. So religious institutions, for example, often avoid this thorny topic, content to live with silence, hypocrisy and active singles groups. Alot of hard truth here. It is difficult to remain sexually abstinent all those years. However, I am not quite as pessimistic. I have been faithfully celibate since ordination and even before. However, I’ll admit that I am helped by the expectations upon me and by the fact that I do not date and am never alone with women. This is not usually the case with young adults. It is also true and sad that many clergy and religious leaders avoid talking frankly about sex before marriage. Growing up in high school and college, I never had a priest, deacon or catechist say a word to me about sex before marriage. As a priest, I have tried to remedy this terrible silence by speaking frankly and clearly that the Scriptures and Church teach that pre-marital sex is a serious sin. I am not unaware that young people have a difficult time fully living this and counsel them to be serious about chastity but to seek God’s mercy if they fall. But under no circumstances should they ever thing that pre-marital sex is “no big deal.” It is and infractions should be brought to confession. Gerson’s point about silence of the Church is however tragically the case for too many young people. We need to be clear, encouraging and helpful as well as understanding of the difficulty young adults face.
In the absence of a courtship narrative, young people have evolved a casual, ad hoc version of their own: cohabitation. From 1960 to 2007, the number of Americans cohabiting increased fourteenfold. For some, it is a test-drive for marriage. For others, it is an easier, low-commitment alternative to marriage. About 40 percent of children will now spend some of their childhood in a cohabiting union.Yes, as usual it is the children who suffer. I often grieve for children today who have to live with such confusing circumstances: mom here dad there, they have since split and are now with other partners; a mess and a terrible burden for children.
How is this working out? Not very well. Relationships defined by lower levels of commitment are, not unexpectedly, more likely to break up. Three-quarters of children born to cohabiting parents will see their parents split up by the time they turn 16, compared with about one-third of children born to married parents…..
So apart from the counsel of cold showers or “let the good times roll,” is there any good advice for those traversing the relational wilderness? …
First, while it may not be realistic to maintain the connection between marriage and sex, it remains essential to maintain the connection between marriage and childbearing. Marriage is the most effective institution to bind two parents for a long period in the common enterprise of raising a child — particularly encouraging fathers to invest time and attention in the lives of their children. And the fatherless are some of the most disadvantaged, betrayed people in our society, prone to delinquency, poverty and academic failure. Cohabitation is no place for children. Amen! Just the point I have been trying to make in previous blog posts here. Marriage is fundamentally about children and what is best for them. We have to change our thinking today that so overemphasizes the emotional well being of the spouses (or co-habiting adults) and get back to being sober about the effect that this has on children. They deserve better. Marriage is meant to be a stable, lasting union where a man and woman cling to each other because that is what is best for children. God does not make arbitrary rules. He establishes them for good reason.
Second, the age of first marriage is important to marital survival and happiness. Teen marriage is generally a bad idea, with much higher rates of divorce….But people who marry after 27 tend to have less happy marriages — perhaps because partners are set in their ways or have unrealistically high standards. The marital sweet spot seems to be in the early to mid-20s. Early 20s is still early for many young people. We take a long time to grow up in our culture. But I think mid 20s is reasonable.
Third, having a series of low-commitment relationships does not bode well for later marital commitment….Serial cohabitation trains people for divorce.
[Bottom Line is]….Delaying marriage creates moral, emotional and practical complications…..The answer, even in the relational wasteland, is responsibility, commitment and sacrifice for the sake of children. There we go again, CHILDREN, responsibility and commitment for their sake. We have to be more serious and realize that my lfe isn’t merely about me and what makes me happy.
Listening to Rihanna’s newest single “Umbrella” I can’t help but ask why her man isn’t holding the umbrella.
Now that it’s raining more than ever
Know that we’ll still have each other
You can stand under my umbrella
When I voiced this question to my roommate, she told me that there is a song with a similar theme in the 1948 film “Easter Parade”.
I’m just a fella
A fella with an umbrella
Looking for a girl who saved her love for a rainy day.
Notice the gender swap.
Now, obviously both women and men are capable of holding umbrellas. But philosophically, for which sex is umbrella-holder a more appropriate role? If Adam and Eve were walking in the garden in the quiet of the evening, would Adam have held the umbrella or Eve?
This might seem like a silly question but I’m curious: Women, would you rather hold the umbrella or have it held over you? Men, would you rather hold the umbrella or have it held over you?
